From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 05/13/01-02:42:53 PM Z
On Sun, 13 May 2001 bmaxey1@juno.com wrote:
> ...For me, there is no better way to get what I want than
> to use film. Show me any digital system that can equal the results
> obtainable using film, and I'll eat a big, old bug.
You got any locusts in the fridge?
But you're saying two things, one is "what I want" -- moving me to observe
that sometimes, for better or worse, we want what we can get... And the
other is "equal the results obtainable using film," which is something
else. I'm not given to eating bugs, though sometimes my words -- I
PROMISE, in many respects digital right now runs RINGS around film.
> Please forgive me - I live in a big OLD house, drive a big OLD car,
> restore OLD motorcycles, collect OLD furniture - it is in my nature to
> favor the old.
My house is older than your house, I never got a license to DRIVE a car, I
use a rotary phone (3, in fact), my furniture is not only OLD, half of it
was dragged in off the street, and as for *favoring the old*, I'm probably
one of the oldest flavors on this list. But facts is facts.
So in case some folks UNFAMILIAR with what digital can do for a photograph
are following this discussion : I have just given up on a book called
"Real World Scanning and Half Tones," because much vaunted as it is, I
find it incomplete and disorganized, like coming in in the middle of the
semester, telling me in great detail what I don't want to know, & totally
skipping the info I'm looking for (that's really irrelevant here, but I
feel better now, thanks for listening). However there are sections, as for
instance, on unsharp masking, and tonal correction that make clear the
kind of CONTROL you can have over a photograph (read "negative") with just
plain Photoshop. True, I've mentioned that, but seeing it laid out with
diagrams makes the point sharper. And I don't mean bells and whistles, I
mean basics.
Perhaps you get everything you want right off at its best possible
configuration... but some of us are greedy. Being able, for instance, to
accentuate/sharpen say, a figure in the foreground, while slightly
softening the background (for an example that comes to mind among the
INFINITE PERMUTATIONS) can, to some minds, greatly expand expression.
> ....Suppose you want to make 16 x 20, or 20 x
> 30 Gum Prints - The vast majority can't do it without spending a fortune.
Believe me, a 20 by 30 gum is a proposition because of the size of the
tray and the weight of the water... the negative is the least of it. But
for less than $1000 you can get the Epson 3000 which prints a negative 16
inches wide by as long as whatever... I got the 1160 which can make a
nearly 13 inch wide neg by 19 for $180. Larger printers now cost $3000 &
up, but presumably those prices will drop. However, my *guess* would be
that in quality of neg, starting with 35 mm as I do, I'd be better off
handling the up-scale digitally in any event (when I get the right book,
that is).
I agree with Darryl -- you can't teach just one or the other. But to
foreclose the reach of digital is to shut the door on an enormous arsenal.
As for *ease* -- I think we're having deja vu all over again. Years ago
someone (and I think it was you) dismissed digital as being for lazy
people. Digital is MUCH harder, if you figure in the learning curve it's
much MUCH harder, and if you figure in the dreadful, inexcusable,
pathetic, really BAD manuals, it's actually impossible.
> I can now handle 20 x 40 inch film stock should the need arise - I could
> not do this with digital techniques.
Just curious -- WHAT 20x40 film stock??? And how many digital printers
could you get for the price of one box, assuming it's available.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST