I'm more then half-way through with this book and I can't help but feel that he has to be on anti-depressants. His other works are darker, although I think his writing has improved. Still a good read, but it's not Neuromancer.
Fine art isn't about speed or special effects. Sure, if I want to make fantastical images, I'll use photoshop. If I want to mass produce images, I'll use a digital camera. If I want to create something unique, I'll shoot my subject right the first time and pain stakingly print on fiber paper. I won't take a 300 images of the same subject and 'fix' all the things a digital photographer doesn't pay attention to because they can just heal it later in photoshop.
I'm not taking issue with the speed and ease of digital. I'm taking issue with it's value. I can click print on my computer, go eat lunch and come back and have 100 perfect copies of an image. If I want to make something unique, I'll spend pain staking hours in my darkroom to create just a few images that will be worth far more than digital 'prints' ever will be.
I agree that eventually almost all commercial work will be digital. But when it comes to fine art, digital gets laughed out the door. No one is going to pay big bucks for a cookie cutter image spit out at will. I have my own darkroom. Traditional printing is not a push button process.
Film is the only choice for fine art photographers, not 'retro' artists like you say.
MS Paint has been around since Win3.1, when was the last time you heard of an artist trading in their paintbrush for that?
Slashdot Mirror
My Ammo box PC is better!. [livejournal.com]
I'm more then half-way through with this book and I can't help but feel that he has to be on anti-depressants. His other works are darker, although I think his writing has improved. Still a good read, but it's not Neuromancer.
Fine art isn't about speed or special effects. Sure, if I want to make fantastical images, I'll use photoshop. If I want to mass produce images, I'll use a digital camera. If I want to create something unique, I'll shoot my subject right the first time and pain stakingly print on fiber paper. I won't take a 300 images of the same subject and 'fix' all the things a digital photographer doesn't pay attention to because they can just heal it later in photoshop.
I'm not taking issue with the speed and ease of digital. I'm taking issue with it's value. I can click print on my computer, go eat lunch and come back and have 100 perfect copies of an image. If I want to make something unique, I'll spend pain staking hours in my darkroom to create just a few images that will be worth far more than digital 'prints' ever will be.
I agree that eventually almost all commercial work will be digital. But when it comes to fine art, digital gets laughed out the door. No one is going to pay big bucks for a cookie cutter image spit out at will. I have my own darkroom. Traditional printing is not a push button process. Film is the only choice for fine art photographers, not 'retro' artists like you say. MS Paint has been around since Win3.1, when was the last time you heard of an artist trading in their paintbrush for that?