Finale

Digital photography was very threatening during the dawn of it's time. Many photographers has mixed feelings about digital. . . here are some examples from the book:
Richen, "whose thinking is haunted by an almost Orwellian nightmare of a future world of digital illusions (1990a: 3), saw that substitution of chemical by electronic processes as leading to a radical increase in the degree to which a photograph could be manipulated. Fearing a world in which images would no longer be trusted to reliably inform us about the wider world, he searched for strategies which would enable photojournalists to ward off the digital"(315)
I can understand why Richen would feel this way about digital photography, however coming from my point of view, I think that digital is very important within todays world. We are constantly evolving as a culture and it is important to keep up with those things. Eventhough it's rapid- it wont stop. There is no need to fight against some things. I think that dark room processes and film have a very special place and they can still be utilized in the art world, however as far as photography- there are new and better things- and they must be embraced as well. For my own work, digital is important because I can shoot so much more without having to worry about film.
William J. Mitchell, "in his view, digital image technologies would bring a 150-year period of 'false innocence' to an end; a false innocence belonging to the period during which chemical photographs provided us with images that we could comforably regard as ' casually generated truthful reports about things in the real world." (Michell 1992: 225- Pg 318)
I think that Mitchell was worried that digital couldn't do the same things that film can, and to a certain extend, this is true- however with technology at a rapid incline- i think that digital is coming to a point in time where is can do all the things that film can and so much more.
Crary observed " that the new constructed 'virtual' visual spaces of computer-generated imagery which were then emerging, were radically different from the 'mimetic capacities of film, photgraphy and television." (319)