real vs. digital

A few posts on down a comment was left about the difference between my working with 8mm vs digital. Sure, there is something nostalgic about holding the film in my hands and getting superglue finger prints on a much needed frame, but I am truly glad that those days are behind me (as is my back...hated bending over the editor all night long). And here is why...

The other day I was showing my Illustration class a documentary on the making of "Blade Runner" posters. One of the artists said something to the affect that photoshop allows anyone to manipulate images...and that is true. However, I look at photoshop in the same light that I look at oil painting or any other media. It is different than oil painting, but it is just a tool - much like the camera obscura was 'back in the day' (and a lot of artists were dogged for using it). Just google "Photoshop art" and you'll see way more worse art than good art. If you aren't an artist, all the software in the world still makes your images look naive.

So, as far as editing 8mm vs Premiere Pro and needles scratching the emulsion vs After effects? I prefer the digital. It's quicker, cleaner, easier and allows me to use more of my creativity instantly. Now I can alter color and sound with out having to rely on the limits of 8mm. I can edit the very day I have shot a scene. I can cut and re-cut and re- cut over and over without worrying about ruining the original print.

I still draw on paper, I still oil paint and watercolor, still sculpt with clay and still (on occasion) shoot 35mm stills. But I'm sold on digital when it comes to editing. Hope that makes sense without sounding like I am anti film.