Darkroom vs Scanning

[Califmike33]

Does this forum have a classified section ? for sale ? i dont see one.

[Oren Grad]

Does this forum have a classified section ? for sale ? i dont see one.

As stated in the Forum guidelines, you will have access to it after you have been registered for 30 days.

[Drew Wiley]

Something suitable for general subject content, or general compositional strength, perhaps, but potentially quite misleading where exacting qualitative questions are in play.

[Pieter]

Yes i agree, but its something, its better than nothing ?

First of all, my prints, either inkjet or silver gelatin, are too large to scan and I really don't feel like splicing a bunch of scans. Or I could set up a copy stand and shoot some digital pics. Either way, in order to be able to see a difference, it's going to have to be a large file that would have to be sent via ftp. And third, I have no idea of whether your monitor is calibrated and under what viewing conditions you will be looking at those files, maybe even on a smartphone. Lastly, I'm not going to go to all that effort. You really need to see good prints, both inkjet and silver gelation, in person in proper lighting.

[Califmike33]

As stated in the Forum guidelines, you will have access to it after you have been registered for 30 days.

Oh ok thanks.

[jnantz]

Calfmike - show em where? Over the web???? All that's gonna do is tell people what a miserable visual medium the web itself is, or how good the scanning was or wasn't. And we already know all that.

if the web was such a miserable visual medium I think that most heavy hitters as well as museums and galleries wouldn't have work on the web. it's only a miserable viewing medium for people who are not able to scan or present their work, just like viewing a darkroom print in person, is a miserable viewing experience. just going to show who well the printing was or wasn't. or the presenter is just going to talk about how nice the bad image is matted. at least viewing online one doesn't have to hear somebody going on and on about "8 ply ultra white satin snow mat board and linen hinges.

[Pieter]

if the web was such a miserable visual medium I think that most heavy hitters as well as museums and galleries wouldn't have work on the web. it's only a miserable viewing medium for people who are not able to scan or present their work, just like viewing a darkroom print in person, is a miserable viewing experience. just going to show who well the printing was or wasn't. or the presenter is just going to talk about how nice the bad image is matted. at least viewing online one doesn't have to hear somebody going on and on about "8 ply ultra white satin snow mat board and linen hinges.

There is no real alternative to seeing the actual piece in person. When you go to a museum or gallery, no one is there going on about the presentation. A galleries t or docent can give you the information placing the piece in context, maybe materials if it adds to the understanding. Artwork on the internet is just to give you a taste of the actual art, maybe giving you an incentive to see more or to visit the institution. Like art and photos in a book, they just pale in comparison to being in front of the real thing.

[jnantz]

There is no real alternative to seeing the actual piece in person. When you go to a museum or gallery, no one is there going on about the presentation. A galleries t or docent can give you the information placing the piece in context, maybe materials if it adds to the understanding. Artwork on the internet is just to give you a taste of the actual art, maybe giving you an incentive to see more or to visit the institution. Like art and photos in a book, they just pale in comparison to being in front of the real thing.

sorry but I have to disagree with you. I saw an exhibit of about 60 photographs that were supposedly "iconic" photographs form the last 60 years. they were hung on the wall of a world renown museum with an extensive collection and capable collections people and were probably some of the worst photographs I have ever seen. maybe the basement viewing area with bad ceiling lights were so you wouldn't notice the images were bad, you'd just focus on the names of well known people. I would have rather seen them on the internet. a couple of years ago again went to a photo exhibit of IDK 200<?> images from a collection of a private individual, different room ( at least that was better it wasn't in the basement ) some, like the images from the previous exhibit, were just terrible. I would have rather seen the "pale" version because these images were pretty bad, and I thought it was kind of embarrassing that they were considered some of the "iconic" photographs from the last 60 years and an overwhelming impressive collection. printing was terrible and the whole situation/s were kind of underwhelming. I wasn't talking about a galleries or museum going on about the presentation im talking about individuals who might be presenting their work to another individual/s. the prints are lacking / oh hum so they talk about how impressive the window mount is.
sorry sometimes, the Internet is just as good or better than in person.

[Alan Klein]

I think the issue is that there are other ways to present photos besides in a single print. Don't get me wrong. Prints are beautiful. I have some on the walls of my home and also in photo albums. I'm working on a photo book. I used to shoot chromes and showed them with a projector on a screen. Now I scan them and show them on a 75" HD 4K TV, or monitor, or cellphone, or download them to Youtube or Flickr so others can see them as well.

Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages. It's like arguing which is better: color or BW film or digital or film?

[Pieter]

sorry but I have to disagree with you. I saw an exhibit of about 60 photographs that were supposedly "iconic" photographs form the last 60 years. they were hung on the wall of a world renown museum with an extensive collection and capable collections people and were probably some of the worst photographs I have ever seen. maybe the basement viewing area with bad ceiling lights were so you wouldn't notice the images were bad, you'd just focus on the names of well known people. I would have rather seen them on the internet. a couple of years ago again went to a photo exhibit of IDK 200<?> images from a collection of a private individual, different room ( at least that was better it wasn't in the basement ) some, like the images from the previous exhibit, were just terrible. I would have rather seen the "pale" version because these images were pretty bad, and I thought it was kind of embarrassing that they were considered some of the "iconic" photographs from the last 60 years and an overwhelming impressive collection. printing was terrible and the whole situation/s were kind of underwhelming. I wasn't talking about a galleries or museum going on about the presentation im talking about individuals who might be presenting their work to another individual/s. the prints are lacking / oh hum so they talk about how impressive the window mount is.
sorry sometimes, the Internet is just as good or better than in person.

A poor print is just that. But a great one really shines in person. Henry Wessel liked his prints on the flat side. His vision, not for others to judge.