alan and bob...you postings reminded me of the Gresham's Law you know, the one that says that "bad money drives out good money" kostas >Already the broader public understands the concept of the virtuality of >images. The aura of the film-based photograph is diluted. Those of us who >wish to maintain it have to remind the viewer that what they are seeing >was made on film. It may seem like a trivial conceit to some but mean everything >to others. One time on a photo list I mentioned that on my prints or artist >statements I point out the fact that the pictures were un-modified from >the negative image (meaning, of course, that I hadn't changed the "factuality" >of the original scene.) I got some indignant howls from some.>>> > >Alan > >It's one of the things I like least about the digital "revolution" [thinks, >an appropriate word considering the rapidity with which it requires you >to refresh hardware and software] is not that others do it but that it affected >how others perceive what I do. > >I huge part of what I loved (past tense) about photography was the challenge >of getting the shot. But that remains now only a personal interest: digital >has made everyone cynical. Veracity - what's that? Who gives a damn. > >Returning to the thread: Digital will have come of age when it's proponents >no longer feel the need to ridicule those who want to look at a print from >anything less than 6 feet; when people stop using "digital" as an adjective >and just say "photo" again; when the technology really is as cheap and easy >- for a mere snapper - as film was. >Bob _____________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail. http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ìå ÁóöáëÝò Controlpanel áðü 6 Euro êáé äþñï ôï domain óáò!
