Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
Are we really?
I'm not sure that we are. The sea of crap has been with use since, at the latest, the 1960s. I haven't noticed that it would have increased (disproportionally - the tide is rising higher and higher not just as far as photographical output is concerned).
It could be though. But once the tide has risen above a certain level, any further increase goes unnoticed. And as far as i am concerned, we already have reached that level well before the digiwave.

But that as an aside.
I think too much focus is put on the process, the materials. I don't mind that digital isn't a 'noble process'. I don't believe in noble processes.
I want to see images that are worth seeing. And that is a far bigger problem: that sea of crap.

So if anything must be said about the process, the materials too, i would perhaps welcome the digiwave, its "cheapness", and how that sea of crap is drained (still too slowly) by prints not lasting very long.
Yep..I think it's called "extreme dilution of talent" and "everything has been said and done". I will make a musical analogy: the state of the music scene is the same but why? What's out there that's NEW and will stand the test of time and people will go see live in 20 years? Nothing. The most successful live acts over the last 5-10 years? Van Halen, The Police, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Genesis..get the picture (pun intended)?
instead of discussing the purist notions of darkroom/versus digital printing, the issue is one of image relevance and whether the mind behind the camera is bringing forth anything new, exciting, relevant, something we have not seen before, to excite us. Much has been said and done in the world of photography, like in music, and it is a fact that digital has simply made it easier to produce ungodly amounts of "garbage". Sifting through it to find something meaningful is also harder but we need to remember that "uniqueness" is elusive at this point.