Does Storing images digitally.....

[Guy Tal]

In digital printing you can maintain the same evolutionary approach. Anyone who thinks they can take a scan and push a couple of buttons to make a great or even good print has probably never tried it.
Professional digital imaging software like Photoshop allow you to keep the original scan as a background layer and apply any adjustments in separate layers so the original is kept intact (much like your neg would be). Most digital printers I know (myself included) consistently tweak these adjustments and/or replace them every so often as our skills evolve and we learn of better ways to achieve certain effects. In this sense the process/evolution are not different from what any darkroom printer is doing by repeatedly revisiting a neg. In fact it allows much more careful and controlled tracking of every aspect of the print by keeping intact the exact history of changes you applied to an image so you don't have to rely on old prints, memory, or scribbled notes to remember what you did. You can even attach notes (text and/or voice recordings) to various layers in case you want to keep record of why you made a certain decision.
I'm sure if those who go out of their way to defame the digital process spent half as much time learning the tools, as any skillful craftsman would, they'll realize much of the prejudice is not based in reality. These tools do allow you to create junk, like any others, but they also allow unprecedented and precise control over every aspect of the process - much more so than any analog process does.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography

[Mark_3632]

You state that you sell open editions. Do you go back and tweak each image before you print one or do you do it once and then store it. If someone wants to buy an image is that image then just called up and printed.

Yes Guy it is that easy after the work has been done once. The work is hard and yes there is a lot of control in Computer Imaging but as JJ has said there is not the hand of the artist in every print. In computer imaging you only have to do the work once. There is no evolution. Yes a person can choose to rework an image but they do not have too. In the wet darkroom there is no choice but to rework every image every time it is printed. There will always be those subtle differences between prints in a wet darkroom,

I am not bashing the process just wondering if storing images and simply printing them off a computer file when another is wanted does not make us lazy.

By the way I love the image on your opeing page, as well as the old bison. As they say, good shootin Tex.

[Wayne]

You cant store an image digitally.

[John_4185]

Wayne You cant store an image digitally

Can't download beer either. Kinda makes your day a complete ruin, eh?

[Guy Tal]

Mark,

This is of course a personal preference but I disagree with you on a couple of points:
1) The work is never "done". I don't have a single image that I feel is as good as it's ever going to be. To say that you get the work done once is like saying Ansel Adams got it "right" with the first version of Moonrise, and it was easy from there. You can revisit and change and tweak an image for decades and it will never be "done", whether in a darkroom or in Photoshop.
2) The "hand of the artist" argument doesn't sit well with me. To me photography is about the eye of the artist, not the hand. The hands just apply the relatively-simple mechanics to make it happen. If you wanted an art that represents the artist's skillful hands - you should look to painting. Photography is distinct in that much of the process between visualization and printing is pretty much scripted and relies on mechanics, optics, and chemistry far more than on skillful hands. I will also argue that master digital printers do a lot of work manually (painting masks, dodging/burning, spotting, etc.) - very much the same as anyone printing in a chemical process.

Just my personal opinion, of course. To me they are all tools to help put my vision on paper. What happens inbetween is hardly important (to me).

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography

[John_4185]

As the one who brought up the 'hands' thing, I'll add that Guy's philosophy is perfectly rational, and there is more than one rationale, and possibly few subjects that are most appropriate to what I was trying to describe, compared to the photographs that Guy shows and sells.

Pictures will have to show what I mean. Hopefully, they will be forthcoming. Until then, I'll be quiet on this subject.

[steve_782]

"I looked at the final saved images along side the raw scan. I have to say that they do not represent how I see those same images now. "

Then, if you made prints of them now, wouldn't you rework the image to fit your new way of seeing it? Why would you accept how the image looked just because it was stored digitally?

