I would have thought that film's inability to process light, and color,
like the human brain would have nipped that thought in the bud...but I
guess people like to tinker regardless. Somebody else on this list, a
while back, barked about the necessity of photographs being true to the
original. I just don't get it...sounds like half-assed alchemy to me.
"The original is never faithful to the translation." -Jorge Luis Borges
Ruey wrote:
Trevor Cunningham wrote:
Or, you could just produce color separations for digital negatives
and make tricolor gum bichromate prints.
I guess I could but my interest is in making images that exercise the
potential of human vision and create as lifelike an image as possible.
Color processes like gum bichromate seem to color as pictorialism was
to the potential of photography to render subjects accurately - I have
heard these called "a way for folks who have trouble holding a brush
steady to imagine they are painters." Paintings that attempt to be
photographs seem to disappoint as much as photographs that attempt to
emulate painting. There is probably a value in both, but there is also
a value in creating images that very accurately record color as was
once done with dye transfers.
Ed Scott
