Bob Rosen Wrote: > I don't like to take > throw-away-images; and that is what a digital camera will encourage in me. A > digital camera is the counterpart of the TV remote control, that I use in so > blase a fashion that it bothers my sense of respect for what the medium has > become. > A film camera means what it does. And it conditions us to shoot what we > conclude after some onsite thinking as worthy of permanency. I hope I, for > one, never lose that dialog with the camera nor the respect I have for it. > Let others bemoan what was thrown away too easily. There are no retakes to > life when time winds only in one direction. Bob Have your views on this changed recently? Is digital truly like the TV remote control or has it [like the remote control] moved on? Digital does indeed lead to throw-away-images. In a non-confrontational way, truth is photgraphers (I mean members of the public rather than pros) are more than ever ready to fire off frame after frame after frame in the hope that some will be usable - 99% are truly thrown-away. Pros, OK, fashion / sports, always did take hundreds ... the special something in just one ... but also the reality that the cost of film was trivial compared to the cost of the shoot ... Permanency? Finally it seems to be accepted that injet prints are not permanent (in any sense) but lo, we have digital images to film in the high street mall. Best of both worlds with, alas, no negative embodiment of truth ;o( Let us all bemoan what was thrown away: quality and familiarity. But let us also rejoice for the future, the ability to share, instantly, our snapshots with "friends" across the globe ... Another Bob
