bmaxey1@juno.com
Date: 05/12/01-01:56:49 PM Z
>>1) I want to make an edition of (silver) prints and want them to match,
which >>making an enlarged digital negative would accomplish with much
less >>production time (no continuous enlargement girations), maybe even
have an >>assistant print from the "master" digital negative
Are you saying that making a matched run of prints can't be done
conventionally? Once I have the tissue done and I have made a test
exposure, 10,000 prints later, they will all look the same. I am afraid
decades of doing just that indicates you are incorrect. Give me the
negative and I can make how ever many thousands of prints you might
require and they will match.
Incidentally, you will see all kinds of minute differences when you
electronically print your negatives. If you print enough of them, there
will be slight differences. Make a digital neg today, and it will not
exactly match the one you make in a month. My negs will not change when I
print it decades from now..
>>2) I have developed a chemical allergy which prevents my using wet
darkroom >>techniques
Lots of people can develop problems like contact dermatitis and it does
indeed remove them from the darkroom. Valid point
>>3) I like to (maybe excel at) make imagery on the computer screen
instead of a >>J. Uelsmann or D. Prince style of photo montage.
Digital can also help here, but so can other methods.
>>4) I choose to not buy a full darkroom with my limited budget, but
instead use >>a computer system which will also balance my checkbook,
figure my taxes, >>keep my calendar, print my letters, connect me to
Alt-process list, and lets me >>order chemistry at 2:00 am? My enlarger
is nice, but not as functional as the >>computer.
Certainly, the computer has many uses besides photography. But you can
make the same argument about other items as well. If you want great
darkroom created images, you need a great darkroom, a place for it,
power, water, etc. No getting around that. Computers are all-in-one
devices that seem perfect for those who want to compromise to some
extent.
>>Film is great, computers are geat. Images are the only thing we need to
be >>serious about.
Yes.
>>BTW, is there something un-serious about faster and cheaper?
Not at all. But there can be far more cost associated with digital images
compared to film. As a test, I just now tried scanning a book cover in
full color on my high resolution scanner. At full resolution, the
resulting file size dialog tells me that I can't scan at the size and
resolution I want to because the file is far to big, It reports to me
that the file is 409.74 mb at 1200 DPI; 1.6 Gigs at 2400 DPI; 14 Gigs at
7200 DPI and a whopping 25.6 gigs at 9600 DPI. Even if I scan a black and
white image at full resolution, the file size is far to big to deal with
easily.
This means my ability to work with a high quality scan at full resolution
is an impossible task without adding far more memory.
With film, I have what I need in the negative with no scanning or fooling
around. It is at high resolution.
This can be argued that I do not need full resolution, but why bother in
the first place if I cant easily use my wonder computer.
B.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST