[snip]
Hmmm... where to begin? Envrionmental damage due to driving your car to
the service bureau, eh? I suppose we might as well stop going to the
supermarket or to work as well.
Worried about technical difficulties and breakdown. Perhaps we should
forego our print exposure systems in favor of the sun -- though not here
in New England today, I'm afraid. Perhaps we best not use anything that
runs on electricity for fear that the electricty might go out sometime.
Judy, when we use technology we accept the risks that come along with
it. In the case of computers, an occasional failure of some piece of
hardware is not unheard of, but for the most part the things seem to run
pretty well. Just because there is a *risk* of failure, I don't think we
should go burying our heads in the sand.
Now on to aesthetic issues...
I am using Photoshop and I really feel that my art has improved as a
result. Photoshop allows me to get onto paper what I envision in my head
when I am taking the picture. I suppose I could do everything that I am
doing in Photoshop manually, in a darkroom with contrast masks, dodging
and burning, and retouching negatives. However, that would require that I
go to great expense to build a darkroom, (as I don't have one now) not to
mention the space the equipment would occupy. I'd have to buy a lot of
expensive toys which have the potential to breakdown (such as an enlarger
capable of handling my 8x10 negatives), necessitating that I send them
back to the manufacturer for repair, running the risk that he may have
gone out of business in the meantime. Plus the environmental damage!
Running to the photo shop all the time to buy chemistry, film, retouching
pencils and dyene. Imagine all those chemicals!
Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic, but it was not meant to be
mean-spirited, nor a personal attack on you -- our good, and respected
friend -- Judy. I was merely trying to illustrate that everything has a
price, including the old-fashioned way of working photographs.
However, there is truth in what I wrote. I don't have a darkroom, and I
am currently working on printing 16x20. I find that the easiest way to
get enlarged negatives (which have all the dodging, burning, contrast
adjustments, etc. already included) is by going the Photoshop route. I'm
not afraid to use Photoshop just because some big corporation is behind it
-- Adobe in this case. Afterall, I use Kodak film too. But to respond to
your concern of software obsolesence... I can assure you, that the State
Security Apparatus will not be breaking down your door demanding you turn
over your obsolete software. If you want to use the current version of
Photoshop 'til the day you die, you can do so, even if there are upgrades,
replacements, or the company goes belly up.
I still haven't really addressed your concerns regarding the *art* that
results from using digital manipulation, so let me try to do so now. You
mention attaching a girl's head to a cow's body. Well, yes. You could do
that, and quite easily I might add. But the real point is, just because
you *can*, should you? And this is the real crux of the matter.
Photoshop is only a tool, just like your dyene, pencils or enlarger -- no
different *at all*. Using either digital or analog tools it is possible
to create abominations, but just as it is possible to create masterpieces
with analog materials, so is it using digital tools.
Let's suppose for the moment (big suspension of disbelief here, I know),
that you, Judy, are working on one of your photos using Photoshop. Do you
think you would want to make the image look any different than you would
if you were using analog tools? Do you think that suddenly you will be
overcome by an uncontrollable urge to put girl's heads on cow bodies? Of
course not. In the end what you would get, is precisely what you wanted,
no more and no less. You say you have not seen any good art come from
digitally manipulated images. If you were to make one, are you assuming
it would be crap? Digital manipulation is only a tool, and what matters
is the person that is wielding that tool.
I understand that you feel you can achieve the results you want more
easily and quickly by retouching your negatives. However, recall that
those procedures had a learning curve associated with them as well. You
didn't just wake up one morning the Master of Dyene. For many people,
though not all, digital manipulation, once learned, is far easier than
analog methods. The ability to instantly "undo" what you just did is a
godsend. To be able to have several versions of the same image up on the
screen at once so that you can compare them before deciding which
direction you want to go, etc.
Also, I think that there are a lot of people who may have outstanding
artistic vision, but whose expression of that vision has been restrained
by their lack of technical darkroom skills. Fo these people, programs
like Photoshop allow them to finally be able to express their art.
As to why everything you have seen thus far is drek, well, there is a
learning curve associated with any new technology. It will take some
time before many truly talented photographers learn to use these programs
and then apply the technology. Until then, most of what you will see
will be the amateurish offerings of weekend Photoshoppers. Also, just as
with any new technology, there is a settling period. At first, given the
power to put girl's heads of cow bodies, or electronically over-sharpen
images (my personal pet peeve), you will see people doing it, just
because they can. Only when they calm down and really begin to consider
what they've done will they stop to think if they should have.
Keep an open mind Judy. remember that much of the technology you are
using was once new and modern too. :)
Best regards,
David Fokos