Is recording a Bach cello suite no longer classic because it's recorded
digitally? Is it any less genius or beautiful (when well executed) or the
nuances less natural simply due to the means by which the producer took to
get there? Or is the media the message and end of story?
Some of us are currently spending as much money on the digital aspect of
creating negs for alternative photography, as we might have making big film
the old fashioned way, in camera and by enlarger. But that will
change. It will be far more affordable and accessible in the future, and,
dare I say it? Will rival the resolution capacity of big film. Stochastic
algorithms will replace the random pattern of silver in gelatin and it will
have the capacity look fantastic and breathtaking to most viewers. But,
what novice photographer would go to the trouble and expense of creating
pt/pd prints when they can be content with zipping it off their $100
archival inkjet printer? Because they do, and we use some of the same
techniques to create negatives, does that make them alternative or us less
so? I don't think so.
Some of us would not be doing alt-process at all if we had to all buy big
cameras or pay for neg enlargements, etc. I would argue that while some
may view the acceptance of digital as a dilution of the purist insanity
gene afflicting many on this list, it's extending the life of alternative
photography, rather than banishing it to the history and chemistry sections
of your local public library.
Quite simply, things evolve, or they die.
Jon
At 10:48 AM 8/19/2004, Marie Wohadlo wrote:
>Does anyone else think it's weird, ironic, or otherwise unexpected ---
>that the alt-photo list is as often concerned with digital processes as it
>is with chemical and traditional ones? I mean, digital is HARDLY
>alternative now.
>------------------------------
Received on Thu Aug 19 11:13:36 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/14/04-09:17:59 AM Z CST