How Can It Be

[resemblingvelma]

That people want to forget about film & film's capabilities. I hate knowing all this work & learning is taking me no where next semester. I truly doubt that you can get half as much color detail & depth w/ digital imaging over color film. Really truly, where is the proof?

Comments

[resemblingvelma]

I agree w/ you! I really dislike that people are just forgetting how to do things on there own w/ out the help of some sort of computer. I'm upset because I'm taking color photography at my school & this is the last semester that they are going to have a color lab w/ color enlargers. Mt. Sac is going all digital, mainly because of the costs of maintaining the color equipment, but I think that's really cheapening the photo department which was next to PCC in comparison. It's true that you can literally see a difference in the color prints. There is richness & depth to real color prints from negatives that fall really flat when it comes to digital. Yes, color digital images are very vibrant at times but the colors are usually lacking in variations and shadows. Does that make sense? & I agree black and white will never be able to compare digitally to film. I also think it's sad to see all these people who just start out in photography going digital because it's so easy. Anyone can be a 'photographer' and take somewhat decent pictures but it really does show in the prints the lack of creativity & caring. All the stuff I've been learning dealing w/ film is not easy or fast, you definitely have to have the patients & desire to continue doing it. It's sad for me to see that now if you don't have the real desire or interest to learn all the details, you just switch to digital. To me photography more & more is looking cheap, fast, and emotionless.... just like a computer. Am I being too harsh?