From: Darryl Baird (dbaird@umflint.edu)
Date: 05/13/01-09:19:10 AM Z
Bob,
First let me say I'm pretty quick to disagree with anyone who slights
digital processes as a feasible or viable means to alternative process
production. I just know too much about the beast to believe otherwise.
Having said that, I want it to be clear I believe ALL methods are
valuable, valid, and valiant. Everybody here is serious or dedicated (or
slightly deranged).
However, there are still points you make which are either missing my
point(s) or are generally inaccurate with regards to digital negatives.
By the term "digital negatives" I'm also referring to imagesetter
negatives made on high resolution lith film by extremely precise laser
technology -- what is standard in the printing industry (where I used to work).
bmaxey1@juno.com wrote:
> 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.
I don't know if you didn't read what I wrote or are just being
argumentative. I said
"making an enlarged digital negative would accomplish (a matched
edition) with much less production time (no continuous enlargement
gyrations), maybe even have an assistant print from the "master" digital
negative." Once the burning and dodging and tonal scale is "perfected"
the only task left is exposure and development. The original context (I
responded to) was silver gelatin prints from dig. negs. I'd still say
this is unquestionable. I wasn't referring to prints from an existing
alternative process neg or matrix, that's not my argument.
> 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..
I don't know where you getting your information, but if this were true
(with imagesetter film negs) the entire printing industry would crumble.
Consistency is paramount with this technology. If you are referring to
ink jet negs, produced by Epson or other brand desktop printers, ok.
BUT, this isn't the only type of digital neg. available, but it is the cheapest.
> >>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.
The ability to experiment electronically, BEFORE committing to film is
an aid which I'd argue saves tremendous time, creative energy (for me
the most precious commodity), and money. For photomontage, nothing
equals the computer. The ability to control transparency amongst
multiple layers of imagery is an awesome if not impossible task
conventionally. This is an argument of degrees of difficulty. Without a
computer, compromises are determined by the materials -- in this case
the film and darkroom tools. I won't except that limitation when I KNOW
what the computer will allow me (the artist me) to produce.
> 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.
Compromise? No compromise here, I have the vacuum frame, the
metal-halide light source, the tested pigments, the lenses, the
enlarger, the full darkroom, and the computer. ALL these are tools and
ALL will produce what I want, if I spend the time, money, and energy to
make them work with with the images I want to produce. Having a computer
is no compromise, it is a bonus; for me it's a level of comfort.
What is funny (to me) is the situation I find my self in as a teacher. I
must know how to use analog (real film) techniques to teach these
processes to students. We don't have an imagesetter or easy and cheap
access to one here, so I must teach students how to achieve good results
the "old" way (your words, not mine). To push them to use only digital
methods might seem ideal, but it would be unethical to give them a
narrow approach. I teach them both ways, which allows both the choice
and the knowledge there are variable access points.
> 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.
The error in this scenario is knowing what resolution is needed to
exceed the size of film grain. If your resolution is sufficient to make
marks on the film which will not be seen as anything but film grain, you
have enough resolution. A 72mb file will produce a "film resolution"
digital original 4X5 TMAX 100 negative. For lith film, the demands are
even less. My 11X14 imagesetter negatives are around 30mb. This isn't
difficult for most computers to handle. Dan's book spells this out very
well. In short, full resolution isn't what the scanner can produce, but
what you need to replicate film grain size.
> With film, I have what I need in the negative with no scanning or fooling
> around. It is at high resolution.
Yes. But is it at the size you need? This is point where to use (or not)
digital methods seems to be decided.
> 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.
I don't quite understand the point here. I guess ease is in the eye of
the creator.
--Darryl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST