film AND digital

[mike dixon]

For b&w, with rare exceptions, most work is done in a wet

darkroom, and I only scan to make web images or, occasionally,

to provide someone with a file from which they can make

numerous copies (e.g. headshots). Color transparency work is

heavily edited, then scanned and printed digitally. Most color

negative work is done with wet processes.

[dennis_couvillion]

"Just because digital is faster, the learning curve isn't instantaneous when using PS and digital printing. In that respect, it is no different than a wet process."

 

That's one of the compelling reasons why I do not wish to get into digital photography. Why start over and learn an entirely different process (digital) when I already know this one (film)? And where the new process will not enhance my picture taking skills or the production of prints any better than the film technology I presently use. If you don't shoot for a newspaper or magazine, where you have to know digital photography, what's the point of a prosumer spending a great deal of money on an entirely new process which has a steep learning curve? I am very happy with my Leica M6 and film technology. Thank you very much, but I have no reason to go digital.

 

FWIW, and so you don't get the impression that I believe digital is the work of the devil, my son is a journalism major and I bought him his first camera last summer, a Canon digital. That's the technology he needs to learn.

 

Cheers,

 

Dennis

[bhk]

utter bullshyt....go look at paul caponigros prints....

theres are tons of people making spectacular digital prints these days, far better than

silver.....

 

 

as for me, im happy with the crap i get....

 

---

 

Well I'm glad you're happy with it... ultimately it's a matter of preference.

 

I *have* seen some outstanding giclees. But I've also seen some outstanding silver (&

platinum) prints and *still* prefer silver (& platinum). Maybe you should go look at

some of Irving Penn's prints, or Jock Sturges - start training your eye in terms of

subtleties. I've yet to see a digital paper with an equivalent of an air-dried glossy FB

surface.

 

Where *you're* full of sh-t is in reference to Photoshop. As someone mentioned in

another thread, when you burn you do *NOT* extract additional detail from the neg as

in wet printing but simply darken an area. You can *NOT* flash an image as you can in

the darkroom. Try as you might you surely can *NOT* create a lith print in Photoshop.

Why do you think the wet darkroom is still around, and in use by many world's most

successful photographers?

 

Best,

 

Babar

[grant_.]

<i>

ultimately it's a matter of preference.</I>

<br>

<br>

i agree. given that, who gives a rats ass what everyone else is doing......ive nothing to prove....do you???

[keith_merrill]

I shoot mainly black and white in 645, 4x5 and 35mm and process, proof and enlarge in my wet darkroom using an omega d2 or a Durst m601 and using a nova quad processor as my trays, unless I am printing 20x24 where I would tray process.

 

For the limited color I do shoot, I have my local lab process and get contact sheets or keep positive film uncut then decide which shot(s) I would like printed. I ship this film to my sister who drum scans them at no cost to me because I am such a great brother and she burns me a cd. I then can play around in photoshop and save to a cd to give to her. She fixes the color if it is way out of wack and then prints it for me, for the cost of the paper and inks. I prefer not to work in color and since I am not pro I generally don't shoot it. Photoshop is a great program, little hard to learn at first, but fun and full of possibilities, but IMHO is no substitute for a traditional wet/optical darkroom. I am just glad I have the time to spend printing.

[edmo]

if youre looking for details in shadows in PS use curves and not the dodge and burn tools. it's all just a matter of knowing your tools same as in a darkroom.

[blakley]

Marc and Mike,

 

I'm interested in how long it takes each of you to go from in-camera image to finished print. I've been handing off the back-end of the process to my local lab for years now, but am thinking about doing some of my own processing again. This would mean either re-learning the wet darkroom, or really-learning photoshop. When I get done with either, I'm interested in how much time I'd be spending on the process. Any thoughts?

[john_tencza2]

Personaly ,and i'm not a pro, but I think scanning color neg's and then pringting digitally is exceptible, since that what i see in gallery's these days. ofcoarse these are irisis or somthing like that

but using an epson ink jet comes pretty close, so that's what i do.

Having said that --with b\w its a different matter. When I scan and print digital i seem to get a better seperation of tone's than than in the dark-room ,but at the same time, when i scan negs, even at its highest sampleing, there seems to be some infomation missing from the negs,that i get when going silver gel

[jbs]

Hey!

Marc Williams,

eggs'actly...;)...J