George Papantoniou said:
I think that Digital Imaging and Photography are two very different Media (lots of people on this Forum will agree with me I guess). It's just like what happened in the 1850's with Engraving and Photography. In the beginning, the new technique was considered equivalent to the old one and people thought that the old would be "replaced" by the new. But after a while (50 years, that is), ...
I wonder who thought engraving and photography were 'equivalent'? To be sure, photography accomplished the same goal as engraving in the context of newspaper reporting. That is, the illustration of events described in new stories.
Where the analogy strays from the present situation is the claim of digital technology to be 'just like photography' or 'just as good as' film. It insists on emulating asa numbers rather than coming up with its own terminology. Some of these silly cameras even have little speakers to 'simulate' the sound of mirror flop and shutter activation.
Whereas photography never claimed to be a better type of engraving, digital imaging (if it were a sentient being) doesn't have the self-confidence to stay off of the coat tails of 150 years of photographic history. In all fairness, photography did try to ride on the coat tails of painting for a while in the early 20th century. There was 'pictoral' photography and 'straight' photography. thank god straight photography won the day. the soft focus, low contrast, fuzzy pictoral photography was horrid.
I have nothing against DI, I'd just rather the industry were bold enough to proclaim the technology as 'all new and different from what has been done before'. Let it stand on its own two legs. If it did that then maybe I would be less often subjected to the condescending comments of those who've 'gone digital'.
And that's another thing... why is it that when I go to a camera store to buy chemicals or MF film, the fools behind the counter insist on launching into another anti-film scree. They try to convince me to 'go digital' and are astounded when I don't see their point of view.
Let us think about this for a moment. DI has been around for several years now right? As an avid amateur photographer, I've been aware of it for a long time and know the advantages/disadvantages of it by now. If I'm still shooting film, odds are that I've already made a decision and chosen not to pursue DI.
Do the sales clerks think they have new information that I don't have? Do they think they have a new undenyable argument? Do they think I've had my head in the sand for 5 years? Do they think I've been on the fence about digital for years and they're going to be the clever clerk to finally get me to see the light?
Any sales clerks out there reading this and thinking "hmmm that description fits me!" Do me a favor. Just sell me my chemicals and film and save the comments for the novice.
