View Full Version : Has Digital Changed Darkroom Printing?
Peter Lewin
27-Feb-2024, 15:34
Background: building excitement for my summer trip to Scotland, I've been looking at (B&W) pictures others have taken of the Hebrides, Orkneys, standing stones, and so on. I found one site I really like (https://tomrichardsonphotography.mypixieset.com) whose Scottish gallery has many dramatic images that I would have been proud to make. We exchanged emails, and while Tom started in film, he has switched to digital for the options in printing which I don't think can be duplicated (at least by mortals like me) in the darkroom. Then while considering buying a print to use as a "target" for my own printing, I took a volume of Paul Strand photos off my shelf, turned to his Hebrides section, and was struck by the complete difference in the images. Photoshop allows for super dramatic skies, increased internal contrast, a lot of the "edge effects" some of us try to approach with pyro. Strand's classic images are wonderful, but don't use what I think of as Photoshop effects. So I wonder whether our "targets" for our prints have changed due to our exposure (unintended pun) to the huge number of Photoshopped images.
Mark Sampson
27-Feb-2024, 17:15
We have more options now, certainly. But are they good options? The current over-sharpened, HDR, ultra-dramatic look finds little favor with me.
Certainly using such techniques will not give you the emotional depth of a Strand portrait or landscape, any more than using 5x7 and 8x10 cameras and making contact prints (as Strand did) will. That's on the photographer, not the craft.
Since I shoot landscape with a 4x5 camera, and make enlargements to 11x14 on fiber-base paper, you can tell what I prefer. Is it better? For me it is.
But you might look at the work of our esteemed moderator, Kirk Gittings, who is a master of dramatic light. (AFAIK he still works with film and prints on silver.)
Hybrid workflow makes for magic in the darkroom for some.
Shoot digital with high quality files and produce digital negatives to contact print in your darkroom. You can dial in contrast and work with any area you want and output a "perfect negative" for whatever process you want.
I would venture to say that much changed since Strand's time just in darkroom printing. Consider Strand to Edward Weston, to Ansel and on to folks like John Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum. Comparing a Strand print to a Sexton print, skipping all the in-between, would show a vast difference in presentation, I believe. It might also bring to mind the Charles Scheeler quote "Isn’t it amazing how photography has advanced without improving?"
BTW, it is probably time to retire the term "photoshopped," and replace it with something like "digitally produced." :cool:
If you haven't looked at them already, two photographers whose British Isles work you might enjoy are Fay Godwin and Dick Arentz.
Drew Wiley
27-Feb-2024, 21:21
Changed? Darkroom techniques continue to improve on their own. We have better films, better papers, better cameras, enlargers, and lenses than former generations, plus a bigger bag of tricks. Or, for those who actually benefit from hybrid techniques, this might be the golden age of technological overlap. But our own minds and eyes have always been the most important tools. All the digital revulsion has really done is to make photographic image presentation far more ubiquitous, including far more obnoxious images than were possible before; the darkroom has been replaced with an Inquisition dungeon torturing pictures to the limit.
bmikiten
27-Feb-2024, 21:35
I have struggled with this over the last few years shooting both LF film and a 100mp Hasselblad. Do you remember when, in the early 80s color "laser" images were all the rage? If I remember right, they were printed on metal or another shiny substrate. The images were bold but they weren't real. That, in a simple explanation is how I feel about much of the digital imagery being produced these days. I scan my film and often make digital negatives after removing dust or doing some digital dodging and burning but nothing dramatic that I couldn't have achieved (with more paper and chemistry) in my darkroom. I'd like to think that my current work is as believable and realistic as what I did 30 years ago with film and a few dodging paddles and concentrated developer along with my enlarger and fixed grade papers. Standing alone, some digital prints look good. Next to an image by Sexton, Adams, Strand or White they don't compare and are often cartoonish.
Changed? Darkroom techniques continue to improve on their own. We have better films, better papers, better cameras, enlargers, and lenses than former generations, plus a bigger bag of tricks. Or, for those who actually benefit from hybrid techniques, this might be the golden age of technological overlap. But our own minds and eyes have always been the most important tools. All the digital revulsion has really done is to make photographic image presentation far more ubiquitous, including far more obnoxious images than were possible before; the darkroom has been replaced with an Inquisition dungeon torturing pictures to the limit.
Don't agree on "Better Papers". Very limited selection now compared to years past. Limited choices in surface texture and types. Especially limied in Warm Tone compared to the past - thanks to no Cadmium in current warm tone papers.
As for "Better films"? Fewer options now and for many who like the character of some older films no longer made - what we have is limited, not better at all.
We have more technological overlap, it is true. Just as in the past there are those few who actually explore and produce excellence and technology can help. Middle to mediocre has not changed, just become more mechanized with all the technology.
phdgent
28-Feb-2024, 00:34
I confess, I have scanned B&W negatives and then 'overhauled' them in Ph****p so to print largely for my exhibition and book 'Paris Dans Mon Gand': https://www.photoeil.be/books/paris-dans-mon-gand.html.
But I had few excuses, if I am entitled to have them anyway...
The first excuse was that these negatives where 6x17 pano's and I couldn't handle a 150 cm long print in my darkroom (one print was 210cm long) as I hade no assistance.
The second was that the publisher demanded digital files as he didn't wanted to pay for the photoengraving.
