#9. "RE: Digital Imagin - a phylosofical question." In response to In response to 8
I would prefer to call it an honest voicing of opinion
There will be no barrage, you're right. I had the same thought when I woke up, wondering how the people who painted protraits for a living had reacted to the coming of the BnW photographs. I'm guessing they looked down at it, as it had no color, and therefor could never be a proper view of the person. of course, I'm just guessing. and now, with digital photography, as we keep getting more and more mexapixels, on smaller and smaller areas, the only limitation becomes the optics once again. digital imagery is more elaborate than photography, with more easily acceptable possibilities of manipulation and beautification. unlike photographs, it doesn't end with taking a roll to be developped, but it allows you complete freedom.
I agree that it's easier for a photographer to be a digital imager than the other way around, but only for the time being, as the resolutions and ISO sensitivity are insanely priced, and the true part of the camera, the optics, are second in limiting factor of the images. One day .. D1s for the masses.
Perhaps it is even necesary to redefine "digital imaging" in this opinion to "digital photography", because there are beautyfull realistic looking scenes that involved no photography at all generated on computers.
Perhaps digital imaging is the merger between painting and photography, as we try to go back to that personal level of changing and working with a base image, and see where it will end. Of course, there is a certain advantage to having an undo function. because there is an acceptable large large margin of error, as all can be undone, it will be looked upon as less than an artform from both photography and painting, but it's still art. (As any CG artist will tell you =)