Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 09:19:21 -0700
> >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 today's arguments will be outdated at best, and embarrassingly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.
>
> > 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.
>
> >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.
>
> >There is no Y2K in a Goertz Dagor lens<
> You shoudda bought a Mac.
>
> In all friendliness,
>
> Dan
I find your comments rude and in defence, not on friendly terms. My dark
cloth is not smelly. My darkroom is immaculate, but that's not the point.
First point, digital folks are defensive. The Quality is offensive, the
photogrtaphic industry is acating it's resources in silver gelatin product
to support the digital age.
It's not in the name of art, nothing to do with art; it's for the ease of
image reproduction.
For me, and I emphasize this is my perspective that segues into the digital
discussion; it's not about making images but the print. The print through
silver gelatin negative photography is like painting.
This is not about acryllic replacing oils in the paint world. It's about a
greedy time we live in when the big yellow Kodak has replaced film stock as
fast as CEOs and doens' give a flying damn about the continuation of 'the
print.' It's about investing at the sacrifice of others (namely ME, bubba)
and the digital output is crap!
Move ove Picasso, here's Xerox machine art. Well, Picasso would buy one,
and paint it; use it and use the money for more oils.
There is not now, nore possibly ever be anything that compares to a well
exicuted 8X10 negative contact printed on paper coated with metal salts.
One to one. No generations' intermediary. Electronics just arent' there.
They're linear or parallel, but not with the minute dimension of ...
Chill baby, you'll not be there in ten live times. It's a different medium,
face it.
Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31