And yes it was so easy to retouch these images, too easy by far!
But I ended up with some musings:
Have we lost our photo-technical skills?
Have we become so easygoing?
Are we so eager for spectacular images?
Do we really need those 'overclouded-threatening' skies and detailed shadows?
Is an all-consuming sharpness really that important?
And, dear publisher, why is money really so dominant in our thinking/acting (the shroud has no pockets)?
Paul Strand might have had the answers...
Tin Can
28-Feb-2024, 03:57
Yes I have stopped using my Epson v700 as I really hate it
I now focus on dustless wet prints
No touchup
I do use my iPad 6 camera
To entertain our cohort
Sounds like a fun trip!
Isn’t looking at printed matter in books &c deceiving? It’s not really a good comparison point for darkroom prints cause the printer tweaks them just like someone these days. I’ve seen some really poorly printed darkroom images made stellar by mid/late 20th century publishers…
That said I think digital has allowed for hints to be made that would have been really $$$ or time consuming.. enlarged digital negatives… internegatives used to be a real PITA …
<...> added later:
I think good photographs, whether they are digitally made or helped or manually made raise our own personal bars. it's amazing to see in a book or in person something someone conjured, and a great way to reimagine our own work ..
This is really a moot question. With AI, you don't even need to take a picture (film or digital) of anything. Just ask for it, and the computer will generate it. But it's not real -- it's really just like any PS modified image. The real question is "Do you want to capture reality or just fabricate reality"?
Tin Can
28-Feb-2024, 07:33
I love making internegatives will real film
My best work is done that that way
My Avatar to the left didn't POP for me until I reversed and enlarged it to 16X20
Took me a year to SEE IT
Ulophot
28-Feb-2024, 07:52
My view coheres with that of some others here. I am neither a Pre-Raphaelite desiring a return to the Middle Ages, nor an advocate of all the wonders of digital imaging. I realize that I can mistake a digital image for a film-paper one, though how often that happens, due to the above-mentioned over-sharpening and related seductions of digital manipulation so prevalent, is an open question. I am reminded of all the formative years in my photographic development, during which I was frequently beguiled by an effect or technique, imagining that if I applied it to my own work, I could thereby excel. It's a sort of variant on the magic camera or lens that will make one's compositions better.
My choice, to apply my efforts within the realm of film and paper, and to accept 11x14 as my limit, came about in significant part as I looked back over the history of 19th- and 20th-Century photography, finding an abundance of work that continues to set a high bar for me, in concept and execution, composition and craft. Countless images were made before ISO speeds or light meters, with less reliable equipment and emulsions. I have all of these and much more at my disposal.
For me, the limitations of the medium (and I work only in B&W now) provide an adequate framework of necessity in which I am free to create fresh images as enduring as any before me; whether I am up to the challenge is the only question to be answered. For me, the feeling of accomplishment within these constraints, when I produce results with which I am pleased, is far greater than I have experienced in the virtually boundless opportunities offered by digital processing.
I think many of you have strayed far from the OP's question.
This is really a moot question. With AI, you don't even need to take a picture (film or digital) of anything. Just ask for it, and the computer will generate it. But it's not real -- it's really just like any PS modified image. The real question is "Do you want to capture reality or just fabricate reality"?
sorry to sound like a problem but all photographs are fabricated reality. manipulation starts as soon as the tripod is set down or film is wound. agree film or chemical photography captures reality ( so does a digital camera ), but people have been over manipulating chemical based darkroom images to create something that wasn't infront of the camera but an interpretation of what was in front of the camera for a long long time. I agree that AI is something unphotographic but IDK. some photography is unreal..
Peter Lewin
28-Feb-2024, 09:51
If you haven't looked at them already, two photographers whose British Isles work you might enjoy are Fay Godwin and Dick Arentz.
I already have two books of Fay Godwin photos on my shelf, but had never visited Dick Arentz's website until your suggestion (thanks!). He brought my original question into sharp focus. In his "thoughts" section he has one titled "Subtlety" which argues in favor of his classic style of platinum/palladium printing, which encourages closer viewing over dramatization. My basic question was not whether digital photography, or even AI, allow approaches which are hard or impossible to achieve in the darkroom, my question was whether our exposure (another unintended pun) to the drama of stormy skies, super sharp imagery, etc. (which I associate with Photoshop) has changed our aesthetic in the way we print in the darkroom. As a life-long (I'm now 76) B&W film and darkroom photographer, whose approach to printing was formed well before digital existed, I print, let's say, "more quietly," but am beginning to wonder whether I should go for more contrast, more burning in of stormy skies, i.e. more "drama." So what I was really asking was if others of you have asked the same question of your printing, whether your own definition of "a good print" has changed.
Tin Can
28-Feb-2024, 10:05
My actual vision has gotton very poop
these typ[os are hard for me to see
Merg Ross
28-Feb-2024, 10:38
As a life-long (I'm now 76) B&W film and darkroom photographer, whose approach to printing was formed well before digital existed, I print, let's say, "more quietly," but am beginning to wonder whether I should go for more contrast, more burning in of stormy skies, i.e. more "drama." So what I was really asking was if others of you have asked the same question of your printing, whether your own definition of "a good print" has changed.
No!
Scotland will provide plenty of "drama" without having to change your technique. "Quietly" is fine, you will stand out from the crowd.
