Digital imaging is as much about chemistry as it is about semiconductors.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Digital imaging has untied our hands with regards to technical limitations. We no longer have to be arbiters of technology; we get to participate in the interpretation of technology into creative content.
Digital imaging allows both groups to rise above the limitations of mess and clutter and mechanics, and apply our talents to creating images limited only by our imaginations.
Computer photography won't be photography as we know it. I think photography will always be chemical.
With digital, you do have the advantage of having an absolutely rock steady image because there's no projector gate, no perforations, no film weaving through a machine. And there's no dust and no scratching.
Analog is more beautiful than digital, really, but we go for comfort.
I photographed with film for many years; now that I work in digital, the difference is enormous. The quality is unbelievable: I don't use flash, and with digital I can even work in very bad light. Also, it's a relief not to lose photographs to x-ray machines in airports.
The artistic process in digital art is very much the same as for making other kinds of paintings.
I don't think much about the digital world... because I am in the analog world!
It takes a huge amount of effort to move from a successful high-tech prototype to broader adoption of an imaging technology.
I'm staying with film, and with silver prints, and no Photoshop. That's the way I learned photography: You make your picture in the camera. Now, so much is made in the computer... I'm not anti-digital; I just think, for me, film works better.
No opposing quotes found.