It's not a context of art history or what is practical or possible. Many of us are looking for inspiration or good examples of certain methods of craftsmanship, some for wet craftsmanship, some for computer skill.Originally Posted by williaty
It's not a context of art history or what is practical or possible. Many of us are looking for inspiration or good examples of certain methods of craftsmanship, some for wet craftsmanship, some for computer skill.
Any photo that is displayed online is a digital photo at some point in the process. "Truth" has nothing to do with it--if it doesn't say, then there is no representation of just when that conversion to digital took place. Even Maris's caption under his gum tree photo is untrue, because we are not looking at the thing being described in his caption when we are looking at that gum tree on our computer monitors. He describes it as "Gelatin-silver photograph on Ultrafine Silver Eagle VC FB photographic paper, image size 21.4cm X 16.3cm..." But what I'm looking at is a 4-1/4 x 5-5/8" display on the lousy TFT screen of a Dell laptop computer. I have no idea whatsover how he made the transition from gelatin silver to digital file I can see on my laptop, and he says nothing about it. There is no way he could have avoided distortions in that process.
We need to get over this.
I've seen many scans of actual prints that looked terrible. If I'm making a print to scan, I have to make it differently than a print I would make to view. And the scanning step causes a generational loss that not everyone is skilled at minimizing.
If you are curious about whether something being displayed got its particular tone (assuming your monitor can display it accurately in the first place) from selenium or from Photoshop, ask. We don't need some formal reporting process, when at the end, most will be viewing the result on their iPhone or their Dell laptop display or whatever.
Also, please understand that we are not the APUG part of Photrio--we are about large format photography, and use darkroom printing as a means to an end, and just one of several. This forum encourages but is not the vector of the "darkroom movement", except that all large format photography requires the use of film for the initial capture, simply because there are no digital sensors that are 4x5" or larger.
Rick "who hasn't printed under an enlarger in many years" Denney
It doesn't help me make better negatives or know which ones to print if I photoshop all the scans. My scanner is pretty damn good at pointing out which negatives make good prints. so I pretty much just scan and don't correct as it is my contact sheet. I can look at a scan a preplan any burning-dodging etc. If digital is your final step in film photo I guess you do corrections. But its not my final output, which comes from the darkroom.
Well said, Rick.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
+1
Bill Poole
"Speak softly, but carry a big camera."
We all wish we didn't have to live with the atom bomb, but it won't go away either. We're better off accepting what IS and moving forward with it the best we can. In the end, none of these pictures is really very important. It's a hobby, a distraction. I enjoy looking at the scanned pics. No game changers. This isn't a religion.
AMEN brother Jim!
Devil's Advocate: So you don't mind if posters start suddenly imitating "Galli style" using PS instead of a real soft focus lens. Why buy one of your expensive lenses when push of a button does the same thing.
I pray for a perfect image every time. The lord allows me to mess things up to teach me a lesson. Trust me, its a religion.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
http://www.searing.photography
If the computer genies can actually make an algo-rythm that approximates a Pinkham Series IV, I'm helpless to do anything about it. Totally out of my hands and honestly, won't really bother me (although I believe it's impossible).
This tongue in cheek I won't dignify. These pictures really don't matter. I'm certainly painfully aware that mine at least do not.
But you are broaching a deeper subject. Is fixing a picture from a negative that was really pretty awful and making it look "great" in photoshop which it likely could not have with all the Ansel Adams fussing in the world, dishonest. Are the people who post here . . liars??
Are humans at some level rotten at the core? Do we try to fool others into thinking we are better than we really are? Now those are religious questions and we best use caution so that the forum gods don't delete our posts.
I have a couple good photographs but horrid negatives. Scanning and editing brings them back from the "impossible to print" bin* to the "looks pretty good" drawer.
Re-burning via LVT a "Photoshopped" image back to 4x5 is possible and on my list of things to do when I get some cash to "burn.". At that point it will be a digitized film image re-exposed onto a new negative, and then printed traditionally.
It's pretty cool that we live in a time that this is even possible!
*Impossible for me, possible maybe for someone else who is a darkroom master.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks