Digital BW, The Print

At the risk of being redundant . . . (I will go out back and slap myself
after this, I promise), I did say that it wasn't worth persuing the point if
it was going to degenerate.

But I felt the original remark showed a lack of discretion (count to ten
before hitting send . . . I have been guilty of that myself), or a lack of
perception of what ONE DOES before finally making a print . . . some call it
photography . . . a good friend of many years always referred to me making
"snaps" . . . he knew how it irritated me . . . I loved him, and his
insight/slap in the face?, for that description ;-).

I think my angst is (and perhaps wrongly directed) at the "new" photography
. . . re: digital, where everyone says , oh, I can fix it in PS, or some
other futile remark, like "photographers aren't artists" (by the way, I
could clog the list with thousands of names of photogs past and present who
are indeed "artists" . . . recognized throughout the commercial and artistic
community . . . I won't though).

I don't use digital capture, but I do work extensively in digital after I
get my film processed so I am not a luddite. I, like many other talented
individuals go to great extremes to get it right before we push the shutter
button. In my case I have always considered myself to be more of a mechanic
or "problem solver" than an artist . . . I do it for immense profit
(sometimes . . . alas), but there are the Sextons, Sieffs, Turners, Maisels,
Strands, Haas, etc, etc who are first and foremost artists . . . to dismiss
them out of ignorance is an insult (not yours by the way).

I have seen other lists where the discussion has spiralled down the toilet
bowl and I agree it is not a pleasant sight, but, it happens sometimes . . .
such is opinion.

any hoot, thank you for hearing my $0.02

all the best
Paul Aparycki