I like creating the heart of my shot, in camera, via film. When I shoot Super-8 film, I enjoy experimenting with time-lapse images. Once in time-exposure land, no matter how I think either a frame or a series of frames will look, I won't really know until the film has been processed and the either projected or when the processed film is transferred to video. The film to tape transfer colorist can make all kinds of adjustments to the electronic representation of the super-8 image. Once on video I can do real time color and luminence adjusting by using hardware color correction such as a sony component video color corrector or a Panasonic MX-50 switcher. The key is that I must recopy the video image from the master tape to a new tape to actually save the changes. Usually I use Betacam Sp as a videotape medium because it is of pretty good quality and easily holds up for a few generations. Regardless, the actual heart of the image already existed, and at the moment of its creation, I was just a curious witness. One underlying theme that many may not agree with is the notion that creating a digital still image has an advantage over shooting a film still image in the sense that one can shoot a lot more shots digitally and instantly view the result, but perhaps there are naysayers here to that position. A still film image can either be touched up when in the darkroom, or the picture can be scanned and altered in Photoshop, but at the moment the picture was taken, the photographer again is just a curious witness. If I view a newspaper photo and I can tell that objects outside of the intended target have been digitally blurred, is it still a news picture? It's one thing to crop a picture or adjust the color and contrast, but has a line been crossed if the newspaper actually adds blur effects and does not announce that the news picture has been digitally altered above and beyond the basics of contrast and color? Every now and then I create a Super-8 image that if I were to poll a hundred people probably well over 90% would assume it was either created or augmented in the digital realm. Without an actual separation of categories, it seems part of the achievement of creating an in camera piece of art is muted by the viewer if they were to assume it was viewed at the moment of creation, and then created or adjusted on a computer when in fact neither of those conditions resulted in the photo they are viewing. If the Tour De France no longer banned steroid users, and instead had two categories for their races, steroid users and non steroid users, then the guy who finished 30th but was the first person across the line among the non-steroid users would be treated with the same regard as the steroid laden winner. When it's all said and done, isn't what one can create with their imagination and the unknown different than what one can create with modern day see ot as it happens technology? I don't think it's an issue which method one prefers, I just think it would be a good thing if both methods could co-exist far into the future and that the viewer understood and appreciated the difference. If the day comes when art is no longer created under a wait and see environment, I think we all will lose something.