Digital Vs Film

I started out like most 'old school' photographers in a B&W darkroom.
Developer and Fixer chemical smells filling the tiny red lit
environment that felt normal until you walked outside into the real
world. The fumes went away but so too did the beauty of the image you
had spent hours producing.

Then came Cibachrome. By this stage I was shooting with a Minolta 645
using Fuji 100asa E6. There was no way I was going back into a darkroom
while there were people charging a tiny fee to do the work for me, and
being E6 how could they go wrong? They never did until Fuji took the
process over, calling it something like R3 and the whole process took
on the same problem of 'interpretation' that made taking the shot less
important as making the photo. The main problem was the makers were not
the takers. The entire intention of the image was lost.

Have I said enough? Are you still not convinced that Digital
photography coupled with a general understanding of Photoshop is the
ultimate liberation to guaranteeing the outcome bearing any similarity
to the actual shoot?

If not, then I have obviously missed something.

Please visit http://www.scenesavers.com.au

Jeff

Wow- I think this is the first of this type of message in a month or
more. Several years ago this group saw several new threads of this sort
every day!


Cab_Savvy wrote:
> I started out like most 'old school' photographers in a B&W darkroom.
> Developer and Fixer chemical smells filling the tiny red lit
> environment that felt normal until you walked outside into the real
> world. The fumes went away but so too did the beauty of the image you
> had spent hours producing.
>
> Then came Cibachrome. By this stage I was shooting with a Minolta 645
> using Fuji 100asa E6. There was no way I was going back into a darkroom
> while there were people charging a tiny fee to do the work for me, and
> being E6 how could they go wrong? They never did until Fuji took the
> process over, calling it something like R3 and the whole process took
> on the same problem of 'interpretation' that made taking the shot less
> important as making the photo. The main problem was the makers were not
> the takers. The entire intention of the image was lost.
>
> Have I said enough? Are you still not convinced that Digital
> photography coupled with a general understanding of Photoshop is the
> ultimate liberation to guaranteeing the outcome bearing any similarity
> to the actual shoot?
>
> If not, then I have obviously missed something.
>
> Please visit http://www.scenesavers.com.au
>
> Jeff
>