._._z Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I spoke with Lillian bassman earlier this year. After decades of doing her own darkroom work, she's now made final 'prints' in Photoshop and prints digitally when needed. And she's delighted by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Perhaps HCB had it right all along, let someone else worry about the freaking printing;*) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 A line got crossed on this website some time ago. Good-natured ribbing between film and digital users turned to polarized intolerance. It's petty and it's stupid because, contrary to some opinions, photography ain't hard. It doesn't require a lot of brain power, insight or technical knowledge. Being an excellent photographer doesn't prove superior intellect or qualify anyone for arrogance. I don't have time for this anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 <I>The same brat pack as usual with their infantile mobbing techniques.</I><P> The unfortunate thing is, Robert, views you and others post about topics other than leica are not always accurate. And when, that's pointed out, you (and others) seem to feel the need to make rather childish remarks like the one above. A fine example of brat-pack mentality... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Can an expert of digiprint and an expert of wet print send me their *hard* b+w print to compare by any chance?? I would pay shipping and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 "...views you and others post about topics other than leica are not always accurate." Believe it or not, Brad, I quite often agree with you about this. On the wedding forum the other day, an apparent newcomer asked a question about Auto focus vs. Manual focus and got the usual amount of misinformation from more than one respondent about AF 'hunting' and the photographer 'losing control' of the camera. But the best approach seems to be just to state the facts plainly, post a pic if it helps, and let the results speak for themselves. Cheers and Merry Xmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I've never read any pro digital user bash a film user. I have witnessed over and over again intelligent corrections attempted towards digital and often are inferred as an attack on film. More pointless is the film users opinion on digital that have never tried or walked the digital workflow. I find this amazing; to have an opinion on something one has never tried while arguing with people that have experience in both film and digital. And lost arguments end like this: "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."-Al "The same brat pack as usual with their infantile mobbing techniques."-Robert Just an observation. It always was civil here Al. Name calling insults doesn't help any member or the group, Robert. "A line got crossed on this website some time ago. Good-natured ribbing between film and digital users turned to polarized intolerance."-Lee Yes indeed and perfectly worded Lee. Such ashame. Leslie, if you live in a large city, find a digital printing house that uses The Roland with third party dedicated grey inks. Pure thorough-bred photographers embrace and explore all creative tools. They get excited about new possibilities and use them. That's all I can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan d. chang Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 any of you want to continue play with these toxic chemicals especially these for color printing?, do you want to dump these wastes around your house? maybe be one day you find you have had Leukemia due to these chemical, that will be too late for you. so forget about the wet darkroom, not worth it for the benefits you gained. Most of the mass photofinishers do not use inkinjet printer to finish your photos, their quality is limitted by your original scanned file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_steigelman1 Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Come on boys. Don't you all realize it's the end product that counts, not how you get there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Eric-- I wasn't in an argument. I was stating what I prefer to do and how some seem to be intolerant of it on this website. "More pointless is the film users opinion on digital that have never tried or walked the digital workflow." I don't need to punch myself in the eye with a sharp stick to know I don't like it. I don't like spinach. It's okay with me if you want to eat it. But don't try to shove it down my throat. I might bite you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I like digital photography and I'm becoming more comfortable with the digital process, especially using a digital camera along side a film-based one to verify lighting and exposure. But my day job is entirely with computers, has been for two and half decades, and being on them all day long is tiresome enough, much less using one at home. They're work to me. The traditional darkroom is a vacation away from computers. Relaxing, and I love the smell of dem chemicals. I don't need my relaxation time to be more versatile or productive. Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I have a darkroom but it just seems more efficient to get the digital file the way i want it and then upload it to someone for enlargements. I keep thinking I could use the space for something else but can't bring myself to dismantle the old darkroom. Most of what i have read here seems like the old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type thing. It is what you prefer and what you have time for that governs your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Oh dear Brad, it doesn't suit you when you try to reach above the monosyllabic illiteracy of your more ascerbic chums - you sound so prim. I for one really appreciate Al's approach. I enjoy many of his narratives and the temperance of his responses. I can't remember him resorting to the one-line point scoring of Grunt or Edmo. Another thing I like about him is that he continues to use older equipment, which by all accounts didn't cost him much and has paid for itself many times over. I like the way he extols the virtues of its reliability and longevity; and I like the way that he is still actively producing a lot of work using what many would consider out-dated equipment. I also like the way that this contrasts with the perpetual tendency of many to thirst after every new thing - whether it is the latest digital or the latest ink-jet printer. Of course these things can represent progress, interesting new workflows, efficiency in time or cleanliness, repeatability etc. etc. Yes, and for some people they are clearly the way forward. Yet they are also one more symptom of the disposable, wasteful, consumerist society we live in. Al carries on without it and good for him. All that really matters is that people produce interesting work, that is at least satisfying to them. Al harnesses old technology to that end, with the mentality that if it isn't bust then don't fix it, and makes a virtue of his frugal resourcefulness. He clearly enjoys what he can do with his old, simple equipment, and to be honest, some of the best work I've seen over the years has also been made on exactly the same sort of stuff. So whether you are a Scott Easton ranting against 35mm and B&W, or a Steve Swinehart (apt name) sneering at anyone still using this old junk, or a Grant or an Edmo, continually trying to be grunge smart (if only), it is only the end product that counts. The traditional darkroom can and has provided that in spades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Whatever, Robert - no time to read your tiny rant. Please give Al a juicy kiss for me though... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Al ought to take a break from writing "narratives" and use the time to learn to operate a scanner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Lee, you took my post the wrong way. i was agreeing with you...that it was such ashame the forum has gone from ribbing to nipping... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 wow, an astonishing lack of manners and a thread full of vitriol. i have only two comments.....1) grant...it is moot, not mute. 2) i want some of whatever allen herbert (3:59pm) is smoking/drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 hee, hee....mute vs. moot! love it. guess that is what digi does to you after awhile. maybe everyone should hit the mute button (~__-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 To Thomas Sullivan and Edm0: Saturday the 12th would be best. Sunday things wind down and people are packing up and sales have been made. Actually best day to go is fridaywhich I can't make. Lets do it I have gone many times and it is REALLY worth it. The show opens at 11;00am, I think. I will get in around 8:30 and shoot for a couple hours and would love to meet with you guys to shoot. I missed last year. I have never seen a digital print at the show from 1998 to 2002 notwithstanding that a minority of work is contemporary and new. Maybe this year will be different and we can talk to a couple of the galeery owners or reps about this issue. They are very friendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Aren't they digital enlargers which can print digital files onto traditional papers? I believe I saw it posted a few times in this forum. Digital jpegs on RC or fibre? Are these enlargers for sale? Ok personally I find PS gives me more flexibilty in altering contrast/tones and in a faster way with more reproduciblity as compared to the dark room. And cleaner. If I can continue to shoot film, scanned and adjust and then print onto traditional papers using wet techniques with the above digital enlargers, Im a happy man. Here's a pic shot on trix, but burned and dodged in PS to my liking. Within 10 secs in PS. I could still do this using wet techniques but it'll probably take quite a few tries to get it right. Im not good with the latest ink printers or what they are capable of. I will wait for the digital enlargers for the best of both worlds.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Came in late to this. I luv fiber based print. Don't consider RC printing to nearly as good and I also luv Digital B/W and color printing as well. Next Semester I will be doing fiber based work at school printing MF stuff. This last semester I scanned and used the Epson 2200. 1st off, it can take just as long to get final prints off of an inkjet as darkroom method. If you learn how and take the time, you can match the quality of dk rm printing on the inkjet. It will be a little different, but it can be of a very high level. Lastly, I really believe its true that you can do a lot more fine tuned adjusting of a print in Photoshop than you will ever be able to do in the dk rm, much finer control. But it took me about 3/4 weeks of inkjet printing nightly for hours to get my final projects finished, consisting of about 45images and yes it was worth it. I'm not sure inkjet printing saves you much time, at least on the first print:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Travis, yours for a mere 30,000 Euros! http://www.colex.com/digitalEnlarger.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Who cares a monkeys what anyone uses. Bottom line it's really about....guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Eric--sorry I nipped at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 I thought Lee didn't "have time for this anymore" (sic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now