Wish you a wonderful and productive trip.
Best,
Merg
Tin Can
28-Feb-2024, 10:43
What I mean is
DIGI SCTEENS aer bad for eyes
Trad DR is far less strain
monochromeFan
28-Feb-2024, 11:01
An interesting thought, normally condemned on photography related websites.
Opened my email this morning and had an advertisement from the PPA to purchase a copy of portraitPro software.. was bored and followed the link to the company website.. What a waste, a real waste. They have a version of software for full body portraits that let you change the height, weight, and general build of a person. If you wanted to you could resize pee wee herman in a suite to be as big and solid as say Hugh Jackman in a suite.
The software also lets you change a persons facial expression as well. Thats odd, it also lets you change their facial structure as well to enhance that unibrow undoubtedly.
Digital editing has become the new "mandatory standard" if you watch all the youtube crap and pay attention to PPA advertisements.
We are not in a golden age of photography here kids.. Things have gone extinct without us noticing.. Remember Oriental paper? Remember Kodak Chemicals that worked? One cant say that 20 3 person companies rebranding kentmere and foma bulk film is a golden age of "new film stocks appearing on the market".
Look at how paper and developer chemicals have changed to meet EPA requirements, look at how much FILM has had to change to meet those same requirements.
I was looking at one retailer last night due to an email from them.. they sell the 5 pack of pro photo 100 for 50$,, but each roll is sold at 7$ individually. 120 kodak gold 200 is a 7$ per individual roll, 50$ for the kodak 5 pack.. what a wonderful world we have kids.
Drew Wiley
28-Feb-2024, 12:05
I still stick with what I said. Films and papers are better than ever. Sure, I miss Oriental Seagull G, Brilliant Bromide, and Portriga. But there isn't a neg I can't print at least as good, and distinctly easier, using current premium VC papers. Long scale ole Super XX and Bergger 200 are missed; but now we've got much more versatile TMY, and PLENTY of other excellent options. Color films and papers have evolved a long ways in the past few decades. I miss Cibachrome, but Fuji Supergloss is distinctly superior in many ways, at least as long as it is still around. Kodak Ektar is the most hue accurate color neg film ever. Affordability is a whole other question; but everything has gone up, not just photographic supplies.
Within the parameters of a darkroom, there is at least a degree of restraint and limit of what can be done. It has nothing to do with sharpness and drama. True optical workflow is capable of sharper, more detailed prints than anything digital, especially when large format originals are involved. And nature is unquestionable capable or more drama than anything concocted on a screen. And best of all, we can actually experience what we shoot. Digital, however, has already gone off the rails into the realm of hog wild lardassograhy. That was inevitable. Push it off a hill with no brakes, and that's what happens.
...Photoshop allows for super dramatic skies, increased internal contrast, a lot of the "edge effects" some of us try to approach with pyro. Strand's classic images are wonderful, but don't use what I think of as Photoshop effects. So I wonder whether our "targets" for our prints have changed due to our exposure (unintended pun) to the huge number of Photoshopped images.
So far, the huge numbers of heavily manipulated digital images/prints has led me to appreciate the qualities of a handmade print even more. Secondly, I am more interested in the qualities of light a scene may have and how they can be worked with to create an image. So I have a personal bias against images that 'torture' the light without any social redeeming factors. I'm working on it.
paulbarden
28-Feb-2024, 14:55
Look at how paper and developer chemicals have changed to meet EPA requirements, look at how much FILM has had to change to meet those same requirements.
I was looking at one retailer last night due to an email from them.. they sell the 5 pack of pro photo 100 for 50$,, but each roll is sold at 7$ individually. 120 kodak gold 200 is a 7$ per individual roll, 50$ for the kodak 5 pack.. what a wonderful world we have kids.
My god, them sour grapes must be mighty tasty!!!
sorry to sound like a problem but all photographs are fabricated reality. manipulation starts as soon as the tripod is set down or film is wound. agree film or chemical photography captures reality
So film "captures reality", but "all photographs are fabricated reality". Thanks, that really helps clear things up. I can now throw away my Clearasil.
247176
Tin Can
28-Feb-2024, 15:26
I do not regret Digital cameras
They work very well, I like my Z with the eyecatcher software
Old lenses work well with it
I don't print any of it
However I still likr BW film and paper
I do wish the REAL EXPERTS would acept my fails
I love my hobby!
OK, I have a challenge for all of you following this thread. Answer the following question with just a yes or a no: "So I wonder whether your "targets" for your prints have changed due to your exposure to the huge number of Photoshopped images." (This is the OP's original question, reworded, with "your" replacing "our.") Remember, just yes, or no! If you answer no, you'll have to add some punctuation to reach the minimum of 3 characters! :D
Tin Can
28-Feb-2024, 15:51
no.
Of course not! And leave the ridiculousness of Yes or No answers to the politicians. Life, like photography, isn't B or W.
nope ( my darkroom work has been affected by seeing great darkroom prints from the beginning, but digital negatives and capturing things with a scanner / camera has changed everything )
Mark Sampson
28-Feb-2024, 18:07
No.
And leave the ridiculousness of Yes or No answers to the politicians. Life, like photography, isn't B or W.
So you are not sure whether your "targets" for your prints have changed due to your exposure to the huge number of Photoshopped images?
Now we're getting somewhere.
in other words, film captures what was in front of it "reality" ( its an event where light reflects into the camera &c and it makes an impression on the light sensitive medium ). the person, robot, whatever who is developing editing / printing that impression fabricates/ converts turns it into something else (the photographic print, or edited digital file ) .. photography isn't about reality or the truth, it's about something else, and sadly people think photography is reality, the truth, memories or whatever, it's not.
So the negative is reality, but the print isn't. I guess that makes a paper negative a photographic hermaphrodite.
monochromeFan
28-Feb-2024, 23:19
My god, them sour grapes must be mighty tasty!!!
7 dollars a roll versus 40$ for the 5 pack of that 200 gold 120 format is not exactly a nice thing to deal with. Particularly as most people are paying damn near 30$ a roll for DEVELOPING it..
7 dollars a roll versus 40$ for the 5 pack of that 200 gold 120 format is not exactly a nice thing to deal with. Particularly as most people are paying damn near 30$ a roll for DEVELOPING it..
From the beginning photography has been very expensive. Why should now be any different? It’s really not much more expensive than 30 years ago if you calculate for inflation. You can cut your costs considerably if you make your own photo paper and film. Denise Ross’ site ( the light farm ) details this process (even color ) . The bw emulsion I use uses 4 ingredients and takes about 20 minutes to make (others have a few more ingredients and are just as easy to make) and costs pennys, blue images (iron) even less. There’s more to photography than factory made everything. the developing it part is mainly because there are only a few labs left. where I live there is only 1 commercial lab left in the whole state.
bob carnie
29-Feb-2024, 06:57
I still have a serious analoque darkroom but to the question Has Digital Changed Darkroom Printing? YES and for me and my apprentice it is a game changer , I am super stoked about the possibilities digital has opened up for us in our darkroom.
So the negative is reality, but the print isn't. I guess that makes a paper negative a photographic hermaphrodite.
So film "captures reality", but "all photographs are fabricated reality". Thanks, that really helps clear things up. I can now throw away my Clearasil.
247176
what was in front of the camera or put on the photo paper as a photogram or whatever is "reality" - light makes an impression on the light sensitive medium. that is the only part of the process that mirrors "reality" --- the undeveloped latent image because it hasn't been enhanced/converted/interpreted into something else through a chemical process, or human intervention .. the developed negative/daguerreotype/tintype/chrome/photographic print/digital file is fabricated. ... most of photography is fake.
bmikiten
29-Feb-2024, 07:31
what was in front of the camera or put on the photo paper as a photogram or whatever is "reality" - light makes an impression on the light sensitive medium. that is the only part of the process that mirrors "reality" --- the undeveloped latent image because it hasn't been enhanced/converted/interpreted into something else through a chemical process, or human intervention .. the developed negative/daguerreotype/tintype/chrome/photographic print/digital file is fabricated. ... most of photography is fake.
I don't love the word fake. I used to tell my students that the (properly exposed) latent image was the capture of the reality at that moment. From that point forward, it was an interpretation and expression of the scene. Even 20+ years ago when the first digital cameras were around (640x480) I had students using those images in combination with their photography. It wasn't my thing and I simply addressed it as mixed media work. I gave them credit for committing to a concept. My issue with much of what I see now is that it is simply a digital capture shoved through a few photoshop filters and published. I saw a local show recently where the artist (photographer) had spent piles of money printing photos of wildlife and a few landscapes and not a single one was framed well or composed with any forethought. Color balance was way off as well. He was charging $500-$1000 for 11x14 - 16x20 images. None were sold but visitors all said they liked them. The most common thing I heard was "it's so colorful". Can you imagine what our world would be like if the number of images produced were done on film cameras? Photography or the documentation of our daily lives is more popular than ever and maybe a few .... just a few... will venture to a darkroom.
Drew Wiley
29-Feb-2024, 09:54
My "targets" have certainly not changed in the least. Much of that digital foolishness is more like an annoying mosquito. Just walk away from it or swat it. I prefer to ignore it. Photography is about discovery, then translating that into print fashion which somehow acutely expresses your visual experience in a way others can share. In many cases digital tools might factor into that process if judiciously employed, although I work strictly darkroom style. But in terms of all the loosey-goosey hog wild options out there, particularly on the consumer electronics side, and now AI, people are starting to accept Soylent Green as normal food, and are beginning to forget what the real deal tastes like. Their loss, not mine.
OK, I have a challenge for all of you following this thread. Answer the following question with just a yes or a no: "So I wonder whether your "targets" for your prints have changed due to your exposure to the huge number of Photoshopped images." ...
Yes. But then everything does.
Apparently some people -- not me -- consider your "real deal" prints as much a fake as any AI image. Just sayin'
On a lighter note, I just discovered several hundred sheets of Kodak 4x5" Royal-X Pan (ASA 1250) in one of my freezers. They were in a lead-lined bag, so easy to overlook. It's Christmas in February -- OK, it's a FAKE Christmas, but it feels like the "real deal".
MartyNL
29-Feb-2024, 10:56
On a lighter note, I just discovered several hundred sheets of Kodak 4x5" Royal-X pan in one of my freezers. They were in a lead-lined bag, so easy to overlook. It's Christmas in February -- OK, it's a FAKE Christmas, but it feels real.
