In the age of Photoshop, the techniques of film photography can be recreated in an instant and the potential for combining images or methods creates endless scope for originality and artistic input. The primary advantage to the photographer is the vast landscape of possibility digital photography provides which, more often than not, can be put in to practice more quickly than working with conventional film. He or she can edit out any undesirable object, even change the angle of lighting – and if the final product doesn’t work out according to plan, ctrl+Z has got it covered. The original ‘negative’ is still as good as new, and a better solution is waiting to be discovered in the toolbar.
But is there a difference in the final product? Do the long hours spent pseudosolarizing in the red lights of the dark room have any impact on the framed print? Like the difference between an original Picasso and the poster from the gift shop, the hand-crafted quality of film photography is something which cannot be replicated. Just imagine, someone once stood over that very glossy paper, painstakingly placing a vignette over just the right spot, dipping the sheet in and out of trays to preserve their work.
Once more, we return to the old debate – is beauty on the screen of the beholder, or are we wearing magenta-tinted glasses?
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on Artistic Input
- Related Blogs on Beholder
- Related Blogs on Better Solution
