Must your image be technical perfect ?

[Drew Wiley]

Very few photographers or labs are even equipped to degree I am for making precise highly-detailed prints. Few photographers take the trouble to use precision 8x10 filmholders like I do. But I think of a photograph in experiential terms, as preserving a discrete visual moment in time, and not as some Franken-image all stitched together like a crazy quilt, and then endless hours spent trying to iron out and disguise all the seams. No matter how much is in faux-focus, those still convey a "walking dead" feel to me, unnerving, too artificial; digital wallpaper, as far as I'm concerned. Call it a philosophic stance if you wish; depth of perception, psychologically, comes first, depth of field and focus, only secondarily. All photography is illusionism anyway; it's what is behind it that counts. Yeah, I take pride in making very clean precise prints, whether color or black and white; but technique per se is only the tip of the iceberg. Learning to "see" is far more important. Vermeer got it right.

[h2oman]

Let's note that a lack of detail in the highlights can be very pleasing as well. See "Tennis Nets" and "Broken Window:"

https://www.westongallery.com/origin...by/mark-citret

[Drew Wiley]

I can't get any of the images on that page up. But Mark C. printed things quite low key, slightly warmish on Kodak Polycontrast as I recall, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is in fact some delicate detail in the highlights in the actual print that simply doesn't show up on the web. I haven't run into him in a long time. His printing style (not subject matter) reminds me somewhat of Robert Adams.

[Alan Klein]

If a picture works, it works.

[Chuck Pere]

I've seen a lot of nice pictures made with toy cameras. And now they sell film with built-in light leaks: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/29691...-120-Size-Film
Holga cameras are fun to play with. I suppose to do it right you have to learn your camera and consider how to apply its characteristics when using it.

[Gabe]

And now they sell film with built-in light leaks: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/29691...-120-Size-Film

Now I really have seen everything

[Kevin Crisp]

If you get a chance to see a Robert Adams exhibit, you might conclude technically excellent printing isn't a priority. Hasn't held him back.

[Tin Can]

I used to scan LF negs and PS remove all dust

insane waste of my time

I changed

At one time I tried the old pencil retouching machines

I have 2

[Gabe]

I used to scan LF negs and PS remove all dust

insane waste of my time

If the sheet prep and digitisation are done carefully there will be very little (if any) dust spots to clone out.

Captured hair silhouettes or hanging clip puncture marks on the film are the most time consuming thing to deal with if they coincide with areas of detail.

[Tin Can]

You are new here

I also use DIGI, but vastly prefer the old ways

I don't need to spot my wet prints

If the sheet prep and digitisation are done carefully there will be very little (if any) dust spots to clone out.

Captured hair silhouettes or hanging clip puncture marks on the film are the most time consuming thing to deal with if they coincide with areas of detail.