From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 05/12/01-07:14:44 PM Z
> >>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.
Sandy, you do NOT have to justify doing digital. In fact from my perfectly
objective, balanced and common-sense perspective, the only reason NOT to
do digital is if you want the kinds of pictures obtainable with a view
camera, which may possibly (that's POSSIBLY) have more to offer in
delicate smooth tones.
But to me the advantages of being able to fix/adjust a 35 mm neg in
photoshop are mind boggling. I don't mean tricks a la uelsmann, I mean
being able to correct shadows, midtones and highlights SEPARATELY. If my
film of 38 frames all developed together didn't get that, does that mean I
don't deserve them? Which seems to be implied here.
I'm getting the sense of "and then we milked the cows and walked barefoot
through the snow 30 miles to school, you sissies don't know what real grit
is..." So there was a time photogs had to carry their darkroom on their
back and pour explosives onto glass while breathing ether to make a neg.
So what? Photography is a tool not a religion. So someone crawls over
broken glass to get a shot & develops it standing on one foot, & someone
else leans out the window & sends it to the lab -- the REAL work is in the
head.
HOWEVER -- Sandy, you CAN'T present economy as a point for digital. I got
a $300 Omega D2V used in 1985, will never get another. I spend at least in
the 4 figures yearly on digital equip't and end not in sight. They've got
you in their power.
ANOTHER however -- I think Bob conflates prints and negatives when he says
his print will be good whenever & the digital won't. On this list anyway,
I think we mean digital negatives & probably maybe digital cameras when we
say digital. Digital prints are another topic... And from what I've
learned on the Epson list, I'd say I have more control with a gum than
they do with all their head clogs, metamerism, problem profiles, papers
that fight with inks, dyes that die, blues that get too green, greens that
get too majenta, blacks that bronze, reds that turn yellow , mysterioso
error messages, cartridges that bleed and weep -- just reading it you
think it's more amazing than Uri Geller bending spoons. (And if you count
their time tweaking curves & profiles, the gum print is quicker too -- or
did I say that already?)
As I recall the beginning of this thread was about *negatives*.... So the
question would be which can make a better gum print, or if you insist,
salt or platinum print. As far as I know, this has nothing to do with
archivality, and everything to do with modus operandi.
I myself, if I live, hope to go through 20 years of negatives FULL of
imperfections, and make them perfect... Is that morally inferior to
lugging 40 pounds of equipment to Mount Killimanjaro?
But PS: Sandy, if you REALLY balance your checkbook on the computer -- oh
my, you live dangerously !
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST