Darkroom compromise?

[al_kaplan1]

Also, is that an upside down garbage can lid behind the lady in the dark slacks? Nice touch!

[jeffascough]

FWIW I haven't used a darkroom for nearly six years. All my b/w stuff is scanned and printed on a Frontier. The prints are indistinguishable from b/w machine prints, and if you work at the scans you can get pretty good b/w exhibition prints. But there is no way on this earth that they'll compete with a b/w exhibition quality image on fibre paper. Thing is commercially (which is why I take pictures) the digital output route is the right one for me.

[henry_a]

It might be that in 30 years the groom would have fond recollections of proposing to his wife in that car. Who knows?

 

 

If reality bothers you, hire models and a location scout before your next picture.

; >)

 

 

For some reason, too much of a departure from "what I saw" sometimes bothers me. Not to say that photography is objective because it certainly is not. But some subjects beg for "what was there" instead of "I altered this" Having written that, just yesterday I Photoshopped some zits from a teen-aged girls face in a photo for publication. It was an act of mercy I could not resist.

 

 

I suspect that using B&W paper will make an even better print from your digital file.

 

Most important thing here is to please yourself.

[kevin m.]

Al, it was a straight question, do you have a straight answer, or

not?

[al_kaplan1]

That was a straight answer! If you want to change around reality that's OK by me. I was just pointing out those aspects of reality that I would have changed, as you pointed out those aspects that you changed: a car on a road with a straight edge into an amorphous slighty lighter fuzz ball with no distict edge to the road. My lady irons her skirts, I pick up and move stray garbage can lids from a posed shot, and automobiles in a photo don't rile my blood. Bob Dylan had buttons on his cap and I like the mysterious black figure in my Abbie Hoffman photo. If you want to criticize others expect them to criticize you. OK?

[kevin m.]

I was asking for a technical explanation, not a critique. I just

posted it to ask how you would eliminate the car. (It's not a

posed shot, BTW.)

 

As far as Dylan and Hoffman go, I think you have me confused

with someone else.

[al_kaplan1]

I don't have you confused with anybody. I was using that as an example of discussions of how other people wanted to "improve" my photos. There's NO NEED to remove the car. Why would I even concern myself with worrying about it? You and I have very different concepts of reality. I suppose that if I felt compelled to modify reality I'd get Photoshop and learn how to use it. That's not my style. I get rid of dust spots, burn and dodge a bit to retain detail in highlights and shadows, and try to pick up garbage can lids that are in the middle of a wedding portrait.

[kevin m.]

Well, I didn't criticize your pics, Al, and I don't really appreciate

being used as a random "example." Take it up with the people

who did criticize you. I also didn't request your critique of this

photo, only your solution to a simple technical problem in light of

your many years of darkroom experience. Your answer that the

car isn't any problem doesn't really help much in that regard.

 

The whole point of this thread to me was at what point do the

advantages of the digital darkroom begin to outweigh the beauty

of the traditional silver print. I wasn't hoping to get a definitive

answer, just a sample of forum members experience. Thanks

for all who contributed!

[paul t]

Turning real life into a fantasy is becoming a depressing phenomenon. THe

women in so many magazines these days don't look like real, sexy people,

because they're retouched up the yangtsze. Then guys start getting

disappointed with real women, because they aren't retouched. It's the

wrinkles, the faults and the glitches and the extraneous cars that make life

interesting.

[al_kaplan1]

The long answer, Kevin, is that the traditional before Photoshop solution was a skilled person with an airbrush. It was used sparingly because it was very difficult to do well and very expensive to get a skilled person to do it. I don't believe in "cleaning up" straight reportage, and if I'm shooting something that lends itself to a bit of tidying up before hand, whether a location wedding shoot or pix of the governor shaking hands with the president on the Chamber of Commerce, I'll bend down and pick up the offending item. End of exchange.

[karl_knize]

I think I see some fly poop on the groom's shoulder that should

be cloned out.

[des adams]

Quite right. All is fair in love and war and art. However the expression retouched up the yangtsze is entirely new to me and I must say it does sound rather interesting. Is it on Photoshop?

[david j.lee]

i think what what al means is that he wouldn`t have to erase the car because

he wouldn`t take that photo in the first place.

weston hated the shadow on charis right arm and he was very concerned

with the pubic hair on that same photograph he made , but i am sure he would

never have tough of photoshoping the photograph if he had the chance.

[des adams]

I am never sure what I mean. I would have thought thats part of what one is trying to find out. It did strike me though that I was rude not to say anything about Kevins photograph which I like and think is good. What I thought was that there was talk above about reality and cropping. I reckon the car coming out of the mans head is not saying anything very much and since the photographer has already been selective and as far as we understand it cropped out the rest of the known universe then whats a car between friends? In terms of reality/truth there are no rules as how to picture that and it could just as well be reached by a lie. But don?t take this too seriously guys Im just making it up as I go along too. The lantern or light dangling in the right of the picture has not been wiped out and thats to the good I think.

[paul t]

I should've said I thought it was a sweet photograph, which is why I would've

left it. But that's a very personal opinion, because I've seen further down this

slippery slope. You wouldn't believe the amount of retouching that now goes

on in magazines like FHM and Maxim, simply because it's possible. It gets to

the point where none of it has any relation to reality, and I find it depressing.

It's well beyond ridding models of acne.... it gets to the point where their

various body parts (!) are complete inventions - and somehow adds up to a

bland, sterile and curiously sexless environment. <p>

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, and exit left...

[kevin m.]

Paul, I agree with you. It was a technical question, not an

aesthetic one, as my attempts to 'erase' something like this in a

conventional darkroom haven't been entirely successful.

Without the digital option, I'd just burn it in a bit and be done with

it. But with photoshop maybe I'll take Al's suggestion and learn

how to 'iron' my subjects clothes digitally if they don't see fit to do

it themselves ;-)

[des adams]

PaulIm feeling decisive and youre partly probably right. And it can be depressing but briefly. Starving is worse. I reckon though that the choice is to make. Yours alone to make and its not a new one. Do I want to make pornography or not. And what that is to you. And the ball keeps moving. For my taste in reality almost all everyday advertisements are pornographic. Sex and lies and violence sell everything. But we need the money you know what I mean. I just think that art which also lies and lies I have heard in the lap of the gods and is infinitely mysterious and its a breeze that it can easily encompass everything including that evil old Adobe Photoshop sloppy manipulative even political cropping and erasing and pornography and spit it out real easy. Kevin sorry it was possibly is for you an aesthetic question. The car bugged you. You said it. AFFA as the angels say.

[james_ogara1]

Al wrote: "Lastly, I can smoke in my darkroom! It's MY DAMNED ROOM!"

 

As usual, Al gets right to the heart of the matter. (I know, I know, ashes etc.)