Digital vs Wet

[D. Kevin Gibson]

That should, of course, be: "The important thing is to not stop exploring what they can do and pushing the boundaries of both the materials and tools and our own vision."

[Ted Harris]

There are different kinds of photography as you can see from the thread so far. When my primary concern is producing a particular image for a client then I use whatever will get the job done the way the client wants it done at the most economical price. For example, shooting catalogue shots of reproduction pewter for one client is always done with a digital camera because the end results go to the web and that is the least expensive way to get it done and get a good quality image.





When I am making images for display and sale and my photography is my art it is a different story. The most important aspects of my art are the image I see in my mind’s eye and the image I translate to a viewable form for others to see. I use whatever art and technology I have mastered to bring that image to the viewer. The original medium is always film, usually LF, less frequently 6x12 or 6x9 and even less frequently 35mm. I contact print 8x10 black and white on AZO paper most of the time but every once in a while enlarge to 16x20. I seldom shoot black and white in 4x5, usually shooting chrome. Today, I routinely have the chromes professionally scanned using drum scans and then printed at 8x10 through 16x20. Many of the prints that I create for sale are done using a giclee iris printer, others using lightjet technology. When I shoot color negative material I can go either way on the enlargements.





I can remember spending endless, tedious hours in the darkroom years ago doing unsharp masking or using second and third and even higher generation kodaliths to create specific effects such as very stark, minimal tonal variation, line drawing like images. Why go through that agony today when I can achieve the same effect with photoshop and a digital print? My point is very simple, if you want to argue endlessly about the purity of the craft go ahead …. many juried art groups do just that. If you are interested in the image presented to the viewer then focus on that image and how you get the image that is most pleasing to you or that you believe will be most pleasing to other viewers.





I seriously doubt the final viewer cares at all about how the image was produced.





Ted

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I would say you better examine what is it that you enjoy the most, and where do you want your photography to go. Everything else in my opinion is irrelevant, if you enjoy the way you are doing your photographs and can produce work you enjoy, the way you do it is unimportant.

[Ed Pierce]

I'm a die hard wet fan but I wholeheartedly welcome digital photography. It's a whole new medium, and I think it's great. It obviously takes just as much skill and art as does the traditional way, IMO.

But it's not for me. I actually enjoy doing all of the traditional methods; loading the holders, tray developing, printing, etc. I find the methods, equipment and materials fascinating. Since I'm an artist with a paying day job, I do what I like.

The only aspect of digital I truly envy is the ability to work within small chunks of available time. When I print I have to schedule a half a day. Developing film takes an entire evening. With digital I could work on a print for 15 minutes, save it and go feed the baby. What a luxury!

[tim atherton]

"I'm a die hard wet fan"

did you quite mean it to sound like that... :-)

[jantman]

Personally, I'm in high school, I have the space but not the budget. I have an 8x10 Elwood but can't afford a lens.

I feel that the challenge is part of it, and I can't be proud of anything but the best and hardest-to-master craft.

I have only three major arguments against digital for why I don't personally use it. One is the overwhelming cost. The othe two are the "undo" button (seems to take something away from the mastery) and the fact that you can get more than one truly identical print.

However, that's just my opinion. I have nothing wrong with others using digital, and if I were to do commercial work where I could justify the cost, I'd surely want it as an option.

[tim o'brien]

Just had this conversation with a co-worker. He was trying to talk about spotting scopes with a digital camera backend... (?) I told him I had a camera with a meter in it. One. A 1986 FM2.

All the rest are folders, TLRs, Speed Graphics, Zeiss Plattenkameras, pinholes, etc.

There are two distinct points to photography. One is the image. In this respect, how you get the final result is irrelavent. It's the image, stupid. Digital, wet, powderpuff... it doesn't matter as long as you get your view into a reality.

The other is the process. Now many of you might disagree but personally, without the process, I could care less about the image. There is much to be said about mastering a difficult craft.

I sit at a computer all day, programming robots how to play. Without the robots, who cares? I don't do database because I couldn't stay interested in an object that has no concrete resonance in my soul. Robots resonate, as does 4x5 film. Same with all traditional photography. If there is no film, no developer, no paper of one type or another, I'll just be getting on to something else I can master in the real world. There is something neat about making beautiful photos with a piece of equipment built the same year my father was born (1929) in an enlarger made before I was born (1956) with lens made before my daughter was born (1995). Well the analogy ain't perfect, but you get the idea. Something neat that cannot be duplicated with the latest whiz bang gizmo out of the mime at Minolta.

tim in san jose

[Doug Howk]

I suspect that most, if not all, artists & craftsmen enjoy the process of creation as much as the final product. The process for digital images is becoming too easy. If you were a furniture maker, would you enjoy the process of sketching a furniture design, digitizing it, having a CAD program convert it into a template for a robotic factory to produce a final product? The digital image process is becoming that easy. All you have to do is decide what is your subject & start clicking away. Photoshop may be a large program; but you can use a small part of its features and with only a few mouse-clicks you can remedy all your mistakes & even add clouds, fog, etc.. Then, just print, tweak, print until you have a final product which will fool most people into believing its a hand-crafted, even alt processed, fine print. Maybe I'm getting old & have spent too much time sitting in front of a computer (programmer); but I think the digital revolution has made us both more free & more enslaved.

[Graeme Wilson]

Personally for me I work with technology day in day out - I'm a senior Oracle DBA - and I love what I do, however it's nice to have hobbies that get me away from the computer for a while.

For me photography is a creative outlet away from computers that allows me to enjoy "getting out there" and working with my hands. For this reason and this reason alone when I buy a house (assuming I can ever afford one at San Diego prices ! ) a 4x5 darkroom is going in

Digital is right for some - but for me the chemical process is part of the pleasure - both technologies are just tools - pick up the one you like working with - or both if you prefer.

[mark lindsey]

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. -Ansel Adams

I have often thought that if photography were difficult in the true sense of the term -meaning that the creation of a simple photograph would entail as much time and effort as the production of a good watercolor or etching - there would be a vast improvement in total output. The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster. -Ansel Adams



the first quote stands on its own, the second is true of both traditional and digital, much garbage is produced in the form of photographs, but the true quality work shines through regardless of how it is manufactured. Digital is no guarantee of quality anymore than traditional is.