To add to this line of rebuttal, take the case of walking from one place to another. Soon there were competitions (i.e. running races); after that there were horse and buggy races, and horse races, and auto races. Did each one supplant the previous? No. There are always aficionados who appreciate the older method enough to stay with it. Did photography supplant painting? -- silly question, right?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Dan Mitchell <danmdan3842@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is an irrelevant question - I love photography, it matters not the equipment used, whether film, digital, or even wet-plate, it is the result only, the photo, which matters.
I detect in the question a suggestion of superiority frequently observed from several contributors who proudly claim to still use REAL FILM - as if that were the most important factor.
Alas you are deluded. The digital method has won, film has lost out in recording the message, just as video tape was also lost to disc. The medium is not the message.
On 25 Mar 2014, at 03:01, List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Subject: Does anyone really enjoy digital photography?
> Date: 24 March 2014 18:46:35 GMT
> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators
