Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital is not photography (long)
From: Paul Chefurka <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:08:51 -0800

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
>

Replies: Reply from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Digital is not photography (long))