Originally posted by spilot
what digital ?
To me - digital whatever in photography - is blasphemy in the art of film photography.
no it is not. Not too long ago, in a galaxy far away in our minds, the painters of tat time used to say, photography watever, is blasphemy in the art of painting.
the same thing is reoccuring.
the digital Vs film debate, to me, is passe. Digital has won, and is going to say, whether we like it or not.
The DC format, is very much commercialism than anything else.
it may be, but there's no denying the positive impact it has in the world of photography.
Read April's issue of Practical Photography - there's a long big article dedicated to Digital Photography bashing.
No offense to you, since u seem like a pretty nice guy

but anyone who reads Practical Photography, and actually trust wat it says, is completely nuts.
The Practical Photography format, is very much commercialism than anything else.
Much of its covers feature saucy ladies / skimply dressed models with no artistic or editoral objective other than to entice the unknowing user to buy it off the shelf. Its headlines scream sensationalism.
And i've read tat article u mentioned (at Borders, weeks ago). It's a huge body of work full of inaccuracies, in an tone that obviously reveals a deep seated biased against anything that does not use silver halide for image capture.
You can do yourself a great favour by staying shy of such commercialised bullshit and actually trying things out yourself. The experience will be more valuable than simply trusting some half crazed, pressurised editior working overtime several thousand miles away trying to meet his deadline.