How many still wet enlarging ?

[edmo]

John, defensive? Not being defensive.

<p>

Why? Because it offers more control over the image than possible in a darkroom, plain and simple, just have to know your tools.

<p>

Though comments like "<i>...working photogs prefer...", "intaglio methods such as etching or engraving</i>", c'mon WTF, you gotta be drilling me?

<p>

Printing in the darkroom, no problems with that. If I had the space I'd have one again in a heartbeat.

<p>

I'll go with you, you gonna buy me a print?

<p>

<i>"the curtain shot and a wall"</i> beats me but yeah, you can print them.

[Brad_]

<I> ...every time anyone posts anything favorable to the old methodology the digital

crowd gets so defensive.</I><P>

 

That notion comes up a lot. Any examples?

[dennis_couvillion]

"That notion comes up a lot. Any examples?"

 

Just my observation, Brad, and I'm not about to start a war by calling out names. But, if as you say, "that notion comes up a lot", then obviously I am not the only one who shares that observation. It's not pretty either...

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

That's my point, Dennis. I believe that's a perception that is rarely supported by fact.

There's this belief that if anyone challenges an assertion put forward here, he's an

automatic "film basher," or part of the digital crowd. I think that in itself is a pretty

reflexive (on this forum anyway) and defensive response.

 

Who is the digital crowd, anyway, and what are they saying? To move the discussion along,

I took exception with Al's claim about digital not being able to knock out 16x24 prints -

something that's been done routinely (if someone needs that size) for quite awhile. Does

that make me defensive because I pointed that out. Or is it Grant? Ed? Nope, they're into

film.

 

That's why when such claims are made I ask for examples.

[dennis_couvillion]

Brad, all Al asked was: "Just curious, but how many of you have a digital printer that can knock out 16"x24" prints at home? I've done it in my darkroom."

 

And you took exception to that? Again, I'm not getting into a war by naming people but there are folks here who never miss an opportunity to make snide remarks about anything positive said about film in general and Leica equipment in particular. Obviously I'm not the only one who's noticed this either. How about if I trolled the Nikon and Canon forums, or the digital forum, and everytime someone made complimentary staements about their choice of equipment I posted how full of crap they were and how Leica can blow the doors off anything else? What's the point?

 

Dennis

[grant_.]

i dont think als made a print in 10 years, so the points kinda mute, eh?

[dennis_couvillion]

"i dont think als made a print in 10 years, so the points kinda mute, eh?"

 

Maybe you mean the point is moot, eh? Anyway what difference does it make how long it's been since Al has printed anything? Al has probabaly forgotten more about photography than most people here will ever know.

 

Dennis

[grant_.]

no, i meant mute, whooosh...over ur head...as usual

[dennis_couvillion]

What, the point is silent? Yea, that is way over my head.

[Brad_]

<I>How about if I trolled the Nikon and Canon forums, ...</I><P>

 

Who's trolling? Most have been on this forum for several years. Everyone has opinions, and

fortunately they're not all monolithic in nature. A lot of silly stuff gets said here. Some of

it's going to be challenged. That's what discussion and life are about. No one is bashing

film or leica cameras - just some of the silly claims from some people.

[barry_weiss]

"A fool with a tool is still a fool."

 

Utne Reader current issue has some compelling Vietnam images created by photographic negatives on plant leaves placed in the sun to create burned in images on the leaves. Neither digital or wet darkroom, just art, creativity, communication and beauty.

 

What's better: a Porsche or a pick-up truck? Depends on what you want to do.

 

So why bother arguing about better per se on digital or wet darkroom?

[dennis_couvillion]

Monolithic? LOL. That seems to describe the conformists moreso than the noncomformists.

 

As far as some of the people being around here for years, that may be true but their interests have changed. This forum was fun when there was a commonality of interest. By that I don't mean uniformity in ideas at all. The common interest was Leica film photography. I imagine it's like a Porsche club that is suddenly overrun by Corvette owners. Personally I don't care whether digital is superior to film photography. It would be nice though to have a place to discuss film photography in general and Leica equipment in particular without inviting ugly remarks from people who have no interest in common with you except photography in general. It might be different if their remarks were at least polite...

 

Dennis

[Brad_]

<I>As far as some of the people being around here for years, that may be true but their

interests have changed.</I><P>

 

Should those people with changed interests just go away then? It's a community and it's

about what Tony describes as rangefinder style <i>photography</I>. Doesn't the LUG

offer what you described?

[dennis_couvillion]

"Should those people with changed interests just go away then?"

 

No but some of them could at least learn to be polite... Look at this thread. It wasn't obnoxious or inflammatory. The original poster simply wanted to know who still did wet printing.

[edmo]

<i>The original poster simply wanted to know who still did wet printing.</i>

<p>

True and at 11:27 the <s>troll</s> thread got a case of the runs.

[grant_.]

dennis has selective vision it seems

[Brad_]

Film basher...

[dennis_couvillion]

"dennis has selective vision it seems"

 

Aaaah, Grant, another comment totally lacking in either intelligence or interesting content. Kinda like your photos. Just bullsh*t in a pseudo veneer of hipness.

 

Good night all...

 

Dennis

[grant_.]

im hip? kool!

[EricM]

hmm

[thomas_sullivan]

well put Eric...

 

anyhow.......Association of International Photography Art Dealers (AIPAD)..........Feb 12-15........Hilton, NYC......sounds cool. Which day John and Edmo........Saturday or Sunday (12th or 13th)?

 

Ya know John, your prices of wet darkroom prints there might have more to do with the fact that artists that can command that type of price have been in photography a long time, and that most of their work has already been put out on wet darkroom materials....pre modern day digital printing technology....I mean, even Duggal is digital printing these days, so I can't imagine we are still talking "home tech" output from them. And whether home printing is state of the art or not, most of those prints for sale at that show were probably done by a commercial house. I think if we are to enter that realm of digatal and "analog" prints we would have to consider the utimate printing capabilities of both mediums (both hardware, software, and technician), not home tech stuff or "John Doe" at the healm. Not disputing what you imply, but that thought did run thru my head as I read what you wrote.....

[al_kaplan1]

Grant, I'm in that darkroom several times a week developing film and printing "wet process" prints. I purchase 8x10 paper in 250 sheet boxes.

 

I see nothing wrong with comparing the uniqueness of individually burned, dodged, and developed wet prints to hand inked and pulled graphic arts prints, whether intaglio or litho, because it seems that's becoming more and more the residual market for traditional photographic processes. It's a market that places a much higher value on the hand made product than on a mass run by a digital printer. Putting me down for bringing up that point is not going to affect the reality of the market place. It's the difference between buying an original Edward Weston print for several thousand dollars or buying a book of Edward Weston photographs, tearing out the pages and framing them.

 

At this point, Ladies & Gentlemen, I'm bowing out of this thread. My heart felt thanks to Dennis and a few others for attempting to retain some civility here.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> My heart felt thanks to Dennis and a few others for attempting to

retain some civility here. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Quoting ever-civil Dennis: "bullsh*t"

[robert_clark]

The same brat pack as usual with their infantile mobbing techniques.

 

The digital workflow sounds great, very convenient, once you've mastered it, no smells and easy repeatability. Once you've invested in the printer and inks your set to go. Printers are expensive, of course, don't last long, and the bigger print you want the more you have to pay. The ink is also expensive unless you bulk buy and do black only like Jim Arnold. All good stuff, I'm glad that it exists and I hope to try it at some point.

 

But, if you have a darkroom, or have a yen for one and are only interested in B&W that also offers an extremely versatile, flexible and economical way of producing prints as good as they have ever been made and to a large size with little effort at home.

 

Of course it's not for everyone, so why worry?

[edmo]

<I>It's the difference between buying an original Edward Weston print for several thousand dollars or buying a book of Edward Weston photographs, tearing out the pages and framing them.</I>

<p>

Al, if that's the case then someone should mention that to the likes of Richard Avedon, Gordon Parks, Mike and Doug Starn, Robert Rauschenberg, David Hockney among many others and the institutions that exhibit their works.