"Colin D" wrote in message
...

A few of his statements I don't entirely agree with, such as where he
states that a film image is fixed for eternity

I believe that he is comparing the "fixed" quality of the image negative (as
interpreted in the classic sense--before scanning and digital manipulation
came onto the scene) with the characteristic of images born digital to be in
a state of change--that the digital image is virtually guaranteed to be
tweaked, manipulated, changed--if only because it is so easy to do so. Back
in the days of negatives and enlargers, one could not easily change the
image that was fixed on the film. It could be dodged, burned and cleaned up
a bit, bit it remained fundamentally the same.




Also, I don't entirely agree with digital imagery being in the business
of constructing reality rather than recording reality.

Viewed in comparison to the "fixed" image on film, digital images can be
radically changed from what the original file looked like. I think he is
suggesting that the direction that digital imaging is headed is toward a
workflow where the original image is merely the starting point, and the
final product often bears little resemblance to the original image (not
always, but very often, of course).

It would appear that virtually everyone that takes digital imaging seriously
makes routine use of PS, PSP or other editing software. As one's skill set
improves, there is a tendency to try more types of image manipulation from
the editing software's tool kit. Back in the film days, before scanners,
the emphasis was to create the image at the time the camera took the shot.
The photographer had an entirely different orientation. Now, taking the
shot is the first step, not the last step.