Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> While it's true that digital process has taken over the real world of imaging > (product, photography, advertising, daily news), it is also true that it is > misplaced to call it "photography." By your (what I believe to be) misguided evaluation, then CDs aren't really music... It's the same 'bad' analogy. Both music and images start out as a capturing of the analog world. The only difference between digital photography (which can mean a LOT of things, from scanning negatives to digital imaging with no film)and 'analog' photography is the media with which the images are captured. Plain and simple. That does not make using a digital 'camera' (which means room by the way) any less of a photographic instrument than a film camera, nor does the process of scanning negatives, and printing them using an ink printer (which is what magazines and any printed matter do, and have been doing for over a hundred years!) any less of a role in the photographic process. Technically, one could argue, the darkroom end of things (or scanning negatives, PS and printer) has nothing to do with the strict definition of 'photography'. It would be called 'processing' (the images). - ----- Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html ) The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!