From: "David Dyer-Bennet" > (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). So David, do you miss what a 4x5 format can bring to an image that cannot be achieved with a smaller format? in a like vein, why did you have 4x5 as well as 35mm, was it just the resolution or maybe the perspective control, or was it the added dimensional qualities too? curious, not being argumentative. > So I don't miss them. They're not gone. They're still there. I can > use them any time I find them appropriate. again not to be a prick but because I find myself in a similar situation, do you make the effort to grab the 4x5 or would you, when a digital camera is quicker and easier to use? I'm staying film for what it forces on me and using digital for emailing, ebay and parties where I'm a guest an I just want blackmail material ;-) > 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. sure, I'd FAR prefer a factory cranked out engine in a mass produced car over the COST of a hand built one any day ;-) At this stage I see there are sacrifices being made in photography since digi swept in, but it's mostly relating to the issue of format. preservation is also an issue for me too.. > 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. Had a guy stop by the other day pulling his hair out - he's shot 9000 images on Saturday and had been working without sleep 'till Monday to get a web page of thumbnails up to sell images from a show. He was exasperated as his method had messed up the file order and he was totally tanged so I helped him get it all back to rights. He's also had a cart go silly on him and totally lost one set of images.. He was very happy that a few days prior I'd taught him a way to cut down on the time processing the images but still, he wanted the whole lot ready to go by Wednesday. 9000 images. he'd shot everything! Admittedly there have been times when I'd have liked to capture at 100th of a second everything continuously that passed before my eyes, but 60 minutes yielding 360,000 images for me to pour over, scrutinise and cull back to a likely one or two??? damn, it'd take me days and days to see them all, to really *see* them. so much for a life ;-) His 9000 printed at $1 a shot would be an awesome collection. I had a motor sport shooter I had to help out too, hundreds and hundreds of out-of-focus images, he had been shooting with AF on, I told him to pick the spot where the cars would look best, turn off AF and shoot just that spot and nowhere else. he was much happier the next time when ALL the shots were at a particular, dramatic point and all were in focus. OK, these are silly and common mistakes that one overcomes as one's experiences guide them, but I was truly amazed at the mass of images these folks were trying to handle. Both men were reputable shooters here yet neither had been shooting discriminately and were trying to cope with vast amounts of work in image processing and handling. One has 10 120Gb hard drives at home filled with images (!) He was also the guy who'd lost 260Gb worth when a striped raid array went screwy :-/ no constraints had left these guys with their heads spinning and they had become desperate individuals trying hard to control a lust that had got out of hand. >>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*. I prefer (and it's personal) to take on challenges that offer rewards in the long run rather that taking the easy road. I feel the rewards more, the satisfaction runs deeper.. I like the contrasts - and yes, I'm the goose that stays out way longer on a cold rainy day than I should just because that hot shower feels soooo much better at the end > 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. good until it becomes familiar and commonplace, then the challenges are gone and the appreciation falls away. Do you remember the first time you pulled a wet print from the chemistry? I miss that feeling. > > 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. I'm just saying that people who view imaging as easy, something that anyone can do will fail to appreciate what's before them. The manufacturers have spent squillions telling everyone it's easy and that they can do it - it's hard to argue with that sort of advertising! As a consequence many people will look at an image as just one image of many that they may care for or not. It will have no value though, it's just a picture after all! My comment that Faberge eggs are found in museums however reflected my view that as this fad progresses all appreciation of current photographers may just fall away - and only those who's works currently reside in galleries will be received as being special. if it's outside a gallery it's just a picture. have their been any greats remembered for their digital? AA was really keen on the early work done in the field - did he make any digital images? if he did does any one know of any ? > 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. All value is false, residing only in the hearts of the man or woman who treasures these things. Love, hope, law, justice, kindness, art, country, pride - these things we hold as so special, these things that we die for are intrinsically valueless, they don't exist without the observer or the desire to respect and preserve their experienced value. they are creations of the human heart and without us they would evaporate. damn - I'm getting too close to the realms of phenomenology ;-) but really, there used to be awe experienced when folks looked at a picture created using multiple exposures with multiple enlargers when they knew what they were looking at, and it was an appreciation not just of the image but of the effort that went into it - the assumption now is that any twit can do it in PS. .. and subsequently the efforts of the darkroom practitioner who undertakes such a feat is diminished, they are written off as a twit who obviously didn't realise how easy it would have been done with a PC or a Mac I *like* the idea that in this world there exists people who work hard to achieve gains, it gives me hope that my life too can have some value maybe I'm just being a sentimental fool and overdramatic. don't know, it's just what I feel. k