Those lead-lined bags really mess with my x-ray vision, too! :)
Apparently some people -- not me -- consider your "real deal" prints as much a fake as any AI image. Just sayin'
On a lighter note, I just discovered several hundred sheets of Kodak 4x5" Royal-X Pan (ASA 1250) in one of my freezers. They were in a lead-lined bag, so easy to overlook. It's Christmas in February -- OK, it's a FAKE Christmas, but it feels like the "real deal".
LOL
AI images aren't photographs not sure how they can be NOT considered fakes because they were not something considered "real" anyways.
if you can show me a photograph that hasn't been affected somehow through chemistry or printing then that might not be fake, but it's manipulated,
and if something manipulated, converted to b/w or vivid colors, muted colors, filtration for dramatic skies, blurry water or whatever be not fake im not sure what is ..
not sure it matters, they're photographs and that's what photographs are .. contrived / manipulated images of what might have been there. doesn't matter to me,
it's fun making something out of nothing..
have fun with the royal pan, I loved using a box of that I found, exposed everything at ISO 100 and made them bulletproof so I could 15second on RC paper with a 300W bulb.
Drew Wiley
29-Feb-2024, 14:38
Manifestoes. I have an old Encyclopedia Brittanica volume where Edward Weston entered his hardshell doctrine of photography, ala his f/64 phase. It was a blistering manifesto sending everyone else to a pit lower in hell than anything Dante contrived. But if you look at the full body of EW's own work, especially the earlier half, which included much of the best, by the same rules, he was himself a damned Pictorialist. But either way, he got there due to a deep appreciation for that light his eyes actually saw. The rest was interpretation.
And indeed, every great photographer is to a certain extent a competent illusionist as well, transforming the visible onto an abstracted two dimensional surface bounded by a rectangle. Nonetheless, it is still an interpretation of something actually seen and experienced via ones own emotions and technical ability, and hardly deserves to be called "fake" in that manner so much contemporary PS alteration and now Ai is patently, blatantly fake, and has more in common with Hollywood teenage blockbuster flicks than anything discernible in the real world. I'd rather be out in the elements seeing things with my own eyes than sitting in a loud germ-filled theatre anyway. (Cold storm here today; I was out yesterday afternoon).
Ulophot
29-Feb-2024, 15:43
In a word, no.
That's four words, but who's counting?
Me, of course! Mr. black and white, yes or no. :D
transforming the visible onto an abstracted two dimensional surface bounded by a rectangle. Nonetheless, it is still an interpretation of something actually seen and experienced
I never said it wasn't an interpretation and an emotional experience to make an emotive image, I just said it was fake, and interpretation of something, it's been altered -- not fake in this situation means non altered not the real thing. that's what photographs do .. photographs aren't unaltered. it's a reality you ( the photographer) construct.
monochromeFan
29-Feb-2024, 22:01
developing a negative is not manipulation or making it fake, not sure why some of the populace makes that claim... Neither is dodging and burning during the printing phase making it "a fake image".
Photoshop, Luminar, and the other programs can take a picture from a digital camera, and "find" detail in the shadow that may not have even been there, let alone have been caught with your 1500$ hasselblad 120 camera and TMX roll film,,, or your 8x10 and TMX sheet film.
sorry for the tangent Peter ...
developing a negative is not manipulation or making it fake, not sure why some of the populace makes that claim... Neither is dodging and burning during the printing phase making it "a fake image".
Photoshop, Luminar, and the other programs can take a picture from a digital camera, and "find" detail in the shadow that may not have even been there, let alone have been caught with your 1500$ hasselblad 120 camera and TMX roll film,,, or your 8x10 and TMX sheet film.
the whole photographic process is done through manipulation. some call it "pre visualization"
it's all "technique" to change what was in front of the camera to be what one wants on the paper.
it's kind of like the modern version of plato's cave... and all smoke and mirrors.
by comparison to the un adulterated latent image it's fake, and that's the point of photography and nothing has changed since 1840.
it's kind of strange that one can make 3 exposures a scene using overly saturate velvia 8x10 chrome film, cross process one in c41 chemistry, make one a straight image and develop the 3rd in Dektol, then bleached in peroxide, reexposed and converted to a BW Slide and each of these 8x10 images would be considered to be an unmanipulated likeness of what was in front of the camera, none of them are, by comparison to the original scene reflected back to the film they are all fakes, they've been tweaked, even the straight processed E6 image seeing real life isn't overly saturated like a fauvist painting, unless the person is a tweaker like vangogh.
seeing great photographs before or after the digital darkroom / lightroom can't help but intensify one's own photographic experience opening one's eyes to the plasticity of just a simple latent image.
the whole photographic process is done through manipulation. some call it "pre visualization"
it's all "technique" to change what was in front of the camera to be what one wants on the paper.
Certainly any film-based print can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean that they all are -- or that they have to be. Normally, I want to capture and produce a print that is what I saw when the picture was taken. Normally, the film can not come close to capturing what my eyeballs saw. In that sense, the latent image -- even undeveloped is "fake", because it is not anywhere close to the real subject. But the developing and printing processes can allow me to produce, as close as possible, what really was actually photographed. That's the opposite of digital -- which runs away from what was there.
Drew Wiley
1-Mar-2024, 10:30
Well, that might be true if you can accept a photographic print as a stand-in actor psychologically and esthetically representing something actually seen and truly experienced.
