Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
Hi Cindy —
Oh, dear. The woods are full of them really, though the odd bozoid like this does manage to come outta the trees occasionally. Some find gainful employment as speed humps. Others populate committees (including, presumably, the one behind this contest).
In the end, it's often easiest to walk away to better things. But since you've gone to quite some trouble already, by the sound of things, and do want to participate, here's a couple of "discussion" points to keep up your sleeve.
1. The "digital" component of this is only a recording medium (i.e. a passive vehicle) for the photographer's creative perception, skill and effort, and not a creative process of itself.
2. If necessary get them to admit that, if any "acceptable" (photochemically produced) entry to the competition were hypothetically to be saluted or otherwise publicised via offset print, in a high quality magazine, then the viewed result would remain "authentic" — i.e. a legitimate photographic work. Then observe that such an image could virtually not exist in print in 2002 without being digitised; in this case via two digital steps: scanning and then imagesetting (either to film separations or direct to the printing plates). I doubt they'll find a way to argue around this.
Mike
Oh, dear. The woods are full of them really, though the odd bozoid like this does manage to come outta the trees occasionally. Some find gainful employment as speed humps. Others populate committees (including, presumably, the one behind this contest).
In the end, it's often easiest to walk away to better things. But since you've gone to quite some trouble already, by the sound of things, and do want to participate, here's a couple of "discussion" points to keep up your sleeve.
1. The "digital" component of this is only a recording medium (i.e. a passive vehicle) for the photographer's creative perception, skill and effort, and not a creative process of itself.
2. If necessary get them to admit that, if any "acceptable" (photochemically produced) entry to the competition were hypothetically to be saluted or otherwise publicised via offset print, in a high quality magazine, then the viewed result would remain "authentic" — i.e. a legitimate photographic work. Then observe that such an image could virtually not exist in print in 2002 without being digitised; in this case via two digital steps: scanning and then imagesetting (either to film separations or direct to the printing plates). I doubt they'll find a way to argue around this.
Mike
