On Mon, November 23, 2009 09:42, lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I was reminded while reading more on Wm Motensen that somehow using > light and chemical soup, whether an alchemist like WM was or an > empiricist like AA was, doing it "by hand" is popularly regarded more > worthy than by mouse. For me his work is an example that completes the > circle of so-called "hand" to digital art expression. The "by hand" is done per-print, the "by mouse" is done once per file and you can then print as many identical prints as you like. The hand prints are thus "more unique", and also cost more to make (including the time of the person doing the making). The inkjet prints are in some ways more like photomechanical reproductions (no inherent technological limit on quantity, VERY low print-to-print variation) than traditional art prints (where even for stone lithographs, stone wear is visible when you compare early and late prints in a run; woodcuts and metal etchings wear faster). None of which quite addresses "more worthy". It does to some extent justify higher prices. (Adams is an interesting case to include since while he did some limited portfolios, he didn't artificially limit print editions.) > I just got rid of the last odds n' ends of my darkroom stuff - gave it > all away. I have to say with no modesty that I was good at the darkroom. > It isn't rocket surgery. I am but a novice at anything but the most > routine PhotoShop skills. PS requires at the very least, an equal > amount of general technical skill and affords way more choices of > particular manual skills. It is by no means easy. Why do people persist > in devaluing art made with the aid of a computer? Same reason they devalue art made with a camera; anybody can push a button. I was fairly decent in the B&W darkroom, I thought. I was a better COLOR printer about 10 minutes into my learning experience with Corel Photo Paint than I'd ever been in the darkroom, though (and I do still have some of my own color darkroom prints in my collection). > I am not squeamish about using PS plug-ins. Are you? Is it less > worthy? Should or could the same result be gotten in the dark? I'm squeamish about artistic effects in photoshop. I'm not squeamish about Noise Ninja or Focus Magic, or the Kodak (originally Applied Science Fiction) ROC plugin, or Color Mechanic. There are some masking plugins that I'd like to try, but since they cost more than photoshop, and I suspect have the learning curve to match, I doubt I ever will. (Masking and blending modes and sharpening are my major areas of learning currently.) -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
