Come again?

This is an actual blogring on Xanga. No offense but what cr*p is this? I have no idea if the person who started this is serious, but come on now! There is a place for everything, but the real issue is not whether film or digital is better but what constitutes real photography?

These types of debates have always raged on as photography took different forms throughout it's rather short 150+ year history. But as with any new format in photography, it's JUST A TOOL. Granted these tools can mean the difference between getting and not getting the shot, however, it really does come down to vision and skill. Yeah, shooting digital is not the same as film, the instant feedback must be a real killer and not having to work with carcinogenic chemicals must be a real downer. And those drives to the labs and paying for every single frame I shoot must bring on pangs of anger.

Get real...

The real test for those who say digital is not real photography is actually being able to tell the difference. I would bet 9 out 10 could not tell the difference between a file from an Nikon D2X or a Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II and a drum scanned image without REALLY looking closely at it. And even then, when it does get printed, is it even possible to see it after all the post processing?

So why so harsh on those who might differ? Because those new to photography get led astray on what really is important in photography. It's not the equipment, it's the SUBJECT. Your final product is the image itself of whatever you shot. What were you trying to say about your subject, the lighting, the composition, the essence (how I hate this word sometimes).

If you want to get a real perspective on this, read David Hurn and Bill Jay's "On Being a Photographer". This book will singlehandedly give you an excellent framework on how to approach shooting. Equipment is talked about here, but only concentrating on the essentials that will help you figure out what to get and how it's to be used.

I've only been doing pro photography for about 5 years since graduating from college. During that time, I've met many a fine photographer including my mentor at the Star Ledger of New Jersey who won a Pulitzer right after I finished my internship. I can tell you from working with him that it wasn't the equipment that made him a great photographer, it was his hard work, honesty, demeanor and vision. The equipment merely enabled him to fulfill what he was trying to show.

So before jumping into this whole my camera is better than yours or film/digital sucks debates, find what works for you. Because honestly, when people are looking at your pictures, rarely will they ever care what you used to take it. They'll be too enamored with the beauty of the image.