Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
(Blansky was addressing Ken N, but how could anything bad ever happen due to jumping into someone else's argument on the inet?)

And even that distinction isn't at all sharp, because there are a bunch of different levels of "process" involved in photography. What you might call the high-level artistic process---see, visualize, capture, print---doesn't seem to me to be very different in different photographic media, but the "craft" processes are very different; not just between analog and the D-word, but between darkroom enlarging and cyanotypes, wet plate, liquid emulsion on an eggshell. Heck, the differences in process between rollfilm and sheet film are significant to many people.

But what's the point in trying to draw a boundary in that set of craft- and medium-specific processes and say THIS side is all basically the same and THAT side is totally different (or "is not photography", "is inauthentic", "sucks", or similar sweeping generalities)? Is there something to be achieved through that argument, other than the usual chimera of "I won" bragging rights and the subsequent "No you didn't" meta-argument? It just seems to me like people are going to perpetrate images the way they want to, and call it whatever they call it, and so what?

Personally, I long ago gave up on purism and will cheerfully shoot any old thing and print it any old way. Interestingly, if I look around the stuff I've chosen to put up in my office, almost all of it was shot on film. (The really good stuff, as opposed to "cute picture of the kid that coulda been taken with anything", is mostly large format, but it's not because my contact prints are technically awesome---they're actually pretty awful---but because I compose better on a big ground glass, I think. So the "craft" processes end up affecting my "art" processes, in the terms I used above; which I think is quite compatible with anything being said in this discussion.)

The evolution of this discussion with Ken has been rather ongoing and my background for 30 years was analog then switched to digital. (Professional studio/outdoor portrait photography) And my personal position is shoot and use whatever you enjoy and for me personally I switched to digital very late for various reasons and have stated and been agreed with by some and disagree with by others that for me one process was just replaced by the other and it is pretty much the same.

Ken is more of a purist and we never reached any consensus because he feels that they are not the same.

Which they obviously aren't but for me they actually are in the sense as I said that one just replaced the other and my ONLY goal is the print.

So Ken makes sure to stress in many threads that Damn it, they are different.

So this last post was to assure him that any idiot can see that technically, physically, and psychically they are DIFFERENT.

But yet the same.