35 mm Options

[sadolakced acid]

35 mm rocks.

BW 35 mm rocks extra.

i want to have a darkroom.

i want my own enlarger.

i want a canon rebel or similar camera

35 mm beats out digital in sex appeal.

[sadolakced acid]

the special printer is an enlarger.

and i want one.

i found one online for a hundred bucks, but it's probably really crappy. good ones are like... a thousand.

i suppose my school counts as a rich one. we have 3 enlargers. one doesn't work, but oh well.

[Gypsy Eyes]

But it is. With film you can't erase things, and blur things and sharpen things with the push of a buttong. Any shitty picture can be made amazing.

the special printer is an enlarger.

and i want one.

i found one online for a hundred bucks, but it's probably really crappy. good ones are like... a thousand.

i suppose my school counts as a rich one. we have 3 enlargers. one doesn't work, but oh well.

My school has 8

They really arent too expensive, you just have to hunt around. I found a pretty good one for $350.

[NoSex]

But it is. With film you can't erase things, and blur things and sharpen things with the push of a buttong. Any shitty picture can be made amazing.

So, wait. How does that take the art out of it?
How does easy bluring, sharpening, and other such tools demean the art of photography?
Don't you realize that advances in technology actually increase the influx of artistic expression. Photography is more accessible, more people can use it as a means of expression. This, I believe, is largely a great service in the regions of artistic photographic expression. Draw a comparison with the introduction of Kodak's first mini-35mm camera. This resulted in widespread ameuter photography. Many of the same technologies we use today were introduced after infantile stages of film and photography. The same argument could be made, and I'm sure it had been, at the introduction of the mini-35mm. But, really, the more accessible - the more easily a vision could be manifested onto film - the more and more artistic expression there was.

I just think that the artistic vision itself far exceedes the technology used. Of coure there needs to be a certain level of competence in technology and coherency in equipment, but let's not split hairs. The same quality pictures can be manifested digitally as well as manually. In that case, all that really matters (granted technological competence) is an artistic vision. As I said before, you can have all the technical abilities and expertise in the world, but without vision you lose the art.

If you still insist, I suggest forming a kind of argument, as opposed to just begging the question. I know it's technologically easier to use digital, but I don't agree that that fact mandates a demeaning of art in the field.