=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Sites for Sore Eyes
Log In to post a reply
70 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
morfe lux
301 posts

time and print
Sep 05, 2003, 20:11
I think any system is measured well by the output needs. Obviously photography for print is best done using digital SLR, digital backs etc (if they can be afforded) as the resultant 300 dpi magazine/book litho would only have been scanned from the negative anyway should film have been used. So-called 'fine art' photography is a specialist process and I'm conscious of having to work very hard to carve out a niche here for myself. It's not that I don't believe in the methods i use (i do, very much!) , it's that there is huge prejudice as to whether digital photography is cheating or not. I know that's a rubbish argument, because all the same rules apply whichever method one uses to capure the light, and any discerning eye can spot the equation: shit/incompetent effort inwards, shit/incompetent result outwards! Of course there's then the unmeasureable variable: vision, pre-emptive and actual, which in turn is divided by luck!

Onwards and upwards! Woe be to they who say photography isn't an art!

~o~ morfe
In reply to:
Re: A pedant speaks (treaclechops)		 Replies:
Re: time and print (treaclechops)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index