Quote Originally Posted by edp View Post

I've never described what I do as "analog(ue) photography".
Who I am talking to will change what I say. If I'm talking to someone who is a photographer/enthusiast, then I will say "I am an analog photographer". It rolls off the tongue much easier "than I work in a darkroom with chemicals and stuff using real silver to make prints"

If I'm talking to anyone else, I say I'm a photographer. Chances are they don't particularly care how I make images, or even that I do

Quote Originally Posted by per volquartz View Post
The message / content is the absolutely most important part of an image.
Without that the very best technical skills are waisted completely/
I believe that how an image is made is directly tied to the conceptual aspect of any artwork. A viewer may ask "Why film?' and the answer must be relevant to the message of the image.

I'm not convinced that there needs to be another photo secession. We don't need to prove that photography is an art form. Thank you Stieglitz. We don't need to fend off digital imaging. To try would be suicide.

We also don't need to decry the short comings of digital images. Besides sounding elitist, to most people, digital serves its purpose perfectly. And to those elitists who claim technical superiority try printing on an epson 7700 on Hahnemuhle baryta paper. It's perfections in inkjet.

Also the argument that digital prints can be cranked out quicker, thus reducing the value of the medium as a whole is kinda weak. The local shop near me can crank out a hundred chemical prints an hour on its machine. No difference than a commercial digital lab.

I think its time to quote a dead guy:
When the age of mechanical reproduction separated art from its basis in cult, the semblance of its autonomy disappeared forever. The resulting change in the function of art transcended the perspective of the century; for a long time it even escaped that of the twentieth century, which experienced the development of the film. Earlier much futile thought had been devoted to the question of whether photography is an art. The primary question whether the very invention of photography had not transformed the entire nature of art was not raised.

We shouldn't be questioning the validity of digital imaging as art. Rather we should be exploring how it has fundamentally changed Art as a whole (our precious film based imagery included).

This same argument is had for every disruptive technology. Remember that photography started in the 1830's. We didn't have pre-made film until 60 years later. Polaroid's removed all the technical requirements another 60 years later in the 40's. Fast forward another 60 and you get digital.

Thanks to the digital revolution, now the few remaining practitioners can spread their knowledge to people like me and keep the craft alive. Without digital, I doubt we'd have seen the wet-plate renaissance we live in today.

Finally, can we please try to keep it civil in there?