Indeed. I use manual lenses from 40-50 years ago on a digital camera, using a tripod from the same era (Leitz tiltall), convert the photographs to black and white using a custom workflow that has taken me several years to get to where I want it, and print the photographs with a 1.5 picoliter inkjet printer with one carbon ink on cotton-based paper, using a custom RIP. This is *not* point and shoot. But even if it was, it doesn't belittle the art that can be extracted out of it. I don't miss the chemicals. Andrew On Sun, September 23, 2012 5:31 pm, Lea Murphy wrote: > Any idiot can press a button no matter the receptor...film or a digital > sensor. > > People using film aren't inherently better because they use film and a > more manual process. > > People using digital aren't necessarily slackers. > > > If you're an artist you approach your work with an artist's eye and an > artist's heart no matter the medium. > > Hell, there's painters who think all photographers are taking the easy > way out. > > This argument is getting as tedious as Mac vs. PC. > > > Lea > > > > the better you look the more you see > > On Sep 23, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> >> Great news - but how exactly does it replicate the enlarger? The >> difference between digital and film is not simply the image receptor, >> itâ??s the whole process. Film takes concentration and time and digital >> is so simple any idiot can do it. >> >> >> Jan Faul >> >> >> On Sep 23, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Stephen Ylvisaker wrote: >> >> >>> Digital goes Retro >>> >>> >>> The above link is to an column talking about using digital technology >>> to replicate analog techniques. >>> >>> >>> Stephen >>> >> >> Art Faul >> >> >> The Artist Formerly Known as Prints >> ------ >> Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com >> Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com >> Camera Works - The Washington Post >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm >> ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/ >> http://www.artiqueunderground.com/artist/69. >> >> >> >> >> >> >
