Where are these masterpieces? I have yet to see one made that way...
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
I find both digital and darkroom processes difficult enough, and I am sure masterpieces would require far more skill than rudimentary abilities in either. In any case, few people would want to rather deal with a difficult process to produce the same result than an easy one. If we could make pictures without processes, we would.
The process (or post process) is easy, given enough time and computer knowledge.
I would love to use digital if its imaging had the sort of qualities that B&W film provides, and I ideally don't care about the processes. They are just necessary evil to give me photos. Most of the fun for me happens in picture taking and the rest is drudgery. As it is right now, I can't stand the rubbery, plasticky digital look though.
On the other hand, the requirements for film PROCESS are different and yes, likely more difficult and time consuming. But the pleasure is indeed in the process which, as others have mentioned, takes us away from these damn screens and fuels creativity in different ways.
I'm sceptical of the idea that digital cameras have increased access to photography but I will concede that access to post processing has increased via pirate copies of photoshop. The pirating element is probably one of the most significant cost savings. I think the real increase in access (I don't think this can be called 'democratisation' - perhaps saturation) has come via mobile phones with built in cameras which I suspect will render the idea of having one device to take photos obsolete in many people's eyes.
i don't know ...
plasticky rubbery look ?
i have shown digital and d/r prints to
people who are both part of the digirazzi and neo luddites
and neither could figure out which images were which.
it doesn't matter to me anymore which camera i use.
i used to think that it would kill my creativity, and make me dull
light room dark room its all the same to me ..
my problem is i have a hurt back from a series of unrelated accidents
and light+darkrooms aren't as much fun as they could be ...
silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
artwork often times sold for charity
PM me for details
The masterpiece part was sort of a tongue in cheek joke. Even if there is masterpiece, I wouldn't be able to find it (talent dilution, as mentioned before). I hear you about the processes but, personally, I do like to torture myself and never look for the easy way. That's just me. The answer to that dilemma is, of course, to give everything to a lab or a talented printer so one can concentrate on shooting. Oh well...can't have everything, pick your poison, you know, all that..
Originally Posted by bwrules
Originally Posted by jnanian
That's right master Nanian, which goes back to the quality vs process argument. I think that the arguments about quality are futile at best. I have also printed loads with Piezography inks on Epson Pro printers and they are fantastic prints, from film and certainly from M9 digital files. I don't enjoy the process but the quality is undeniable and, in many instances, indistinguishable.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It used to take "Big balls" to photograph a commercial job. Put $800 worth of film and processing on the line, and wait 30-90 days to get paid.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
Digital is a damn safety net... no more $75 to $800 outlay per assignment that you had to get dead on to be paid.
Digital to me is a big safety net for "commercial photographers" that couldn't expose Ektachrome reliably in the past.
This is how I feel, My income is only 40% or what it was in the film days... I interviewed to drive school-bus to supliment my income.
That being said I had more time to enjoy life when I was in the photo-chemical work flow. Editing then "processing" digital images does take more time... especially compared to shooting 30 roll of 120 "chrome" on a 2-day job.
Judicious and exact photography was what I did back then.... I shoot "low" for a digital shooter.. still rarely make more than 72 exposures in an hour. Some of these "youngsters" rattle off frames like they are making movies!
Perhaps, then, digital has increased access to professional photography. I'd agree with that. This is something I wrote in another thread about product photography:
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
I used to work in a large car parts factory and up until around 2000 it employed two full time professional photographers who mostly did product shots (they also did corporate portrait stuff). They worked with large and medium format cameras and had a dedicated lab on-site, they produced good work. After 2000 the factory went through some restructuring and the place was bought by a US firm. The two pros lost their jobs, the lab equipment and cameras went and in their place came a Sony Digital camera than took 3.5" floppies which was used by whoever had a spare 5 minutes. The photos were crap, but no one seemed to care.
I agree with this except most people don't see it... and there it is. More art education in schools!
Originally Posted by bwrules
#1-- no it's my professional obit whine fest.
Originally Posted by bwrules
#2-- so why do musicians still us analog means?
#3-- our craft/profession already magical has underwent changes that could not have been believed in 1986 (I did a paper on digital photography in 1986)
Regarding #2: my wife's a pianist and I asked her once why not play a digital piano, record the sound onto a computer and then edit it to sound better?
She never questioned my darkroom activities after that.