Researching Digital...

[gary_albertson1]

I would hope not to only invite fighting comments upon the pros and cons of digital vs. traditional film, but

currently attempting to find comprehensive sources both in technical and philosophical views regarding large

format landscape photography and impact upon art galleries and their audiences, in website and book form.

Whether I eventually sell my loved 4X5 equipment for digital someday, perhaps even printing my own Giclee's,

is less important than my images continuing to be hung on gallery walls and myself making a living being

passionately married to Mother Nature.

Tha

[joe_lipka]

I think of digital and traditional photography as apples and oranges.

Both are good, but they are not interchangeable. They are different

tools to be used to realize your vision. You don't have to sell your

4x5 to "go digital".

 

<p>

 

If I interpret your statement correctly, your main desire is to

continue to have your work exhibited and sold, and whether digital or

traditional silver based photographs is the way to go? IMHO this is

essentially a business question, and the resources would be galleries,

but more importantly, those photographers that sell their work from

their own websites. Galleries are a relatively inefficient way to

have your work displayed when compared to a website. LensWork covered

this gallery/website issue a few issues back.

[gary_albertson1]

Joe,

Thanks for your input. I certainly can accept how efficient websales can be, but how can a 72 dpi monitor

replace the sensual closeness to the image one gets when gazing at the framed print in a gallery? Yet, I also

realize how unfair the 50% or more commission galleries get to sell my works. Often I have contemplated

owning my own gallery, but at times, that also feels like I would simply be shooting myself in the foot. I am

unfamiliar with LensWork, but maybe I can track them down and get a back issue on the article you mentioned.

Tha

[edward_kang]

Galleries are not as efficient as websites, so to speak, but Gary has

a point here.

 

<p>

 

I think it just depends on how quickly you want to be noticed.

 

<p>

 

However, I also agree that the question you're asking doesn't

really...well...make much sense (at least to me). You don't have to

forsake one or the other.

 

<p>

 

Digital anything is usually a completely different beast from

traditional photography, and like always, they're only tools. There

are pros and cons, but pros and cons are only important if you aren't

patient enough to explore both mediums.

 

<p>

 

It's kind of like people asking about the pros and cons of hammers vs.

hatchets. There's no comparison to be made - they both have their

uses.

[bruce_wehman]

Gary,

A quick response to the technical part of your question: An 8x10

transparency contains about 2.5 Gig. of information. If a one shot

digital cpature device were ever made to capture this much

information....cool, your armed guards could help you carry it

around. It would still make more sense to capture on film and scan

later.

 

<p>

 

And with regard to the rest of your question: I think it depends

upon what part of the Art market you are in. If it's Art shows and

regional galleries then I don't think it really matters how an image

is created. People there tend to buy images they like. To the

Literati of the Art world, however, the issue of film vs. digital

would be far more significant. Whether that would translate into a

positive or a negative, I don't know. Art,after all,is more about

talent and vision than mechanics.

[larry_huppert5]

You might want to take a look at John Paul Caponigro's website.

Although he isn't (primarily) a LF shooter, he has a backend digital

process for producing his output, and talks a bit about the details

of why he does things the way he does. He has also published a very

good book about using Photoshop as a creative tool (a good complement

to a more remedial book such as Real World Photoshop).

[jorge_gasteazoro]

You can also get Dan Burkholder's book, creating digital negatives.

In this book you will learn how to make negatives of any size you

want for contact printing. I personally know Dan and have seen how he

produces his work, he only has a Nikon F5, but his Platinum/Palladium

prints can be as big as 18x11, all from his scanned 35 mm negs. His

process is amazing, and if digital is what you want to try, this

would be a good reference book.

[pete_andrews]

I don't think that your decision can be rationally based on the

technical merits of any particular medium. My own opinion is that for

colour work, digital has far greater potential, flexibility and colour

fidelity than film has managed to achieve to date. Especially in the

light of digital's progress in the last 5 years, compared to film over

the last 50.<br>For B&W, I'm still undecided, since this area is being

largely ignored by the big players in digital imaging.<p>Anyway, as

far as selling from gallery walls is concerned, I think you should

look more to psychology, than to fellow photographers, for your

answer.<br>The fine art scene these days seems to have very little to

do with the technical ability of the artist, or with aesthetic merit.

It's more about hype, snobbery and investment, and in this respect, I

don't think that digital holds the kudos of such labels as "R-type

print", or "Silver-gelatin (sic) print", even though the buyer

probably has little idea what those labels actually mean.

[john5]

As a large format guy who has sold all of his equipment to go digital

I think I can give some insight on the other side. First as with

everything photographic the end result is going to justify the means.

I you want to display a traditional C print, Ilfochrome, or B+W print

it is not imposible to do this with digital. However a 4x5, 8x10, or

larger will give you the best results. Now if you were to work within

the digital "world" so to speak where you are going to "process" your

images with the computer your end result could be quite different.

There are ink jet prints which are more like mechanized paintings or

photographic images printed on alternative papers. There is acetate

where a negative can be produced for contact printing. Output to a

fuji pictography printer which is a silver process and is

indistinguishable {spelling?} from a traditional photographic print.

Neg and transparency printers. Ect...

 

<p>

 

By no means am I on a digital high horse though it may sound like it.

IMHO digital right now is geared more tword the photographic fine

artist who has been dying for an easier and more cost efficient way

of taking/creating an image. This works for me.

 

<p>

 

For an exact {to some extent} copy of what is

[john5]

As a large format guy who has sold all of his equipment to go digital

I think I can give some insight on the other side. First as with

everything photographic the end result is going to justify the means.

I you want to display a traditional C print, Ilfochrome, or B+W print

it is not imposible to do this with digital. However a 4x5, 8x10, or

larger will give you the best results. Now if you were to work within

the digital "world" so to speak where you are going to "process" your

images with the computer your end result could be quite different.

There are ink jet prints which are more like mechanized paintings or

photographic images printed on alternative papers. There is acetate

where a negative can be produced for contact printing. Output to a

fuji pictography printer which is a silver process and is

indistinguishable {spelling?} from a traditional photographic print.

Neg and transparency printers. Ect...

 

<p>

 

By no means am I on a digital high horse though it may sound like it.

IMHO digital right now is geared more tword the photographic fine

artist who has been dying for an easier and more cost efficient way

of taking/creating an image. This works for me.

 

<p>

 

For an exact {to some extent} copy of what is there, large format

film will give you the best result with traditional processes.

Digital will give you medium format reults if you know what you are

doing when using traditional processes.

 

<p>

 

IMHO

[jonathan brewer]

Digital has borrowed or taken a lot from Photography and painting

and a few other disciplines. I consider my image editing program an

electronic darkroom that gives me an extra dimension to add to some of

my images as opposed to a smokescreen for a lousy image. Digital to

me is more of an offshoot of Photography and than anything else but it

tries hard sell itself as the equal of photography which is not. I

use my digital tools to augment my photograhy.

 

<p>

 

I've got 35mm, MF, and now LF, and in terms of the quality of my

Photographic equipmeny(its workmanship, quality, and the willingness

of the manufacturers to stand by that equipment) versus my

Digital(Image Editing, Computer,printers) equipment, there is no

comparison. I have cameras that I've had for 15+ years, that the

manufacturer has fixed for nothing. On the other hand I've got a four

year old dye-sub printer that the manufacturer refuses to even

service. People in digital put out software at premium prices they

know have bugs, and in some cases thousands of them. Some of the

software I've bought just didn't work until I expended even MORE money

for a later upgrade. The arrogant and obnoxius attitude of some folks

that I've talked to over the phone, regarding the problems I've had

with software bugs and/or computer crashes caused by those bugs is

intolerable. I bought some software inside of a year ago which kept

crashing my system, and upon complaining over the phone about the

problem their tech support people told me to just stop using their

software! In other words, we took your money now get lost!

 

<p>

 

There are also a lot of folks in Digital claiming to be fine

artists who obviously never been to so much as Art Appreciation 101.

They seem to think that since they're smart and have a computer and

photoshop, that if they put a lot of stuff in an image they can pass

it off as something well done. Dues have to be paid and a lot of the

makers and users of digital equipment don't want to pay them.

 

<p>

 

Photography is a mature discipline, and Digital is still in its

infancy. A lot of Digitals roots are in Photograhpy and as such it is

never going to replace photography, reshape it maybe.

 

<p>

 

Having said all this, Digital is great WHEN it works right,is

backed up by a manufacturer with enthusiastic tech support and you

know what you're doing. There are some great digital artists believe

me, just not enough of them.

[ken_nielsen]

I would like to see your work on a website anyway Gary. It would

be a good reference to what you have in the galleries. IMHO.