I may be opening up a can of worms here, and this is probably an old debate, but I just read an article about a photographic magazine that refuses to print articles or photos by artists who create digital prints.

Does this make sense to anyone? It seems like this particular magazine is telling people that you can't really be an artist if you work digitally. Isn't that like telling a carpenter that he can't possibly be any good because he uses an electric saw instead of a handsaw?

Dunno. I think I'm just venting. I work digitally, but I have a great respect for traditional darkroom methods. Generally I don't do anything to my digital prints that I couldn't do in a darkroom (yes, there are exceptions to this, and I generally note them).

On the other hand, I just picked up my camera like a year ago, so I still consider myself learning. Maybe I just haven't had enough exposure to traditional film. Still, I've seen some pretty amazing stuff done digitally (Michelle's tomato shot comes to mind. I believe she works digitally). Granted, I've mostly seen this stuff in digital form (on the screen) and the digital prints that I personally make aren't necessarily "photo" quality, but that is a limitation of the equipment, not the artists. They don't seem to have any problem printing blurry photos taken with badly-made pinhole cameras.

Like I said, I'm just venting. It just really ticks me off when a "professional" entity tries to invalidate what others are doing simply because they aren't using a particular medium.

Okay. I'm done. Thanks for listening.

-Taltos