hmmmm. this "digital vs. traditional photography" thead isn't working out so well. I think I'll start one called "traditional vs. digital photography" and see if it goes better. i'm actually feeling lucky ...
LOL, I think you have a better chance of finding a winning lotery ticket on the sidewalk Paul, but knock yourself out.... :-)
No need for a picture Paul, with some people knowledge is evident..... ;-)
Hello,
A lot of you seem to be ignoring a significant point-on purpose I would presume. This point is that a PT/PD print or a traditional carbon print, bromoil or etc. is unlike anything else that can be made. Just as an image executed in tempura is very different than one executed in oil, or watercolor, or graphite, or etc.
I guess that one of the problems with photography is that some of the different processes/materials can be used in ways that makes them look very similar. And many of us just assume that they are all the same or nearly so and that that is the goal. This is too bad; in the rest of the art world a painter working with oil doesn't try to make it look like a watercolor painting.
To say that the content of the image is all that maters, and not what process is used to get to the image is just plain wrong. Otherwise no artist would still be using tempura, or oil- all painters would only be using the latest acrylic. All musicians would only be using the latest electronic equipment to make music.
In my experience, a silver print (or a modern digital print) does not look like a PT/PD print. They are very different and that is the point.
Sudek ambled across my mind one day and took his picture. Only he knows where it is.
David Vickery
The medium is not the message.
Is it any wonder that the debate on 'photography as art' persists when craft and process are held in such high esteem by photographers?
The medium is not the message.
But it is part of the message. The "message" is intimately linked to the way it is presented.
Then again why bother with craft, I can fix it later with PS....no? I guess this is where the "I have more control" part comes from.
The message is a product of the medium and the medium is a part of the message!
Why didn't Michelangelo use limestone instead of marble to make his "David"? Limestone was certainly available to him, much cheaper and can be used to make sculpture. But would "David" look the same--No!
Why do many classical musicians use period instruments?
Further, I would say that "craft" is one of the most important goals to be reached by any artist working in any medium. And this lack of Craftsmanship is one of the big problems with post-modern art in general, and many photographers in particular--IMHO. I would bet that Picasso, Adams, Weston, Marin, Stieglitz, Cunningham, Gilpin, Sheeler, Monet, etc. etc. would all have considered themselves to be Craftsmen/Craftswomen. And that that would be the goal to strive for regardless of the chosen medium-otherwise, your message will fail.
But I agree that many photographers do spend a lot of time arguing about which process is “best” when we all should just be trying to achieve Craftsmanship with whatever we choose to use. And then be open minded enough to take a close look at what others have produced and decide if that is the process that we would rather use.
Sudek ambled across my mind one day and took his picture. Only he knows where it is.
David Vickery
Then again why bother with craft, I can fix it later with PS....no? I guess this is where the "I have more control" part comes from.
I know this is the conventional wisdom about digital printing, but although I had really tried to sit this whole discussion out, I have to disagree.
I printed conventionally for years - not pt/pd as Jorge does, but enlarging onto both graded and VC papers. I usually made prints in sizes between 11x14 and 16x20. When I switched to digital printing, I found it MORE demanding of craft than making relatively small (well, normal sized by gelatin silver standards) prints.
To get the best results, I've reevaluated film/developer combinations. Some combos which silver print nicely (because they offer beautiful tonal distributions at the cost of a loss in sharpness or increased grain) just don't do well when scanned. On the other hand, some combos which don't look great on silver prints scan very well, and the tonal distribution can be worked out digitally when printing. I'm reevaluating what the best development is - is there an optimum negative density range for scanning, and if so, what is it?
In addition, I've just found that my camera technique was inadequate for the task of making 40" x 50" prints. I was just too sloppy - because most errors were hidden by the relatively small print size.
It's true that some problems are easily patched up via photoshop. Got a dust spot on the negative? Just use the healing brush, and bingo - that sucker is GONE.
But if you think that you're going to go out and photograph in crappy light, and fix it in photoshop I can tell you it isn't going to happen. If your composition is just rotten, you're not going to fix that digitally. If your exposure is bad, you can do some things digitally to dig out every last detail, but it's not the same as getting it right from start, and if you are making large prints, those little differences really show. If you didn't focus properly, you can sharpen it up some but you can't actually fix it so it looks the way it would if you had just focussed properly.
When digital printers talk about 'more control', I think that in general what they're referring to is the ability to adjust very small regions of the print and to adjust large numbers of such small areas. Working digitally, I can adjust a much smaller area than I can when silver printing, especially burning (dodging small areas can sometimes be done by bleaching). But the number of adjustments made can be large, because you make them once and then they appear in every print, as opposed to having to make them to every print you make. Tonal control when printing digitally is incredible. It makes using VC paper look limiting, and I was a big fan of the expressive flexiblity of VC paper (and, in fact, still am).
All that flexibility comes with a price tag. Just as all those new abilities make it possible to make better prints (and by better, I mean more expressive), they also make it possible to make really crappy prints in a million new ways. When making silver prints, it's possible to make what my family euphemistically calls a "Brave Artistic Choice" and do something which is just a bad idea. If you thought you'd exhausted the possible range of Brave Artistic Choices with silver printing, I can tell you that if you switch to digital printing, you can expect to explore entire new worlds of Brave Artistic Choices before you get the sense of what you're doing.
The bottom line here is that if you think that switching to digital printing is going to let you get away with inferior camera craft, I can tell you you're going to be tremendously disappointed if you make the switch.
And if you think that you're going to go out, buy a scanner, a computer, an inkjet printer, and Photoshop and it will magically transform you from Joe Nobody, unskilled gelatin silver printer, into the digital equivalent of a Paul Caponigro or Michael Kenna or John Sexton, you're likewise in for a big disappointment.
Mastering craft, technique, equipment and process is but a flea bite on the arse of the image.
But if you think that you're going to go out and photograph in crappy light, and fix it in photoshop I can tell you it isn't going to happen. If your composition is just rotten, you're not going to fix that digitally. If your exposure is bad, you can do some things digitally to dig out every last detail, but it's not the same as getting it right from start, and if you are making large prints, those little differences really show. If you didn't focus properly, you can sharpen it up some but you can't actually fix it so it looks the way it would if you had just focussed properly.
Perhaps this is true today, but how quickly is it improving. Come back in ...I dont know, how many years do you think it will be? 5? 15? 20, tops? and you WILL be able to do all those things, and so you will be able to get away with inferior camera craft. Its inevitable. I have a friend who is a graphic artist and I have seen him do things on his computer in 5 seconds that make me question whether you cant already do some of these things, like fix composition. He is a fine, skilled artist, but he aint no photographer.
"Mastering craft, technique, equipment and process is but a flea bite on the arse of the image."
That flee bite is the only pathway to consistently producing compelling images.
Sudek ambled across my mind one day and took his picture. Only he knows where it is.
David Vickery
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks