“Whatâ€™s the treasure in owning something thatâ€™s potentially infinitely (and inexpertly) reproduceable?”
For the same reason that it is still a treasure to own great music.
You can take pleasure in the object of vinyl, the object of a cd, the object of a tape… but its a different pleasure than the music itself.
Taking pleasure in the print is taking pleasure in the object, not the image itself .The experience]]>
BUT, there is a certain character and prose that a film-based print has that was developed in the darkroom that simply cannot be overlooked or ignored, nor outdone by anything digital
I do agree 100% with a comment above, “donâ€™t let the medium become the message.”, what resources you have at your disposal and what you chose to create an image should not be, nor ever be, the focus, what matters most is content, visual impact and appeal and purpose with a dash of passion mixed in
focus on the subject and let the resulting frames speak for themselves!]]>
No, it is not the most cost-effective way of making art, but for now, and for me, it is what I am comfortable with. I know that the 4×5 will capture a large(20 square inches) slice of the world and I know that I pull a little of the beauty of the world from those negatives.
I think someone has already said this, but my medium just a tool of expression. The fact that I’m dropping a McDonald’s value meal on each shutter-release just makes each picture more important, and I hope, more sacred. It’s not that digital snaps can’t capture beauty, or wonder or the sublime aspects of light, but that I haven’t found the skills to use it that way. Kudos to those who have, could I borrow a couple hundred?]]>
I can do this now because of the relative cheapness of digital photos(it is cheap to experiment) and the ease of editing. In terms of quality, for me, digital processing has produced far better photos because I neither had the time, temperament or funds to personally use a darkroom.]]>