Originally Posted by LabelKing
So if you propose to argue about this, what would it be? That a bunch of features on an electronic device hastens the process? It makes making an image easier to achieve for the strict amateur? That it increases efficiency?
A: Over the lifespan of the product it allows you to take more pictures of better quality than with film for less money. Film is retardedly expensive, darkroom chemicals or the photomat are retardedly expensive. You say $500 for Photoshop? Thats the price of buying and developing 40 rolls of film. ($2. a roll for 35mm film and 10 bucks a roll for developing at the photomat) Most of which will probably go unused. Which basically means you have just wasted both time and money. And its extremely easy to get PS for less than $100 through student or business discount or for free
like everyone else does it.
Photoshop doesn't become "obsolete". They add filters to it, change the menus around, but its not like you can't still use Photoshop 6 when everyone else is using Photoshop 9. I do.
Granted, the digital medium is convenient in the fact that it can store images on a disk or card, but the apparent convenience is also its drawback--less reliability and also cheaper quality. Also, can a good digital color photograph exceed the quality of a good dye transfer print?[
No, but it can equal it. Literally about the only time you will be able to tell a good digital photo from a good film photo is when you try and blow it up larger than its resolution. (which to be honest, rarely happens) If you are taking photos to be enlarged to wall size, you are using a pretty specialized camera in either format.
For me, a high-end German camera from the '50s satisfies my needs adequately and substantially; I do not want to spend $500 on computer software that will become outdated in 5 years time nor spend $2000--or even $20,000 for digital Medium Format cameras--on a DSLR which will again become outdated in a few years. That's the inherent inferiority about digital, I feel, which is its constant circle of improvement. Film is film, that's it.
So you object to improvement? You'd rather have a camera that's outdated now, than one that is outdated in five years, thats fine. But both the five year old camera and the 50 year old camera still take pictures, and the five year old camera is still more versatile and cheaper to use. Unfortunately, film is NOT just film either. Up until it became futile for the major manufacturers to do so (around the year 2003 or so), they were constantly improving film stock and film cameras. I fail to see the difference between that and the improvement in digital technology. You've convinced yourself that film technology reached its peak in the 50's and 60's? I beg to differ.
I've known some people who claimed any car without a stick shift is not a car; perhaps this is the argument here?
Perhaps, but those people are also sentimental fools IMO. I can see someone PREFERRING a stickshift, there are many reasons why they are superior. There are equally as many reasons to drive an automatic. Having a preference and making ignorant blanket statements are two different things.