"This is not the case with those images that are stored digitally and the print button is hit each time a print is to be mad. The printing is taken from the hand of the artist and given to a machine. Are we giving up evolution for ease. "

No, YOU'RE giving up evolution for ease. Please don't assign laziness to everyone. If I make a another print of a saved digital file, I always make a proof first, and then decide whether that's really the way I want it to look or not; and do I want to change the image. That's why I save: the scan, the layered PSD file, and a TIFF of the last PSD. I often go back to the layered PSD and make changes. In some cases I've deleted everything but the background layer and started over with the image.

"I am thinking about the evolution of printing styles. "

Exactly what is a "printing style"? I'm afraid, I don't know what that means. You may have an interpretation of an image that changes, but how is that a style? How is this NOT applicable to working digitally? If your vision of the image has changed, then don't you change the work to get the final print you're after - whether it's done in a wet darkroom or digitally?

In my humble experience, there is something about the enlarger and working with the hands that creates something you might forget is possible. Really, I've a very difficult negative that when made 'perfect' with all the digital tools, is still not as good (imho) as the flawed handwork. When I find the time (or get off my butt), I will post visual evidence.

That's some hyperbole. Just what is that "something"? I've worked in darkrooms for nearly 40 years producing fine art and commercial prints - I've never experienced this undefined "something." Could you elaborate? Because I'm just not buying into it.

"...that the hand shows in the later, and it is something one has to see, to make himself, to appreciate - or NOT (as I am fond to type). Evidence of the hand is not a bad thing.

Only if the handwork is meant to be part of the print (like Joel Witkin's work) - otherwise it's just poor printing skills.

"Digital perfection does not make the photograph.

Correct - just as visible handwork doesn't make a photograph a better image.

"...there is not the hand of the artist in every print. "

If there IS the hand of the artist in every print - then you need more practice, unless you're purposely making artistic marks on the print as part of the final finished work. This is truly one of the most pretentious statements that I see made about wet darkroom work in a lame attempt to make it more valuable, and the prints somehow more important than a digital print.

Just how much variance do you allow between prints? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Fifty percent? If you can't make match prints, then you need to either control the images on film better, or become more skilled in the darkroom (including learning how to mask images for easier printing).

"There will always be those subtle differences between prints in a wet darkroom...

And that makes them better how? If you can't make match prints against a proof - then you need more practice, or your standards aren't high enough, or you're not willing to waste enough paper until you get a match print. If you have differences that can be seen between prints, then you don't print very well or are willing to write off differences as being "artistic."

[Wayne]

And that makes them better how?

Its the difference between hand-made craft and manufacturing.

[John_4185]

steve Please don't assign laziness to everyone.

In the same spirit please assure me that your use of the word "you" is not to me, but the collective "you". I don't want to get into a bragging thing, but I was recuited many years ago by the premier custom midwest B&W printer. I am a good printer. My work is intentional.

Your accusation of hyperbole is a good point of departure. Shall we go there, or will you simply admit that you like digital printing - that's your point and stick to it.

Differences can be intentional. A good craftsperson or artist knows when to transcend the rigorous metrics, to make a statement to the medium, in this case projected B&W printing.

[Mark_3632]

Steve-Chill out. You seem to be imagining an attack against digital that does not exist.

I define print evolution as the change in the artists final vision of the printed image. For example. AA went through a period of time when he printed very dark. Another period of time he did very little burning and dodging and another when it seemed almost heavy handed to me. This is an evolution of styles. Maybe evolution was not the best word but calling it periods in their artisitic visions seemed wrong as well. I mena like an artists Blue Period. A rank amateur can match a print. I was once paid to do fine printing so I know what I am talking about as much as you do.

What you seem to miss is that I never once said one was better, just different. Nor did I say everyone would be lazy. It was a simple question. I know people who sell their computer images and when they need another they load the file and they hit print. In the name of haste, on occasion I have done the same. have yet to meet a digital printer who did not do it once or twice. When I had a darkroom I was not able to do the whole haste thing. I was forced, by the nature of the process to go through the entire process. It is the nature of the two games and one of a million little differences that set them apart from one another.

By the way that was a very creative job of piecing together a collage of different posts from different people without ascribing credit. Made it sound like John and I were the same person.