Painting, film photography and digital photography................

[jim kerr]

One might say: Digital just proves there is such a thing as evolution.

[john falkenstine]

if....if.....if....if.....if.....if......

[brian_diaz]

Okay, allow me to refer you to <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009erQ">this thread</a> in which the discussion turned to comparing the differences between film and digital with the differences between using a word processor, a typewriter, and writing londhand. This came out of one person's observation that because each digital shot is "free" (or at least pre-paid) he was less careful with his photos and less pleased with his end results. One person later mentioned that a novelist claimed to be able to tell the difference between a book written with a word processor and one written on a typewriter. While I take that as over-curmudgeonly and arrogant, I can see how we work differently with different tools.

<P>

I think that the technical differences are miniscule, and as such there will come a time when nothing that can be done on film could not be done digitally. I suppose it'll take a really long time for someone to make a big enough sensor to replace an 8x10 negative but that's not exactly the point. The point is that the tools we use sometimes affect the way we work, and that will always be the greatest difference, especially when it comes to art and artists.

[vertigoclimb]

I paint (painted large wall murals professionally for years), have worked extensively within the graphic art field, and have recently moved into photography. I can tell you that all of these are artforms unto themselves. They each have their set of tools one must master, they all demand high levels of talent and imagination to achieve, and they all require their own technical know how. The way I see it is, to master or become very good at one of these artforms is quite an achievement.

 

To be talented or noteworthy in more than one of them is an acomplishment indeed.

 

"Photoraphy" is truly an artform that, just like painting, stands alone and won't fade away like yesterdays eight track players and vinyl records.

[shalini_saycocie]

<blockquote>But the unique property that digital will never match is film's history. After, what, 160 years of doing something one way, there will long be people who enjoy the romance of film, the scents of the chemistry, the touch of emulsion. --Brian Diaz</blockquote>

 

I think I'm one of these people... In any case, I wouldn't exactly compare painting to photography. As one is an indirect way of recording information from the other.

<p>

And I also have to say you were right in the process of someone shooting in film rather than in digital. Quality is given so much more attention when you realize the cost of just one exposure on a 4x5 negative. It's easy to forget about this when you have a "Delete" button on your digital.

<p>

Granted, digital does have it's advantages. When working in production, but that's what I'd only use it for. It's easy access and quick production time. But once something's done in haste, quality gets lost.