Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Digital/chemical=CD/vinyl? (non-OM)

Subject: Re: [OM] Digital/chemical=CD/vinyl? (non-OM)
From: "John Petrush" <petrush@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:02:16 -0800
Tim,
As this is not specifically OM, and as a group we've been a tad
ummm.....sensitive of late, my apologies if this ruffles any feathers.  But
please, express your disagreement agreeably.  That said, I too ponder
silver/emulsion/chemical based imaging, as done by hand in a small darkroom
inthe pure sense of the word "amateur" compared to the speed, convienence
and near instant gratification of digital imaging.  I do both regularly.
Each has its place.

I've tried nealy all forms of printing, B&W, color neg, direct positives,
and Cibas (now ilfochrome Classic).  I distinguish Ciba from other direct
positives simply because in my experience the other methods proved a waste
of time and resources.  In B&W, watching the image emerge in the tray is
just this side of magic to me.  Nothing will teach you more about your
technique and "vision" than B&W.  Moreover, the skills acquired in B&W are
indispensible for making contrast masks in making excellent Cibas.  To do
either well you must master contrast control.  Color negative, on the other
hand, is almost too easy.  The current crop of films and printing materials
allow relatively huge latitudes in camera exposure, print processing
controls and contrast manipulation.

In the digital arena, the ability to manipulate the image in ways the
darkroom simply cannot match is boundless.  Top shelf imaging software makes
controling color balance, contrast, brightness and so on a snap.  A wild
variety of "special effects" are a mere mouse click away.  The technology
has some drawbacks, but none that can't be overcome.

So what to do?  For myself, I continue to explore the emulsion darkroom, but
I'm getting more into the fringes using contrast masks with Ciba materials.
I'm also studying the old processes - liquid emulsions and dye transfer,
both of which are really B&W processes.  I feel there is much more art and
craft in these "old ways", but that is the very thing that brings
satisfaction to me - the art and craft.  The digital stuff is fun for the
quickies, or the occasional web page posting.  And you can't beat the
digital pic of the kid blowing out birthday candles and sharing the .jpg
with grandma and grandpa within the hour via email.

I suppose the day will eventually come when the rest of the world is digital
and I'll still be rocking trays of smelly chemicals alone in the dark.  So
be it.  I'll be at peace, doing what I want, and doing it my way.  And
generations from now, unknown descendents will see my pictures, see the
things I've seen in the light I choose to present them.  I'll not have to
worry if their software can read that particular file format or physical
storage medium.  All they have to do is pull out the old album and turn the
pages........  And by then, "better" won't matter an iota.

John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far"

Tim Clark   <MorrisMini@xxxxxxx>  rambled:
>
>Just a thought about all the digital listings recently.  I am in the midst
of
>setting up a basement chemical darkroom and was struck by the thought I
might
>be investing in a dinosaur.  ....   The difference in sound (and
>the visual quality of digital vs. chemical) is subtle or non-existent to
some
>and a world apart for others.  As time goes on, certainly the differences
will
>diminish to the point of making it a personal preference as to which course
to
>follow.  Or will it?
>
>The experience of being in the dimmed atmosphere of a darkroom watching
images
>emerge like magic in the developer tray is a womb-like comfort unlikely to
be
>duplicated by any computer session.  Or is it??
>
>Will a fine chemical print always be "better" than a digitized wonder?
Will
>our affection for the craftsmanship of a print made with the alchemy and
light
>manipulation of a darkroom fade as the skill and time to rearrange pixels
>artfully becomes a major investment in addition to the computer power and
>programming necessary?
>
>I have invested a fair amount of money in a good sound system that is
geared
>to virtually all CD input.  Being a musican, I can tell the difference
between
>vinyl and CD, but just can't justify the inconvenience, cost, and limited
>availability of vinyl.
>
>Photographically, I want to gain the skills of handling light, paper and
>chemicals for the personal satisfaction it brings in the true sense of the
>word "amateur".  Will this evolve into the more technical, clean-hands
>approach of computer enhanced images?  The time taken to learn Photoshop or
>its equivalent and striving for the unattainable ideal of perfection is
>certainly as great a factor as learning traditional image production.




< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz