David Damn Kodak for their slogan "You push the button - we do the rest." ! One of the core disciplines of all print making is repeatability. My print maker friends get all inked up and their output is "hand made." Same in the photo darkroom - wet, in the dark is good - ink jet printer is only a copy machine. Hence the idiotic word "GeeeClaaaay" - sounds arty cuz its french - for ink jet The fake and imitation have always been OK in art. Emulating the look of other photo or art media may be authentic if you think their look informs the idea you are going for even if only its a decorative effect. If you think photography is a form of drawing anything should go. I try and maintain a distance between "real", or "straight" photos for certain things I'm doing and drawings or mixed media effects. That is why Ed M's techniques appeal to me AZ LOOKAROUND - Since 1978 Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround E-Book FREE COPY http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: "By hand" and more Wm Mortensen. > From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, November 23, 2009 12:53 pm > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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
