DanPhoto@aol.com
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
Patrick Alt asks:
> So, my
>question to those out there in computer land, if it takes so long, costs so
>much, has such inferior quality, and is a source of such seemingly endless
>problems, why are you doing it?
Ok, guess I gotta take the bait on this one. Patrick has done such a fine
job of outlining his concerns that he deserves some light-hearted
rebuttal.
Dan answers piece by piece:
>if it takes so long<
Learning Photoshop is a chore without a doubt. But there really isn't
anything in digital imaging as difficult to explain to newbies as
f-stops! The quality of training material and instructors up to this
point (hailing from the computer world rather than the photographic) has
much to do with how "difficult" digital can seem.
Yes, I too resent any learning curve that detracts from the creative
process. But I bet those early photographers who mixed their own
emulsions spend a lot more time in their labs than meditating under a
stinking dark cloth! That's just where we are with digital at the moment.
Like they say, the pioneers get the arrows; the settlers get the land.
You may be one of the few who never benefits from the time and effort
some digital pioneers are devoting, but legions of others WILL benefit
with lower costs, better qualtiy, and more time for the creative process.
Count your blessings!
>costs so much<
I do my own scanning with a Polaroid film scanner so the cost per scan
isn't bad at all. As for output, I get four 8 x 10 negatives made for
about $8.75 each. That certainly doesn't seem outrageous. Your $150 per
image figure is far from typical, maybe even science-fictional.
>has such inferior quality<
I guess I could take a cheap shot and say something about the plethora of
large format images I've seen that have that "I'll put my camera here
because nothing will move" feel about them. Sure, every tone is in its
place but the images lack any spirit, sense of playfulness or
spontaneity. For those of us shooting with smaller cameras for whatever
reason, digital can offer a good way to get to a larger negative quickly
and with a degree of control unequaled in the wet darkroom.
When platinum prints from digital negatives command good price at
respected auctions (S.F. Camerawork, Houston Center of Photography,
Friends of Photography, etc.), it's probably a good indication that the
quality can be very good. And when the president of a major photographic
organization (and Sotheby's representative) pays $850 for a 6x9 print
made from a digital negative, her message most likely isn't that the
quality stinks.
I think you just need to exercise some patience. We are at a very early
stage in integrating digital control into our photographic processes. As
time progresses, the digital hassles will diminish, the quality will be
easier to achieve, and the costs will decline. In a few years, most of
today's arguments will be outdated at best, and embarrassingly
irrelevant at worst.
> a source of such seemingly endless problems<
Come on Patrick, get an historical perspective here. As I've said before,
unless you're coating your own wet plates, I won't listen to the "my
camera is 75 years old" arguments. Who cares how old your camera is. Is
your film 75 years old? I don't think so.
> what is to keep the companies we count on to continue to supply us with
materials in which to do our work<
It ain't in my job description to assure the continuance of anyone's
materials. Are you buying glass plates? Photography IS change and, regret
it though we may when some materials become scarce, it's certainly not a
rational argument for ignoring (or resenting) advances in the medium.
>everything there is done by my hand<
So you made your own paper and harvested the trees for your frames too?
No seriously, I admire your approach but feel that each artist has to
stake out her own terms and limits for the "I did it myself" snobbery. I
agree that it is a very human impulse to want to make things with our
hands. I too hand-coat my prints and cut mats and such, but I'll be
darned if I miss certain wet steps that were never anything but busy-body
work. (And when I can afford an assistant who can cut mats properly I
won't regret delegating THAT task too.) In other words, I shop at a
grocery store cause I have no interest in tending a garden. Do I enjoy
dinner as much as the organic devotee who moments before dug up his own
potatoes? I don't know and I don't care. And you shouldn't either!
>why are you doing it<
Because it's more fun than dust on sheet film or holes in the bellows.
Because it's exciting to learn new things. Because trail blazing has its
own rewards. Because it's yet another area where unplanned mistakes lead
to happy discoveries. Because creative impulses honor neither history nor
electrons. Because it IS photography.
>sharing the focusing cloth with those friendly spirits who reside in there
with me<
Hey Patrick, if you're on such friendly terms with the spirit world, why
don't you perform an exorcism on the bastards lurking in my Mac. Ha!
>There is no Y2K in a Goertz Dagor lens<
You shoudda bought a Mac.
In all friendliness,
Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31