Originally Posted by Brian SD
caelte, I find it a condescending position to consider digital as a "workhorse" method. I *love* working on photos in Photoshop. I can guarantee you that it is just as much a precious art form as working in film. As for the quality of analog vs. digital, even my meager $1200 camera can make huge prints that are as as sharp as any analog prints I've seen. Of course if you want really perfect pictures just get a medium format.
Jeez, condescending...no, no, I use digital to do my own shots. It would take forever to do them with film. What I mean regarding "workhorse": Digital has replaced film as an idustry standard. Hardly anyone uses it anymore. I know there are commercial photographers who use film, but I can't imagine there being many. My point about film is: It is a separate art form from digital and produces a different final effect. Digital has freed film from it's work duties. For me, the process involved is as important as the final product. TS was implying a choice based on ease of use, for those users, digital is the right choice. The analog process is closer to the source of the art, it's a hand made art. Digital feels more removed, your directing robotic actions. What really bothers me about digital vs. analog: in the analog age it was difficult to alter images, now it's a seamless process. The analog age carried with it a historical element of truth in the image. From now on, because of photoshop, images will no longer be regarded as being truthful. This is a collossal loss that I've not seen discussed. In addition, so may digital snapshots will be deleted,in the future, we won't get to see much of everyday life in the past. Those piles of old film negatives contain a priceless knowledge. I know enough about you from reading your posts to know you understand the "love".
P.S. If you get a chance, look at an original dagguereotype with a magnifying glass. There is no grain. It's like looking out the window of a time machine.