Now there's a headline..!
I don't think we're advancing the cause of human knowledge with this
ding-dong about whose pixels are larger than whose grains. Both sides are
well entrenched and unlikely to be dissuaded from their point of view.
Crossbenchers are few, but have the evangelical zeal of the convert.
I love film. I love its immediacy (I shoot transparency, almost
exclusively), that is to say I can hold the slide up to the light and see
the image. Sure, it is fragile. Nothing lasts forever. I have three years
worth of diary on a disk somewhere that won't load anymore. Corrupt files.
So what?
But I scan. It's a nice, easy way to get images on the web to share with
friends (like you lot) and I can make acceptable prints for my wall and for
sending to friends using my 300 dpi HP 720C. So I have my big toe in the
digital realm, but no further.
I have a considerable outlay invested in bodies and lenses, and no spare
income. The thought of the demise of film worries me because with no film, I
can't use these wonderful tools. But I don't think this is an imminent
threat. So I will keep shooting. I'm 46, maybe I don't have to worry about
this.
Nevertheless, the film side of the divide probably feels threatened by the
possible demise of our medium, so we defend film in the trenches to the last
cartridge. On the digital side, there are strong, sometimes irrefutable
arguments for the new technologies. But objectively, they are not mutually
exclusive.
My dread is being dependent on secondary devices to view my images, whether
it is batteries or some other technology. My archive is my film, I have no
confidence in the CDs I burn being viewable much beyond my 50th birthday.
Either through deterioration or redundancy. Slides I took in 1974 are still
perfect (negatives have fared less well, I treated them appallingly, I
repent...). When the CDs fail, I can re-scan.
Some of my favourite photographers (I'm a cyclist, so Graham Watson is up
there, with a few others) are using digital, and for them it makes sense.
For a lot of professional work it is the way to go. Mind you, they are going
to have to learn that post-production is important; much of the coverage of
the big races this year suffered from poorly reproduced digital images, with
lousy colour and low contrast. Film images on the same pages were much
better. Watson has produced some stunning digital pictures this year,
though. It can be done.
But empirical arguments on the list about whether one way of obtaining
images is 'better' than the other are just a waste of bandwidth, IMHO.
Donald.
PS - congratulations, Iwert! Hope all is well.
Donald Neil MacDonald, BA DipLIS
www.bigmac1st.freeserve.co.uk
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 25-11-02
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|