Comments on: Ist ein digitales Foto noch Fotografie?

By: Harold Davis

Harold Davis — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:31:50 +0000

Hi Erik – what a true and wonderful comment, I agree very completely. I appreciate very much -

Harold

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:26:40 +0000

You’re welcome Harold, the pictures on your blog are always an inspiration to me. Your photograms are not only beautiful to look at, but also a good reminder that similar effects have been done in analog years ago—similar, not the same. There are people, though, trying to convince digital photographers that the “real” art in photography has to be analog. They couldn’t be more wrong, IMHO. Thus I tried to remember those people of the fact, that there have been always artists trying to push the boundaries of any given technology they happen to have at their disposal. Photographers have a choice at the moment and should use the tools that allow them to achieve the desired effect(s), regardless if the project is done in analog or digital. It’s the result that counts.

By: Harold Davis

Harold Davis — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:07:17 +0000

Thanks for the very interesting write-up. It’s the confusion between metaphor and fact that gets people in trouble with this. I use the film and silver halide terminology for the effects I am creating because that is the existing terminology, just as the form-factor of digital cameras mimics that of film cameras. But the effects I create are not literally the same and cannot be. For one thing, pixels are just not silver grains. The words from the older technology help to explain to people what I am doing, but this is a metaphor, not a literal analog.
Thanks again.