> I think it's important, regardless of how one > feels about what is happening, to at least understand that it is changing > photography. Jeff, indeed, it's not just changing the methods / technology of photography I think possible too it's changing (changed?) the whole nature of the beast. OK, my glib remark about "snappers taking 10000 ill focussed images at arms length" might sound derogatory - but it's also not far from the truth. The medium of photography currently being experienced by many is of immediacy / spontenaity: the act of doing it is far more important than the results. By the time you had got your film developed in even a 1h outlet - the digital offerings are already passe. Will this have knock on effects? Will it have any impact on the perception of more traditional artistic forms (digital or film)? Maybe. >but the quantum leap in ubiquity of cameras (especially with cell > phones but also with tiny digital cameras) and the ubiquity of images > (ongoing in society, but now accelerated by the internet), needs to be > noted and discussed. Indeed: it's not digital vs film: it's digital. What has changed: what will be in 5-y? It's really not the technology that matters but the speed/immediacy that technology brings. Comparing resolution, longevity etc ... maybe there are arguments in favour of a film but they are on a now disused playing field. > > There are certainly a lot of trivial discussions to be found on the web > about film/digital. Almost as many as Nikon vs Canon ;o) > Even if the arguments do seem to > circle around at times, it's about the real issues that are confronting > most people who are photographing. And they are real issues and they are endlessly changing. Bob PS: Jeff ... I know you have gone digital now but my best memories of your work (as shown in the gallery) are largely in the past. I hope that learning digital has not diverted your creativity ...
