Digital VS Film

[P3D Adam L. Beckerman <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark brought up some good points in the realm of art vs. science, 
but refuses (sort of) to use digital and art in the same sentence.  I 
have to disagree here, because although photography is an art form, 
if I am able to express my artistic ability (or lack thereof) using a 
camera that takes pictures on film or a camera that takes digital 
pictures, I see no difference.  I am expressing that artistry using 
photography no matter what type of photography I choose to use.  
I'm sure you wouldn't regard someone taking photos with a pinhole 
camera to express their artistry as not being art vs. you and your 
'modern' cameras (2D or 3D).  Would you?  I don't think the equipment 
used to capture the photograph has anything to do with whether or not 
it is art.  Of course, art is mostly a perceptual thing, and although the 
creator feels it is art, many may disagree.  But my point is this:  If I can 
express myself artistically through photography, what's the difference 
if I use a standard camera, or a digital camera (quality and other 
aesthetic issues aside)??  How can you consider any digital photography 
not to be photographic art?

Mark also said:  If you enjoy the artistry of your craft, the results far 
outweigh the inconveniences.

I agree with that.  But if digital stereography results in less inconveniences 
than 'traditional' stereography, then I can enjoy the artistry of my craft that 
much more.  If I want to add some sort of effect to a print or slide, it could be 
a heavily manual process with not much margin for error.  With a digital image, 
I can obtain the same effect, if not better, with probably less time, and make 
as many mistakes and tweaks as I want or need to (the 'undo' feature always 
comes in handy  :)  ).  And ESPECIALLY with stereography, you need to 
apply the EXACT same effect to both views if you are to get a good result.  If 
you perform one operation on one image, to replicate that same operation on 
the other image on a computer is as easy as the click of a button even with 
software available today.  Granted this may be less rewarding for some people, 
but I still consider it a craft and a skill that is necessarily developed in order to 
create good digital photographic art.  If you then want to separate digital 
photographic art from 'traditional' photographic art, that's a whole other story.

And as far as the other discussion of bypassing digital altogether and only 
using print if print is the intended result, the context was in regards to being 
able to share your images with others.  If sharing prints/slides with people is 
the intention, the argument to still use digital as an intermediate step is for 
duplication purposes.  If you want to spread the '3D word' and share your work 
with people, it would be a LOT easier to 'print' 50 copies out and hand them out 
with viewers than it would to print or duplicate manually that same number for 
the same purpose.  As long as quality is just as good (which we all know has 
yet to come)....

FWIW,

Adam

And sorry if I'm posting another contribution to the 'pointless' discussion of 
digital vs. print.  My orginial message wasn't intended to take this route, but 
I have found it to be a very interesting discussion.  Granted, there is a lot of 
speculation going on, but interesting nonetheless...


------------------------------