Digital BW, The Print

Doug writes:

> An artistically great but technically so-so
> photograph (HCB, etc., etc.) will still be
> remembered as great.

The one who shoots film with a Leica, you mean?

> There are already a ton of people who are artistically
> more gifted, commercially more successful, and much
> more respected as photographers than either you or me,
> who say that digital is plenty good enough, right now.

But there are many more users of digital who are absolutely rotten
photographers.  Many of them are gadget freaks who were also absolutely
rotten photographers when they shot film.

> Fear that just when they thought they understood
> the old technology, they have to learn a new one.

In my experience, digital photographers don't know anything more about
digital photography than film photographers do.  Hardly any photographers
understand the technology.  That was true to some extent with film; it is
even more true with digital.  This is what gives rise to the many urband
legends surrounding digital photography ("it's sharper than film," "you
don't need lights anymore with digital," "focus is unimportant because you
can sharpen it in Photoshop," and so on).

> Fear that the old imposing technical walls are down,
> and with affordable, high-quality, easy-to-use
> modern equipment, even more "art majors" will now
> be able to do what THEY do, and possibly do it better.

They can do that more cheaply with film right now.  If anything, the art
majors are more likely to be equipped with film, because they can't afford
digital (although some have an irrational dislike for digital, too).