Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Why not? As far as I'm concerned it's as much "the real thing" as Tri-X, XTOL, and Brovira 111 in Dektol. Different tools don't make it a different medium. Were daguerrotypes "photographs"? Excluding digital imaging from the honourable designation of "photography" is far too narrow a definition for me. It smacks of elitist semantics (not that you're an elitist, but I think your apparent definition is). Paul >-----Original Message----- >From: ARTHURWG@aol.com [mailto:ARTHURWG@aol.com] >Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 2:08 PM >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital is not photography (long) > > >Paul, I'm not saying digital is "bad," exactly; but lets not >confuse it with >the real thing. Arthur >