But that is certainly not the case with an awful lot of Photoshopped imagery these days, and certainly not with anything Ai generated. At best, that is simply painting something imaginary via a computer, and shouldn't be classified as photography at all, whether one likes it or not.
Never liked paint by numbers
Certainly any film-based print can be manipulated, but that doesn't mean that they all are -- or that they have to be.
yes they all are, it's part of what the medium is, it's like being a little pregnant.
sure OK, the latent image is fake too, I can live with that, but sadly, I don't think you can ;)
the latent image is the result of invisible rays of light that brushed upon the light sensitive materials, and have "indexed" the thing in front of the camera. they haven't been preserved in any means so im not sure how they are manipulated
as seen here and on other photographic forums people develop latent images years, sometimes decades after they impregnated the film (or plate ) .. but I guess it's a physical reaction so sure, it's fake ..
as Edgar Allen poe said soon after the invention of photography: believe half of what you hear and none of what you see ...
Drew Wiley
1-Mar-2024, 16:11
Pictures are just like communication using words. Is everything spoken or in literature false or fake?
Paint by numbers? - now AI software can fill in the colors for you, and anyone can be Thomas Kinkade.
You almost got it. Everything spoken is false, while everything written is fake. Does that help clear it up?
You almost got it. Everything spoken is false, while everything written is fake. Does that help clear it up?
pretty much nailed it, bt I coluld be lying
BTW, about 10 mins ago I was offered 1.92 eth each for 3 images I have made
and presented on another site, the image are actual physical objects, not minted ..
I told her currently I only make physical objects and soon after she pleaded and said
she had this 9700$+ ( of etherium ) in her wallet she had to get rid of
I'm not sure but have a feeling she might have been lying too, but I can't be sure, I listen to a
lot of Jack Handey and gosh darn it, I know I'm that good .. I might unblock her
and give her my routing number and account number so she can complete the transaction..
That's a good point. Next time I'll use fake money to buy a camera that creates fake images. Win-Win.
monochromeFan
2-Mar-2024, 09:30
yes they all are, it's part of what the medium is, it's like being a little pregnant.
sure OK, the latent image is fake too, I can live with that, but sadly, I don't think you can ;)
the latent image is the result of invisible rays of light that brushed upon the light sensitive materials, and have "indexed" the thing in front of the camera. they haven't been preserved in any means so im not sure how they are manipulated
as seen here and on other photographic forums people develop latent images years, sometimes decades after they impregnated the film (or plate ) .. but I guess it's a physical reaction so sure, it's fake ..
as Edgar Allen poe said soon after the invention of photography: believe half of what you hear and none of what you see ...
Then you are back into the gatekeeping realm of no one is a REAL photographer unless:
They can identify 5 famous photographers from 1900 to 1960 merely by looking at a photograph of the person
They use a specific camera and lense just like so-and-so did in 1956
They only use mirrorless digital cameras
They only use 50-70 mm length lenses for portrait work
And other such gibberish..
paulbarden
2-Mar-2024, 09:55
Then you are back into the gatekeeping realm of no one is a REAL photographer unless:
They can identify 5 famous photographers from 1900 to 1960 merely by looking at a photograph of the person
They use a specific camera and lense just like so-and-so did in 1956
They only use mirrorless digital cameras
They only use 50-70 mm length lenses for portrait work
And other such gibberish..
This defies logic. Some rabbit holes are in fact plugged with feces - nothing more.
Oren Grad
2-Mar-2024, 10:45
My basic question was not whether digital photography, or even AI, allow approaches which are hard or impossible to achieve in the darkroom, my question was whether our exposure (another unintended pun) to the drama of stormy skies, super sharp imagery, etc. (which I associate with Photoshop) has changed our aesthetic in the way we print in the darkroom. As a life-long (I'm now 76) B&W film and darkroom photographer, whose approach to printing was formed well before digital existed, I print, let's say, "more quietly," but am beginning to wonder whether I should go for more contrast, more burning in of stormy skies, i.e. more "drama." So what I was really asking was if others of you have asked the same question of your printing, whether your own definition of "a good print" has changed.
It hasn't.
Print with more drama if that is what you need to do at this point in your life to make pictures that you find satisfying. If you don't know, try it and see - print some pictures that way and live with them for a while.
Drew Wiley
2-Mar-2024, 12:30
I've always done everything from very subtle to dramatic prints, in color even before black and white. I have no trouble printing both extremes even in the same darkroom session, or anything in between. You don't need digital for any of it. People might have legitimate reasons for going that route; but don't expect superior print quality, especially facing a new learning curve.
Then you are back into the gatekeeping realm of no one is a REAL photographer unless:
They can identify 5 famous photographers from 1900 to 1960 merely by looking at a photograph of the person
They use a specific camera and lense just like so-and-so did in 1956
They only use mirrorless digital cameras
They only use 50-70 mm length lenses for portrait work
And other such gibberish..
do you have any idea who I am ?
someone using caffenol made with puddle water and algae I'm not sure can be called a gate keeper
are you talking 50-70 mm on a 4x5? I've done it with a short lens like that, they come out great.
with regards to the other stuff you projected onto me .. none of those things is true except for knowing a fair amount about the history of photography as well as art+architecture. chances are some of 5 photographers I would pick would be found in a junque store. if you find my posts over on other sites you would most often see me standing ground against closed minded photo-bigots. all types of people in this world.
