[Smeagol]

Ok, I have two questions that I'd like all of your opinions on.

Ok, first, is digital photography as much of an art as the normal thing? I understand that you don't have to know as much technical stuff for the most part (film speed and stuff) But you can still set the camera shutter speed and aperture and all. It can also simulate film speed.

Secondly, I was just wondering if the 'hands on' element of developing is like what makes it less of an art if it is less. They now have some really nice SLR Digital Cameras to give the photographer alot of control of focus and all. But just does that take from it being like true photography at all.

And just one more, i just thought of. I've heard that in alot of cases the sensors on a nice digital camera are actually better at accurately capturing light. Any thoughts?

Anyway, anything else you guys thing on the subject is cool to, and if you have any photos you'd like to show, I'd love to see them.

God bless

- Matt

[Brent]

I would imagine they say it's less of an "art" because of the lack of extra work involved. ....but that's the whole reason digital cameras were invented! They're less work! I've never used one of the super expensive types of digital cameras, but they are said to be as close to the real thing as you can get, if not better. You can experiment with digital cameras a lot better because you can (in most cases) instantly see what you have instead of wasting film, time developing, and paper. Digital photography isn't necessarily more "goof-proof", it's just that you see fewer mistakes because they usually get corrected on the spot...

I took this digital photo in high school when I was in 11th grade....which was like 4 years ago. It's a picture of the Scotty Wilbanks, who formerly played keys (among other things) for Newsong. It's got a few jaggies in the pic because it's been saved, cropped, re-saved, etc. a few times since then and also because digital camera technology was nowhere near where it is now back in 1997...