Hello all. Was surprised today when I saw in the news that the famous "Afghan Girl" featured on the National Geographic mag cover in 1984, was found. If any of you old timers out there remember this, it was one of the most hauntingly beautiful photographs of a person ever, for NG. For over 17 yrs, people all over the world had been asking whatever happend to this young girl, and now it seems she's been located.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/723068.asp?pne=msn&cp1=1
I have just been readiing a link on this forum debating the merits of whether or not film is dead or dying. (see "Is Film Dead"). And while I personally believe that film will be a thing of the past, Im not here to argue this point. I think it was done quiet well in the post.
Now I really love my G2, and I still love my Niknon 35 SLR's, but lately I've had a nagging, sort of depressing feeling on seeing film fall by the wayside, if it's destined to do so. And after looking at this photo of this orpahan girl in some remot refugee camp that time had almost forgot, I had to ask myself..."Would this photo have been so great and inspiring if it had been done with a digital camera?"
What I mean is does the digital photo loose some of its impact/credibility, by the mere fact that it can so easily be altered or minipulated by current/future editing in the digital darkroom? I guess I'm speeking more of documentary photography here.
An example comes to mind, that timeless photog of US Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. What if that had been with a digital camera? Would it have been so powerful in its message and timeless in its appeal or would people just sort of look at it and say "nice pic, but it's probably been faked."
Now I know that even film/print images can and are inhanced in the darkroom, but there's a limit to how far you can go compared with digital image manipulaton, and somehow I think as a society we will be the lesser for it.
For me, one of the great things about photography is the way it makes time timeless. That frozen fraction of second where we see what we were, who we are and where we came from. Photography has so much power as a medium. It can cause us to laugh or cry. It can motivate nations and change national opinion in ways that the human pen could never fathom before its time. It's almost spiritual in nature, yet we now have the means to look at ourselves and wonder "is that really who we were/are" or is it "Memorex?
To me it's not imortant whether or not film will diie and be replaced by digital. Images will always be with us...but will they be the right images? Will anyone care? Will art replace the message or become the message? Will the image be our pimp and we the prostitue of some instant gratification that will only last unti we need another trick as it were?
Come on, make me feel good about the future of digital. Thanks bc
http://www.msnbc.com/news/723068.asp?pne=msn&cp1=1
I have just been readiing a link on this forum debating the merits of whether or not film is dead or dying. (see "Is Film Dead"). And while I personally believe that film will be a thing of the past, Im not here to argue this point. I think it was done quiet well in the post.
Now I really love my G2, and I still love my Niknon 35 SLR's, but lately I've had a nagging, sort of depressing feeling on seeing film fall by the wayside, if it's destined to do so. And after looking at this photo of this orpahan girl in some remot refugee camp that time had almost forgot, I had to ask myself..."Would this photo have been so great and inspiring if it had been done with a digital camera?"
What I mean is does the digital photo loose some of its impact/credibility, by the mere fact that it can so easily be altered or minipulated by current/future editing in the digital darkroom? I guess I'm speeking more of documentary photography here.
An example comes to mind, that timeless photog of US Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. What if that had been with a digital camera? Would it have been so powerful in its message and timeless in its appeal or would people just sort of look at it and say "nice pic, but it's probably been faked."
Now I know that even film/print images can and are inhanced in the darkroom, but there's a limit to how far you can go compared with digital image manipulaton, and somehow I think as a society we will be the lesser for it.
For me, one of the great things about photography is the way it makes time timeless. That frozen fraction of second where we see what we were, who we are and where we came from. Photography has so much power as a medium. It can cause us to laugh or cry. It can motivate nations and change national opinion in ways that the human pen could never fathom before its time. It's almost spiritual in nature, yet we now have the means to look at ourselves and wonder "is that really who we were/are" or is it "Memorex?
To me it's not imortant whether or not film will diie and be replaced by digital. Images will always be with us...but will they be the right images? Will anyone care? Will art replace the message or become the message? Will the image be our pimp and we the prostitue of some instant gratification that will only last unti we need another trick as it were?
Come on, make me feel good about the future of digital. Thanks bc