Tobias Key
2-Mar-2024, 14:29
For me good landscape photography conveys an emotional response to the natural world. A lot of modern landscape photography is more like an over-intricate guitar solo, technically brilliant but loses something because the player is more concerned with showing off how well they can play, rather than conveying an emotion.
When I make a landscape photo I ask the simple question, "What does it feel like to stand here?".
paulbarden
2-Mar-2024, 14:46
do you have any idea who I am ?
someone using caffenol made with puddle water and algae I'm not sure can be called a gate keeper
Maybe you're the ultimate gatekeeper, John! Super stealth mode/smokescreen gatekeeper!!! LOL The Miroslav Tichy of gatekeeping!!!
Maybe you're the ultimate gatekeeper, John! Super stealth mode/smokescreen gatekeeper!!! LOL The Miroslav Tichy of gatekeeping!!!
I like Miroslav Tichy, he's my kind of gatekeeping :) that film of his home as he's showing those German gallerists his prints stained under coffee cups, wine and cigarette ash cracked me up :). they were ready for the conservationists and a big bottle of purell :)
paulbarden
2-Mar-2024, 15:22
I like Miroslav Tichy, he's my kind of gatekeeping :) that film of his home as he's showing those German gallerists his prints stained under coffee cups, wine and cigarette ash cracked me up :). they were ready for the conservationists and a big bottle of purell :)
Tichy is one of my heros!
Michael R
2-Mar-2024, 15:30
Digital has changed what I consider to be possible in the darkroom by adding some digital to the mix. I have a lot of ideas for special inkjet dodge/burn masks and it is kind of exciting to me. Unfortunately I don’t have any digital equipment so it’s still just darkroom for me.
Tichy is one of my heros!
ditto
someone gave me his book, it's mind blowing
Film is like playing a real piano, and digital is like playing a digital piano... Both have a place, but... ;)
Steve K
monochromeFan
8-Mar-2024, 10:18
I dont know, the biggest thing is that the digital age has really hurt the company support for enlargers in the USA.
I combined 2.5 beseler 67c into a single enlarger. All i needed is a bushing for the elevation system. Beseler wont answer me at all. I have personal name emails for two people at beseler. After a week no results from them at all. These two people are full time employess at the factory repair department.
The official beseler condoned repair guy in california merely says "ask beseler". After i sent him a photo of what i needed. SO i sent a picture to the ONLY outhorized beseler repair shop in canada.. and within an hour of getting my email, i was sent the beseler factory part number AND the part number for their home made all brass subsitition that they used to repair enlargers for customers..
Beseler (and other bramds) enlarger parts are on EBAY all the time. It can takes time to find the part you want, because the seller often times does not know the part #, but you can get lucky if good pictures are taken.
Drew Wiley
9-Mar-2024, 16:35
At least most enlargers can be repaired in a basic shop, and potentially last many decades longer, unlike digital gear, which seems to be engineered with rapid obsolescence in mind, or at least caters to the "gotta have the latest and greatest" over and over again consumer mentality. Beseler's attitude toward service has been awful for a quite awhile; I wouldn't blame digital for that.
some of the enlarger companies stopped making enlargers before the 2000s. parts and broken enlargers are available on eBay or can be rigged to work, I mean it's just a light source, focus bellows and stand. not really too complicated. old stuff you always need something to scavenge parts from, whether it is a 100 year old camera, or something from the 80s.
Michael R
10-Mar-2024, 07:16
some of the enlarger companies stopped making enlargers before the 2000s. parts and broken enlargers are available on eBay or can be rigged to work, I mean it's just a light source, focus bellows and stand. not really too complicated. old stuff you always need something to scavenge parts from, whether it is a 100 year old camera, or something from the 80s.
That’s true. Drew made his out of some sort of laminated sequoia tree.
bob carnie
10-Mar-2024, 07:44
That’s true. Drew made his out of some sort of laminated sequoia tree.
He braided bigfoots body hair to create a pulley for focusing the lens as well.
He braided bigfoots body hair to create a pulley for focusing the lens as well.
That’s true. Drew made his out of some sort of laminated sequoia tree.
true dat
Just for yucks, this morning I visited TENSOR.ART, a website that offers free A.I.-generated photos of anything.
I typed in a pretty obscure request: "squaretop mountain wyoming behind lake black and white".
Here's what I got -- pretty darn close to the real thing in 10 seconds. How it decided to add PINE trees and glaciers, remains a mystery.
247601
Drew Wiley
10-Mar-2024, 09:03
Sequoia lumber was useless for anything but fruit boxes; it splits ridiculously easily, and many of the trees shattered when they fell.
xkaes - that looks more like a Bob Ross painting of Mt Shuksan in the Cascades, and NOTHING like Squaretop, which is an unmistakable icon from the drive-in direction. I guess AI droids don't visit Wyoming all that often. Even the tree species are wrong and way out of proportion. But at least the miserable jet contrails look realistic.
I'm not surprised at how little it actually looks like the real thing, but I am surprised at how relatively close it actually got. As I look at the free 2024 calendar I got in the mail -- obviously overly ridiculously digitally adjusted -- and it seems that A.I. will negate the need for that anyway.
