My point was to remind, and convince film users of how passionate
they were about " Film ", or Photography. I am sure, that I am not the
only member who jumped over the fence to see what was on the Digital side.
And, Wa$ted time, and money on equipment, and then realized their mistake.
It is fun, and convenient to use a DigiSnapper, but it doesn't provide
the true essence of photography. If I could afford a Digital Back for
my 4X5, maybe then I would be passionate about the process.
I dont want to be offensive, but your post comes across as offensive, it is an opinion, an incorrect opinion, it is biased and elitist and shows everything wrong in an attitude a film user could have.
I shoot film and digital, I dont feel neither is a waste of time or money.
"DigiSnapper" please don't make up terms to degrade someone else's medium.
"Doesn't provide the true essence of photography" this is rubbish I'm afraid to say.
It's like saying Paint X or Brush A doesn't provide the true essence of painting like Paint Y or Brush B, it's just rubbish.
Photography occurs before equipment and medium, dismissing it like that is both wrong and elitist.
A print (inkjet, dyesub, optical wetprint or laser wetprint) or image on a screen are not photographs, they are reproductions of photographs.
Film, printing (whatever type), and scanning, digital display, are all reproduction
methods.
I can shoot photographs without film, paper or digital. As an image in my mind may also be a reproduction of a photograph, that I saw with the lenses in my head and captured on my retinae, and I can recall that for later viewing, which is a reproduction - I just can't create a good reprodution for anyone else's viewing.
All photography is equal, there is no segregation of pure photography between film, digital or otherwise, referring to film photography or digital photography is a reference to the equipment and workflow someone has chosen in order to reproduce their conception.
Implying or saying that the equipment, process and methodologies of one photographer is somehow less photography than another (or that it does not provide the true essence of photography) is totally invalid, the very idea is not even worth entertaining.
As I said before, all photography is equal, it is all created in exactly the same way with no differences. The amount of work gone into it, and value of the art, journalism or purpose may greatly differ, but this is not the point at all.
The various types of luminscence, incandescence, and reflectance and translucency of objects remain identical for users of film or digital equipment, as does electromagnetic radiation. Physical law doesn't suddenly for anybody's preference.
A photograph is conceived (a conceived
drawing/image of light)
, therefore it is a concept. Not a print, not an image on screen, not a strip of negatives, nor a memory card. Equipment cannot alter the essence of your conception.
