> At that time, even computer courses didn't do anything with output as
> negatives. Maybe all that's improved. Maybe I was just too early.
No you are right. At UNT (University of North Texas), the largest public
art school in the US there is terrible access to good digital
output...unless you consider a laser printer good. The students are
clueless, the faculty is just about the same (I hope they're not here
right now). I found that the print shop has a Lino and can do pretty
good film...your basic lith stuff. Nobody here has made enlarged digital
negs, except me. My MFA work will all be digital and the University will
benefit from my hard-headed tenacity. I came from a commercial
environment, where staying ahead or near the bleeding edge was
considered a survival skill. It ain't that way in Academia!
Also...
> the implication that
> the computer skill is easier to acquire than darkroom skills.
Also agreed. Basic photo compared to basic digital isn't close. Digital
students can make neat stuff..on the screen, but are pretty much in the
dark about output. I give them strict guidelines for two or three output
directions. Thay can follow written instructions, but they don't
understand what the choices are based on, how to calibrate, test, and
recalibrate. They get excited about Canon laser prints..gag.
Calibrating computer output is like trying to calibrate color balance on
20 different transparency film stocks for three or four lighting
conditions...it's a major pain and a neccesity. More than any beginner
can handle.
BYW, I love digital, but its a untamed (and constantly changing) beast
still.
Darryl