</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Guy @ Jan 16 2003, 07:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Many of the great masters (most notably the grand poobah Ansel Adams) spent their lives diligently modifying and retouching their images, contrary to may purists of their day. They used the tools available to them then and there's no reason we would not use the tools available to us now. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Wasn't it Ansel himself who said that chemical photography is only the beginning and that with the rise of electronics towards the end of his life that eventually some form of photography will enhance on chemical processes.
Even if you don't use digital, it will pay off. 35mm users have already seen the results of APS in their film - due to the smaller formats the c41 film makers have had to increase the quality of the grain to reflect that.
With the whole digital argument, it's the same old "it's new, it's scary" argument.
Having used 35 mm, MF and (very briefly experimented with) 4x5, as well as the digital printing route (which I'd utilise more if it wasn't for the omnipresence of crappy inkjets), I'd say that both camps have something to learn from each other.
Boiling it down to a simple level: is it cheating if you use 35mm? I mean, you haven't lugged that enormous 8x10 view camera around the field with you, and therefore you can't be a true artist.
Photography is whatever it means to you. I welcome digital - if it means more people taking photographs, and experiment with what imaging (in whatever way you want) has to offer, digital or analogue, that has to be a good thing.
In too many "popular" photography mags like the British mag AP focus (no pun intended) far too much on what camera, what film and whatnot. With every image, it's got a little not saying "Nikon F60, 90mm, Velvia, f/8 @ 1/60th" or something. It doesn't matter how you made it. One of the few rules that I have when I show photographs for critique at class (and they get rather overcritiqued at times!) is that I don't talk about cameras. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Whether I took them with my 35mm or 645 rig doesn't matter. Lenses don't matter. The only thing that matters is peoples response to the images.
In my mind, whatever means you take to achieve it, as long as it's your vision, that is the only relevant thing.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Jan 30 2003, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I believe there is a BIG revival of old techniques, if not equipment. Both Artcraft Chemicals and Photorapher's Fromuarly are out of Amidol these weeks. Amidol, of all things.
I hope that someone at Kodak takes note of this. We all know it's a bad artistic decision to discontinue any grade or size of Azo. Maybe if the Jolly Yellow Giant took a look around the valley once in a while they'd see that it's also a bad business decision. They have a huge potential market in this one product alone.