Auteur: paco03
Date: 09-02-2007 13:56
interessant; on retrouve ds cette "analyse" ce qui figure ds 2 à 3 fils en cours sur ce site...
sinon on apprends par le patron de Kodak qui a forcement un petit IQ et d'autre part qu'il est mal renseigné, que le film a 10 années devant lui...
Graham Wood: Analysis
For all of my 35 years as a photographer, I have always used film. Partly it’s because I am a Luddite, partly because film is just magic.
It is a much richer medium in which to work, even though digital has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of quality. Now, with a photograph reproduced in a newspaper, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two media.
My problem with digital is the way it encourages photographers to work. Because you can see the end result instantly on the back of your camera, it takes your mind off the creative process of taking a photograph.
Another issue is that film is honest; digital photos are easily manipulated.
Of course, the huge advantage of digital is speed, but, if you have time, as I do on a weekly magazine, then there is all the time in the world to make adjustments.
Film has a lasting endurance. It is the true medium for photographers. Do you think Ansell Adams would have used digital?
— Graham Wood is the director of photography for The Times Magazine
|
|
