Guy - I will admit that I am going off of what Aggi says. But in my mind anyone who talks about discontinuing analog classes and runs the wrong paper through an inkjet, needs to reasses their outlook.

My statements about his work stand though. I don't see anything great about those pictures. They seem trite and sort of "been there done that". This isn't to say I haven't done similar things. I will sometimes take a picture that reeks of cliche'. Mostly to play around with a technique or something like that.

I would never though sell them. Especially as "art". I mean 'Colorado River canyon from Navajo Bridge, Arizona' is NOT a particularly good landscape. I would never ask money for that.

Then again the only time I have sold anything, it was because someone saw the image and liked it, not because I offered it. I am not claiming to be "better" here.

But I am miffed about the continuing decline in the quality of work out there. It seems that people have bought into the concept that a digital image is INHERENTLY better than an analog one. Get a digicam, shoot some pictures, Photoshop the colors and make a webpage. Better yet, Add a bunch of surreal and extraneous crap and you will be lauded by some as a 'genius'.

Point being it seems the point of photography is getting lost. The tools don't matter so much as the final image. Now it seems to be the other way around with some people. And honestly, when a teacher starts getting into the digital vs. analog debate, they are not doing anyone a service. The CORRECT answer to the "which is better" question is "both can take great images, it is the photographer that matters". PERIOD.