karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > DOn writes: > >> Alan, pardon the over reactive moment. There may have been one >> suggestion that digital imagers were not photographers or I may have >> inferred that. > > s'OK Don, I'm still having trouble believing they're human.. ;-) > >>Anyway, it kept the thread moving and growing. I >> have only recently moved into digital after a lifetime of >> conventional, and some unconventional, methods and processes. I >> have no particular ax to grind with either. > > out of interest, and please don't take this for a moment as me > questioning your credentials, what formats have you shot with film? > If you've been a mf or lf shooter, do you miss these formats? (Not originally addressed to me, but since I'm going to take on some of the stuff later on it seems only fair to respond to this also). I've still got a 4x5 and two MF cameras, as well as something like 5 film bodies (same lens system as my good digital). I just rarely use them anymore. So I don't miss them. They're not gone. They're still there. I can use them any time I find them appropriate. >> But I am falling in love with the digital world. One can do so >> much there. > > I've yet to find much that digi can do that couldn't be done by a > skilled operator using traditional processes. Bob Carlos Clark was > a master of multiple enlarger multiple image printing, eugene smith > kept his practices secret though, and unsharp masking was a > relatively new technique though one mastered in the darkroom before > it found it's way to a computer program. desaturating and > colourising were the tools of the trade for graphic artists and the > photographers who chose to learn the techniques.. the list goes on. > > but. > > skill and much more dedication, money and time was required to > master these tools and techniques You say that like it's a good thing. It's *not*. Making the craft easier is *good*. It increases the pool of artists working. Good artistic vision doesn't always tie to good craft / technical skills, or the right attitudes to acquire them easily. For that matter, the fact that digital darkroom is *so much* faster than chemical means an artist can create more of the same quality, or perhaps higher quality in the same amount. Or can have a life in addition to being an artist. >> But, as with all creative processes, sometimes too much freedom of >> choice makes the job harder rather than easier. An architecture >> professor of mine always said the toughest jobs would be those with >> the fewest set parameters. Vacillators need not apply. > > true, but hey.. every day we wake we have the world ahead of us, we > pick up our cameras and we make our way out the front door - what > are we to photograph? ;-) > > we sometimes choose to limit ourselves and that is our nature, we > are creatures of habit who approach new situations cautiously, > that's a simple fact of survival. Constraints, whether self imposed > or existant in a social structure make life more predictable and > steady and within those constraints we are free - and it also gives > us walls to kick and push against, to challenge us and present us > with something to seek to conquer, and if the walls NEED pushing > back and we have the intestinal fortitude then we will seek to make > changes. It's also very rewarding to overcome a major hurdle and > succeed. And it's very frustrating to see people knocking their heads against a brick wall *when there's a door right next to them*. > Mastering those darkroom techniques would bring on an appreciation > from others and a satisfaction in ourselves, a good reward for hard > effort. as you say, vacillators need not apply - it balanced nicely > > a kid with photoshop, net access and a half dozen images pinched > from the web has none of the limitations of a traditional film / > darkroom photographer and the images can be whipped out quickly, > sometimes badly sometimes good - the effort is the same though and > the rewards.. well, they're off playing doom as soon as they've lost > interest in the montage of madonna, brittany and dubbya. Are the rewards the same? I think most people can tell "bad" from "good" most of the time. I think the kid who does a *good* job will get a lot more support and reaction from his friends. > our darkroom efforts are diminished by this sort of thing though. > is it a real Faberge egg or a plastic copy? no one asks, they > assume it's the plastic copy and don't bother picking it up to > check.. after all, Faberge eggs are only ever found in museums :-( I gotta deny the attempted analogy between a digital image and a plastic copy. That's nonsense. It's true that things that were interesting only for their rarity lose their value when not rare. But if the value *was* due only to their rarity, then they weren't really important in the first place, were they? It was a false value. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
