>>2719092not even arguing the usefulness of digital in certain contexts. but where am i going: there was a time there were films that had certain properties, be it color, contrast, latitude, etc. people used them and some were fairly ok with the way they were. some others experimented with xpro, double expo, pushing, etc. all that not even counting the people that printed and then photographed the prints, the absolute madmen. then you get a wide range of tonalities from a given set of "limitations".
now digital, it give you a kind of bland negative for you to work out. and what people do with that? digital cancer (tonemapping), or, they try to imitate film. ive yet to see a truly creative or innovative use of digital for image treating.
>As for the guitar analogy, you have me beat.dude, any guy with a steel strings acoustic has tried that. sounds pretty much identical. string material is the same, sound transduction technique is the same (a coil plus magnet), frets are metal. been doing this for years, thats how i know.
