Has Digital Changed Darkroom Printing?

[monochromeFan]

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]

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.

[Vaughn]

...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]

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!!!

[xkaes]

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.

[Tin Can]

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!

[h2oman]

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!

[h2oman]

No.

[Tin Can]

no.

[xkaes]

Of course not! And leave the ridiculousness of Yes or No answers to the politicians. Life, like photography, isn't B or W.