the_observer

To CPeter Jørgensen:

 

From the perspective of a photojournalist, sure, the difference between the 2 medium is negligible. Afterwall, the objective of photojournalism is to record images for the purpose of reporting (I suppose). Shooting on digital allows you to concentrate on the subject and leave the touch ups such as composition, color, etc. to a later time where you can "fix it" in the computer. But the difference between the 2 medium becomes pronounced when we deal with the artistic aspects of it. It becomes an issue when we question if a picture was created based on the photographer's skill in composition, lighting, sense of color, timing, exposure at the point of image exposure. These are the things that cannot be fixed once the film exposed. And it is based on these and many other factors that seperates the amateur from the professional, who have built up their photographic experience from years of photography the manual way. And we have not touched on printing in the darkroom yet. That in itself is another whole new world of skillsets that sets aside from the "click print" operator to the master printer who knows how to milk the silver from the paper. It's a totally different thing between taking pictures and making pictures.

 

-Observer

Yes. It's a sad thing. 6 years ago, back at uni, our lecturers were reassuring us that film photography would still exist and grow in tandem with the digital revolution. Looks like in the name of business, everyone is going digital. I hope Kodak doesn't follow that route. I wonder what ansel adams would say...With photoshop, who cares about the zone system.