Chris, lying is one thing contradicting oneself is another far less offensive thing!
Actually on a totally pedantic technical level he is right, as in the oldest dictionary I can find in our library, it describes photography as a light sensitive material developed in chemicals, which would exclude digital capture 🙂
That definition may have been true then because digital photography had not yet been invented. However, the word
photography, as I understand it, means writing, or producing a picture, with light, or something along those lines.
Whether that picture is written chemically on an emulsion or digitally to an electronic file is a distinction that seems a bit artificial or arbitrary to me. The end result is still a photograph, and both require further manipulation to render the final product, that is, the actual photograph. They are both latent images until further processed, and there is no inherent superiority of one method over another.
This all seems like nit picking to me. A photograph is a photograph is a photograph. A lens focuses light on a medium, whether a wet plate, a film, a digital sensor, or some technology not yet conceived, but the final product is a photograph, and a good photograph is not as dependent on the tools, the media, or the technology as much as it is on the photographer's vision.
That's just my opinion, but one I hold dear. I'll listen to other opinions, but that's pretty much my final word, and it's not likely I'll be persuaded otherwise.
Damn. This film versus digital thing is getting old. All I want is world peace. Is that too much to ask?
😀
