handmade digital prints

[Joe Smigiel]

"where is the enjoyment factor? Is it really there?"

Yeah, it is. So is the frustration factor. It's all more similar than I would have imagined.

I used to assume that working digital would feel sterile and would be an unrewarding experience, but that hasn't turned out to be the case.

And I'll just point out that to many of us dinosaurs, the digital workflow is sterile and unrewarding, is dissimilar to traditional processes, and thus lacks the enjoyment factor.

So, "to each their own" and enjoy what you do.

[Wayne]

these digital prints are ironically far more "handmade" than any traditional process that i have used.

ROFL...snap out of it man. Handmade means "not computer made", among a few other things.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Handmade means "not computer made", among a few other things."
I'd suggest it also means not machine made either - I certainly hope you don't use an enlarger - nasty mechanical things?

and heaven forbid that some of those nice "hand-made" wooden cameras are made using CNC maching - linked to a...gasp - computer

[David Luttmann]

LOL Wayne,

I'm trying to see just how your hands shaped the photons from the enlarger light source into the chemical image you see on paper. The hand made analog image is no more or less hand made than the one that someone spend time on the computer creating. You dodge & burn by moving paper to block or shape the light flow....I move a mouse to change the density. Both done by hand my friend.

This "hand-made" nonsense really is amusing when analog printers think the process is somehow art when done in a chemical tray, but not when done on computer. Sorry, but just as much work, and just as much skill go into either process. To think one process or the other somehow defines the term "art" or "hand-made," is simply to lack understanding of what is really involved in creating art.

[Wayne]

Hey Paddy and Dave-did I claim anything about making handmade prints myself? No I didnt, and I never have. In fact I've expressed my discomfort with the term in the past. So whats your problem(s)? Why arent you pouncing on Adrian, who did make that claim? Instead, we get Dave saying "You got that right Adrian". Thats a pretty hilarious display of pixel bias.

[Paddy Quinn]

Sorry Wayne - my misunderstanding. I didn't realise you were trolling.

If I'd have caught that I wouldn't have bothered with a serious answer

[David Luttmann]

What Paddy said......

[Steve J Murray]

I agree with adrian's original statement. I made darkroom prints for over 20 years, and I made some pretty nice prints. Nowadays I use scans or digital camera files and PS. I feel much more "connected" with the image now than I ever did in the darkroom. I can make more subtle adjustments and see the changes before wasting a sheet of expensive paper. I can really get the image to match my current "inner" vision of what I'd like it to look like. Often that inner image evolves as I work on it too, exploring the possibilities. I'm also now working with color, something I nevered ventured into in the darkroom days. To me all of this is a great artistic advantage, not something sterile and mechanical. I use both large format and digital cameras, depending on what I'm photographing. To me they are both just tools and I don't think about one being intrinsically "better" than the other.

[paulr]

"I feel much more "connected" with the image now than I ever did in the darkroom."

This is a good point. I think a lot of the sense of alchemy in the darkroom, and a lot of the challenge, comes from the fundamental 'disconnect' of certain parts of the process. What great darkroom workers do is overcome the disconnectedness ... they find a way to control the very indirect aspects of the process.

Some darkroom procedures are very direct ... like burning and dodging. I actually prefer simple darkroom burning and dodging to the equivalent steps in photoshop, because the darkroom tools are so quick and direct and intuitive. In photohop i'm always creating masks and applying adjustments to them. precise, but a lot of steps to do some pretty simple stuff sometimes.

Tonal controls are another story. In the darkroom, it's done by selecting materials, adjusting times, adjusting chemistry ... using experience and intuition--and often trial and error-- to try to predict the effect of changes. Very indirect. Very little obvious connection between procedure and the result. In photoshop tonal controls are very direct. Grab that curve and bend it! Instant feedback and irrefuteable logic. And a much faster source of education. Anyone who's struggled with understanding characteristic curves should spend a week playing with photoshop, even if they never plan to make a digital print in their lives. it will clarify a lot about analog printing.

These differences are not necesarilly good or bad ... it really depends on how you like working. the disconnectedness of tonal adjustment in the darkroom could be seen as a flaw, or as the fundamental, beautiful challenge. depends on who you ask.

[Wayne]

Really boys...it is a troll for me to scoff at a false statement? I can imagine how out of joint your noses would have been had it been I that said:

"I have no intention of starting any trouble. i have worked quite a bit doing digital prints, and have spent a lot of time getting what i was looking for traditionally. however i have just finished producing a series of colour prints traditionally and never have i spent so much time on each to get it the way i want it. the results are very satisfying and my point is that these traditional prints are far more "handmade" than any digital process that i have used."

I would have been accused of trolling. Ironic, huh?