bmaxey1@juno.com
Date: 05/12/01-12:52:11 PM Z
>>Don't discount the amount of precision (handling local contrast,
>>correcting tonal, compositional or other flaws, etc.) that digital
>>control affords. The projection enlarging system is wonderful for fluid
>>effects like edge burns or gross area dodging but it falls far short in
>>other areas.
Digital is getting better and will continue to do so. Digital can produce
some nice images. Digital will possibly end the reign of conventional
negatives - perhaps it has to some extent. However, it is not there quite
yet.
As for contrast and tone, Yes, Digital is good at doing this because of
its nature. But do not assume that a competent lab worker can't get equal
or better results with silver negatives and conventional techniques.
Digital folks can edit an image to the pixel level - I can't "Edit" to
the silver grain level. Yes digital has advantages.
As for correcting "Flaws" in composition, you got me there. Digital
techniques can change the image in ways old schoolers like me can't - or
at least can't do as easily. I think that you can look at any image ever
produced and someone will think that it would be better if that tree was
on the right side rather than the left; or there are too many people in
the picture - lets eliminate some. In my opinion, this can lead to lazy
photographers who are happy just to have a negative with the basics on
it, thinking they can add or subtract or correct as needed.
Digital folks can do this easily, I can't do it as easily, but I can
still do it. Granted, it will take loads of work like stripping emulsion
layers and recombining them, or breaking out the old airbrush, or making
masks, or using Crocein Scarlet to local control contrast. I mention
stripping because at one time, people routinely removed some objects
using chemicals and stripping off each layer of the color image and
reassemble them on a new support.
I do not think many on this list would care to do this.
What happens to photography? MY opinion here, but if digital folks are
thinking about all those great tools (Photoshop) that can solve their
problems with exposure and composition, then photography looses just a
little. Rather than having people who tune the image in the camera and
end up with a result that is to their liking, we have far too many
photographers out there believing that the road to a perfect (?) image
starts and ends with their computers. After all, why worry about the
little things like exposure and composition, when a sure cure is in their
darkroom; er, their Photoshop Software. AGAIN, MY OPINION HERE.
At one time, if we wanted to photograph a ballroom and remove the people,
we did so with either lonnnng exposures, hundreds of multiple exposures
or sought the services of a skilled artist. Digital eliminates much of
this. If we photographed a building, we only had to make one or two
exposures, confident we got what we needed. We did not rely on digital to
correct it, or dozens of silly Polaroid text shots and then shoot a roll
of film just to get a good image.
If we were photographing a train or a large group of people, we did so
with Banquet, large formats like 11 x 14 or 8 x 10, and Cirkit Cameras.
No one uses these much these days. I would bet more than one photographer
on this list uses small formats like 4 x 5 to do their film based work on
a 'professional' basis. Their results satisfy them and their customers,
and I guess if everyone is pleased, fine. But there could be more.
>>If you've seen any masterfully handled Quadtone prints made with Jon
>>Cone's Piezography software and Epson printers, you know that the
digital
>>lightroom is a place of magic and possibilities that excites the
>>photographic soul as much as the traditional darkroom.
I have not seen the above so I can't comment except generally. Perhaps
you are correct about what you say, but still, in the hands of a
competent printer, there is little that can't be done. Again, digital is
faster, but not always better. It is another option.
What bothers me is the idea that a competent Photoshop worker can take a
single negative and make a million different versions fast, fast, fast.
This is the benefit of computers. If I want different versions I must
work for them. I loose in the speed arena.
I will also be the first to admit that if we had good digital systems
available twenty years ago, we would not be comparing the techniques. I
foresee the day when Eastman stops making sheet film because digital will
become so good. My days seem to be numbered - I WILL ADMIT THIS. This is
a safe assumption, as Kodak has eliminated most of the products I loved
to use - papers, chemicals and equipment for example.
>(I said) I never use digital
>techniques for anything photographic that I am serious about.
>>(you said) I use any and all techniques for anything photographic that
I am serious
>>about. Hard to imagine why one would choose otherwise.
I never use digital because I work in a different way. Old School works
for me. I know what I can do and how best to proceed. I know that I can
still get better results my way. What I prize is tone range and extreme
sharpness. Digital can get there eventually, but not yet. If I need a
negative from a slide for example, I can get an extremely good one in a
few hours. From all the posts about this, I will hazard a guess that
many on this list are having troubles finding that perfect printer,
toner, substrate combo to do what they want to do - not so with me.
How many of you read about a printer and/or substrate, make their
negatives digitally, and then find something better and redo their negs?
How many worry about the archival qualities of their chosen material? How
many print dozens of images digitally, still not satisfied with their
technical aspects? I will hazard a guess that some do. I don't worry
because once I have my negatives stored safely in a Kraft Envelope, I
have everything I need to make the print. This is not a slam against any
on this list, by the way. You have your way, I have mine.
There is also the question of longevity. With silver and careful
processing, my negs will be useful hundreds of years from now - this is a
simple, uncontested fact.. Digital folks can't say this because we do not
yet know how permanent they are. Read the literature and you will see
that there is still huge contention in this area.
Old schoolers have their opinions that often clash with the digital
workers out there and that is not likely to change.
Digital is the future, and I have no problems with it. Use it if you want
to, but please do not forget the amazing possibilities of a traditional
approach.
B.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST