Digital BW, The Print

On 4/30/02 3:43 PM, "J Greer" <jgpinfo@...> wrote:

> The publishers of PHOTOVISION are keeping things separate (digital vs.
> non-digital). The recent issue of the magazine (March/April 2002) contains
> an ad for the upcoming Digital Fine Arts publication. There is also this
> message from the editor:
> 
> "Photovision is, and always will be, dedicated to photography -- no
> digital. This is not because we don't believe digital imaging is a viable
> visual medium. Those who doubt our sincerity may be interested to know that
> in 2002 we will be launching our second publication, Digital Fine Arts --
> no photography!"
> 
> Their use of photography only for the 'wet' side annoys me a bit. I think
> the term 'digital photography' is valid (and, maybe one day, we can drop
> the 'digital' altogether) since I go back the Greek root words for
> photography, which I take to loosely mean 'to write with light.' I can
> 'write with light' using silver, emulsion, and chemistry, or I can do it
> with silicon, software, and electrons.
> 
> Jeff Greer

<short rant>

That's a great reason to not read either of their magazines...the thought
that practicing photography is limited to the equipment or techniques that
you use...is quite simply an abomination that should make every artist who
takes photos utterly repulsed. Photography is about making art by capturing
images!  They have relegated the word photography to a rapidly dying set of
techniques rather than to the vibrant art form that it is.

<I feel much better now>


Robert