35 mm Options

[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.

[*Zatanna*]

I don't think she necessarily means that using a digital camera is necessarily killing the art of photography, but the photo-manipulation component of digital photograpy can. (If that makes sense).

I guess it's a matter of taste and style. I also would be inclined to pontentially consider both as art, just as I would be inclined to potentially consider either as horrible, depending on the photograph.

[Gypsy Eyes]

I see your point, but a huge component of being a great photographer is having a keen eye for it. Digital takes that away, as well as the need to pay attention to focus and lighting. It makes it less of a skill, and more of a computerized process.

[kimmytree]

I dont think using a digital camera is killing the art of photography, but I think it takes more talent to use a 35mm.

I wish I had a enlarger.