Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
rdloe -if you want to talk about the horse race of technology, just remember that "analog" photography, as you call it (I prefer just to call it photography,period) has a 150 year head start in this race, so mere speed of alleged improvements doesn't tell the whole story. And I think, visually, large format film photography is still way ahead if optimal quality rather than mere convenience is what is in mind. And for me, personally, trying to keep up with constantly shifting hardware and software, which becomes rapidly obsolete by design, is a lot more fuss and headache than doing what I already know and am equipped to do. But as far as dead ends go, there is a point at which the sheer R&D expense that goes into modern digital printing has to be recouped at some point, and that it too will hit inevitable plateaus of performance which essentially stall. I think that is already happening to some extent with inkjet technology. It will show steady minor improvements, like C-printing did during its evolution; but basically, it's already reached a "good enough" level from a marketing standpoint, and that level is a qualitative step backwards from what traditional color reproduction can potential do in the right hands. Convenience has always ruled the masses, not quality. George Eastman got rich figuring that out. So I am quite grateful for what you express as a "dead end". It's more like a living end. I will end long before my large format cameras, enlargers, and lenses even begin to wear out. Besides, artists will always rebel against the routine. There is great appeal in tactile processes rather than just pushing buttons. But this is a remarkable era in which you can have your cake and eat it too, if hybrid technique appeals to you.