FYI, the fake picture was taken with this fake camera:
247602
you get it wrong, the AI image is just that and AI image, it's not an actual fake image made from a real impression (latent image ) made on a light sensitive medium,
it's AI generated, which is like a sketch artist rendered image of a suspect that the person being questions didnt' see but might have heard about and has an active imagination.
Tin Can
10-Mar-2024, 11:00
ask it to image your backyard in Fall raining
I won't bother
Michael R
10-Mar-2024, 12:16
you get it wrong, the AI image is just that and AI image, it's not an actual fake image made from a real impression (latent image ) made on a light sensitive medium,
it's AI generated, which is like a sketch artist rendered image of a suspect that the person being questions didnt' see but might have heard about and has an active imagination.
I wonder though if it’s a fake image taken with a fake camera do the two fakes make a real? I think so.
Tin Can
10-Mar-2024, 12:27
AI has access to GIS by satellite camera, property lines and close up camera
The wealthy pay for privacy and hide
ask it to image your backyard in Fall raining
I won't bother
247613
Interestingly, it creates a different picture each time you execute the same command -- and, of course, if you use the word "Fall", "fall", or "Autumn" -- or even just put a period at the end of the request.
I wonder though if it’s a fake image taken with a fake camera do the two fakes make a real? I think so.
You might be right .. but it's kind of algebraic from what I remember..when you use the the associative and transitive properties they'll make an airplane .. or it might make the maker a figment of our imaginations, like having a racy conversation with a BOT .. at least I know my camera is real, and I accept the true nature of the photographic practice. cherish the latent image, and realize everything else is just a lie .. I'm also living in Idaho.
I'm also living in Idaho.
'nough said.
At the Oscars last night, Christopher Nolan started his acceptance of the Best Director Award with a tip for other Directors -- especially budding Directors -- "Consider celluloid".
He made Oppenheimer with 70m film because, like most of use, he considers film to be the real McCoy.
But even before his Oscar, his movie created an explosion (appropriately enough) in FILM use -- and the manufacturing of it, of course:
https://www.thewrap.com/oppenheimer-70mm-resurgence-film-school-wrap-magazine/
That's good NEWS for all of us film lovers -- whether you consider it real or fake.
At the Oscars last night, Christopher Nolan started his acceptance of the Best Director Award with a tip for other Directors -- especially budding Directors -- "Consider celluloid".
He made Oppenheimer with 70m film because, like most of use, he considers film to be the real McCoy.
But even before his Oscar, his movie created an explosion (appropriately enough) in FILM use -- and the manufacturing of it, of course:
https://www.thewrap.com/oppenheimer-70mm-resurgence-film-school-wrap-magazine/
That's good NEWS for all of us film lovers -- whether you consider it real or fake.
yup, the more use of film and celluloid, the better!
Drew Wiley
12-Mar-2024, 16:48
Different cameras evidently have different Ai software. I gave the instruction "fall" to my wooden view camera, and it fell to the ground and broke.
'nough said.
btw I have been doing photo restoration work for various people over the years. kodacolor looks nothing like reality.. not sure how anyone can mistake a photography with realism ...
Mal Paso
13-Mar-2024, 21:05
Celluloid? What little that's left is kept in fireproof vaults, it self ignites at 150C and doesn't need oxygen to burn. Nitrocellulose is the primary ingredient of smokeless gunpowder. Celluloid was replaced by acetate "Safety Film" by 1950.
Celluloid? What little that's left is kept in fireproof vaults, it self ignites at 150C and doesn't need oxygen to burn. Nitrocellulose is the primary ingredient of smokeless gunpowder. Celluloid was replaced by acetate "Safety Film" by 1950.
I think the guy was being fancy and just meant film :). the fumes from non-safety film / collodion based film is toxic ...
back in the day ( almost 95 years ago ) when the Cleveland Clinic burned the fumes and fire killed a lot of people
it was a light bulb and x ray film that did it ...
https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cleveland-clinic-disaster
back in the day my friend was gifted a box of collodion/wet plate negatives ... he couldn't accept them because he was afraid they'd burn his house down
Collodion and cellulose are two different things.
Drew Wiley
14-Mar-2024, 10:28
Celluloid can ignite. Nitrocellulose was a popular early plastic used even in toys. The "nitro" prefix tells it all. Massive collections of historical valuable negatives have been deliberately incinerated because local museums would have their fire insurance cancelled if they didn't get rid of them; and few have the budgets to properly freeze them.
Celluloid can ignite. Nitrocellulose was a popular early plastic used even in toys. The "nitro" prefix tells it all. Massive collections of historical valuable negatives have been deliberately incinerated because local museums would have their fire insurance cancelled if they didn't get rid of them; and few have the budgets to properly freeze them.
there used to be someone on the old ph-aux-3-pee-O site that had some sort of museum collection of sensitive glass images. I remember him saying he was living a'top of 10,000 collodion negatives ... I don't think his last name was Bronson, but it sounded like a Death Wish to me...
Drew Wiley
15-Mar-2024, 10:14
There was a private museum somewhere around Denver holding the life work of some late frontier photographer who used a camera 4 ft wide. They had stacks of his nitrate negatives, but were ordered to destroy them, and had neither the time nor budget to copy them. A local photographer did get permission to contact print just a few of those with a makeshift setup, and I actually saw a couple of those huge contact prints - not ideal quality, but now it's all that's left. What a loss to the historical record!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.