Blood sweat and tears vs new technology

Over the last few days I too have been considering the argument brought up on Monday that spending 60 hours in a darkroom is more worthwhile than 10 hours on photoshop. I can see how if a person pours their blood sweat and tears into a project the end result will be more satisfying. However it does not necessarily mean that it involved more skill or will be any better than the photoshop creation.

This argument reminded me of one several of my friends were having over the use a a Wacom tablet (now this is amazing technology). To those of you who do not know what this is it is a tool used by graphic design artists. It consists of a pad type thing and a pressure sensitive pen that you plug into the computer.

What you draw then shows up on the computer screen. You can also do all sorts of other crazy shit. As you can probably tell already I don't know the finer points of this device. But basically it allows the artist to create illustrations more quickly and with more detail than simply drawing by hand. I was absolutely blown away by some of the pictures the tablet allowed the user to create. Check out the one below! (There are more at http://ctrlzzzzz.deviantart.com/)

Anyways there was much debate over whether the end result was as legitimate/viable as the 'real' thing. What people do not realise however is that to create images of this quality actually takes years and years of practise as well as a large amount of god given talent.

I have never used photoshop myself but I can imagine there is a similar dynamic between that and traditional photography. I don't think that one is better or has more artistic value than the other because they are two different mediums. You simply cannot compare them. Well thats what I think anyway.

Alan