Photography, as in Group ƒ/64 terms or APUG terms, is very different kinda thing.
The idea that "digital is not a medium" seems absurd to me. Care to elaborate on why not?
But the problem with having it take its own direction and be distinct in artistic expression seems to be that it's essentially doing the same thing (the points above) as analog - using a lens to focus light from the physical world onto a sensitized (electronically in the case of digital) surface in order to record a visual rendering of that world. By necessity it's going to look more like analog than different. It is true that you can do a lot more and more extreme departures from a realistic rendering using digital methods. Extreme HDR that was mentioned is one, easily combining different elements into a scene that never actually existed in nature is another. That can be done in the darkroom but is difficult and limited compared to doing it in Photoshop. But any time these get too far removed from reality or at least the look of reality they seem to get dismissed as excess. Maybe that's the key and what's being discussed here. As long as it's not portrayed AS reality, along with all the mischief that could cause in certain contexts, there should be less complaint when digital artists combine elements in creative ways.
I think you touch on a good point there. It is maybe a little early to see the full potential of the digital movement. With sensors ever increasing in potential, maybe it is not the prints we should be looking at. The images digital is likely to be able to capture very soon will be far beyond the latitude of film. But that is not common yet, so maybe it is a little early to adopt a separate vision on digital shooting. I hope the manufacturers don't think the same way however, there might be some work left in lens technology and printing to capture all of that in a final print.
But it is most definetely a very exciting time.
I will be sticking my head in the sand for a few years though. Getting back into film until digital has made a firm stand and looks like something that suits my style. If not I can at least buy Fuji with the savings I made by not buying new equipment every two years and keep shooting Velvia.
I feel you should keep the processes that you like and actually work well in the digital age.
It is quite hard to give a short view on this point. It probably differs per image and the purpose you want to give it. Democratization is a good word, time will do it's work and weed out the best loved and most practical techniques, the rest will hopefully be displayed by a few persevering artisans and eventually a friendly curator that doesn't mind some fumes in his clinical world of digital perfection.
While reminiscing, I just found a self-portrait digital black and white shot taken May 3, 2003. In that shot the Bessa II is sitting next to me on the table... It's the same scene as my current avatar. So I used to shoot digital and film at the same time. Shameless
Silver gelatin, oil paint, bronze, are media. Digital files are information; a digital file could just as easily be a representation of a symphony or a text or a 3 dimensional world or anything. Digital photography may be a discipline but the media 'digital photography' does not exist.
How about "ink jet" then? How about "monitor display" then?
I still don't agree and I think digital, or more accurately "digital sensors" are a medium.
An image that is not archival out of the box, that's hell of an image, and lot cheaper than film. :D
I guess You can call it whatever You want, since a digitally captured movie (motion picture) is still referred to as film :laugh: