NOTE: the word "Less" important" is missing from the poll.....sorry I coudn't change it.FIXED -Rick
I was recently perusing an Australian photographers website whos name I won't say, he specialises in B&W photography and insists on the Silver Gelatine print which I admire in this day and age and think it is great for those that can afford it. I was quite inpressed by his prints, especially some of his Infra red work with Figures. I continued on through his website and all of a sudden out of nowhere in bright yellow half way down one of his "blogs" (the rest of his script was in light grey on a black background so it stood out like a pink elephant at the Opera House), was a quote of his that stated
“Digital black and white prints are as fake as IKEA furniture or instant coffee”.
I found this a little offensive and few days later was watching a documentary for Uni about Ansel Adams and in the interview he is quite amazed (even in the early 80's as he died in 84) and excited about the possabilities that digital enhancement was about to offer the world. This is comming from a man that invented the very tecniques that 99.99999999% of B&W photographers still use in the darkroom today.
My question is this, when did the creative process begin and end in the darkromm with chemicals? Don't get me wrong I come from a darkroom background myself, but that dosnt mean that I need to be arrogant about the process and demean new technologies just because theyare new in terms of a creative process; I mean some of the best street photography exhibitions at the moment are taken with an IPhone, is this any differant and should it be valued any less than those street shots taken with a $5000 kit? I dont think so, after all its al about the end product and what it brings to the audiance, not how it was done. Food for thought......