Stop making sense. :D
Stop making sense. :D
Nearly all colour film photographers today worth mentioning use Photoshop. That so few are in the Sony competition is just a sign that you need to look elsewhere for good work.
True. And the number is growing and growing. I once considered PSP passé. Truth is the gallery-quality hybridised printing needs a step-one interface before gettign anywhere. We make use of it a little for colourimetrics (profiling) post-scan from film. The way to go is that everything on the film should be just right and correct — especially with transparency, exposure-wise or neg to essentially minimise the need for introducing artifice. Whether it reflects reality or imagination is a personal choice. Interpretations of reality differ greatly, but bad work is easily spotted. Darkroom manipulation of prints is on a par with working in Photoshop or any other image software. There is no difference. Just the moral ethos and dogma that bubble surface from the pond of purity.
You see absolutely no differences between the creation of an electronically-produced "digital" image, and a chemically-produced "analog" photograph? None whatsoever? They are EXACTLY the same thing? Indistinguishable from each other? An identical process resulting in an identical end result? Genetic twins?
"There is no difference."
The hybrid workflow is best suited to straight photography or 'documentary style' work in my mind, which straddles that line between art photography and reportage. The ethos here (for most LF colour neg practitioners) is that the negative is everything. The print itself isn't supposed to be the beautiful 'object' many here champion, but an appropriately austere 'reproduction' of what was seen, unembellished - which is why the hybrid process is favoured by people like Alec Soth. In this sense, rather than just thinking of Photoshop as 'manipulation station', it's also used as the most efficient means to an end for photographers who maintain traditional straight photography sensibilities. At it's core, this kind of photography has always been about efficiency and clarity of intent/technique.
The problem of course is this panicked need for a 'solution' to all the photographic 'media' (so many! :whistling:) and methods of presentation we have. Hybrid work is too often seen as a compromise for traditional photographers, a halfway step to the darkside, when there's actually an important sense of equilibrium and practicality to it, which I see as a statement. These photographers definitely don't continue to shoot film because they're half stubborn, but to call attention to photographic 'media' - which is a word that definitely needs to be reiterated until average Joe understands film has its rightful place - and yes, overwhelmingly, in the arena of 'serious' photography.
Most people's exposure to film photography will be through looking at these digital prints, from popular contemporary favourites such as Soth and Simon Roberts over here. These big name art photography 'hybriders' encourage students to shoot film - if only to imitate the 'look' at first. But a need to shoot film, for whatever reason and to whatever end, will inevitably lead to curiosity about the darkroom.