Moonrise Hernandez 2007

[roteague]

Different tools. An 8x10 or 11x14 print from a higher end modern DSLR will be sharp and beautiful if the photograph itself stands up.

Sharpness is not the only quality, for me color is much more important. Digital color just doesn't look right to me. It may surprise some here, but I have a digital camera - like a lot of people - I have a Nikon D200. I also have a Nikon F6, whose results I prefer.

[QT Luong]

There is no doubt in my eyes that in landscape photography, the color straight out of a slide, particularly one with high-saturation film, is more pleasant than the one straight out of a digital capture.

However, if enough digital work is done, an image captured digitally can be made into a print with color at least as pleasant as the image captured on film.

[jetcode]

Whether he would have chosen both mediums is questionable.

A tool is a tool is a tool

[roteague]

A tool is a tool is a tool

But, you don't use a shovel when a wrench is called for. We don't know what Ansel may or may not have used. His statements are pure speculation, based upon technology that didn't exist when he lived and that he knew nothing about. No one knows what another person would do in a given situation until it happens.

[roteague]

However, if enough digital work is done, an image captured digitally can be made into a print with color at least as pleasant as the image captured on film.

I haven't found that to be true. I've got Photoshop CS2 and Lightroom 1.3 and still can't come up with anything I find pleasing enough to make me give up my F6. BTW, computers don't scare me; I've been a senior Windows programmer for many years.

[Jordan]

Large Format photography is clearly about the process. I love the process, as I know all of you do. Some art isn't only about the finished piece but what it actually took to make the finished piece. I personally don't care for Photoshop other than to proof negatives. The thing that is bad about technology is that it often causes other means of doing the same thing to disappear. I like options, not whatever is the newest most simple way to achieve what is thought of as the ideal finished product. I have way more control in the darkroom over my print than on the computer. I am young and nostalgic all at the same time........ and a total photo geek!!!!!!!

[Kirk Gittings]

As you are entitled to your own as well.

My printing methods are exactly the same as used by Jack Dykinga, Ken Duncan, Joe Cornish, Tom Till .... I'll take their work over Ansel Adams any day.

As I posted on an earlier thread, Don Boyd and I were just at Tom Tills gallery. Great images, but I thought the prints were crap, oversaturate to the point of blocked patches of out of gamut color, out of register masks etc. I was extremely disappointed. Don had been there before and already was of the same opinion. While your methods may be the same, I hope your standards are higher.

[roteague]

As I posted on an earlier thread, Don Boyd and I were just at Tom Tills gallery. Great images, but I thought the prints were crap, oversaturate to the point of blocked patches of out of gamut color, out of register masks etc. I was extremely disappointed. Don had been there before and already was of the same opinion. While your methods may be the same, I hope your standards are higher.

I haven't been to his gallery in years, so I can't speak to his work. I was at Ken Duncan's gallery just a couple of months ago, and found his work excellent. I also use the same lab as Jack Dykinga. So, I think I'm in good company.

[Bill_1856]

blocked patches of out of gamut color, .

What does that mean?

[Kirk Gittings]

Areas of deep flat color. In this case, for instance, a print with red flowers in the foreground where the color saturation has been pushed up to the point where it reaches the limit of the papers color, the tones then flatten out and subtleties of color and tone get lost. It looks like a kind of posterization of the colors that are out of gamut. Does that make sense?