treaclechops
|
Re: A pedant speaks
Sep 05, 2003, 19:01
|
This digital stuff is all very well, but as I've said before, you lose skill and craftswomanship if you wander out and knock off any old pic because you can doctor it up on the computer at a later date.
I once saw the work of a photographer who'd done exactly that; he'd taken some poorly composed, and quite frankly, shite pictures, saying 'Oh it doesn't matter, I can do something in Photoshop with it later'. Whatever happened to standards? Eh? Eh???
I like the challenge of crafting something from what's in front of me; and if I produced a wonderful shot every time, where would the joy be? I accept the comments about chemistry-free atmospheres, but if you have adequate ventilation, this shouldn't be too much of a problem (and I'm hooked on the smell of darkrooms; feels like coming home to me). I like crafting my own prints with an enlarger. I can 'feel' what I'm doing, much like making custard. Any cook will tell you that you need to 'feel' the dish to see if it's right or not. I'm sure the Cheese Empress (Rhiannon) would agree with me on that one!
And it wasn't a digital SLR, it was one of those small square things.
Yours,
An old stick-in-the-treacle xx
|
treaclechops
|
Re: Purists
Sep 05, 2003, 19:03
|
Are you squiffy? :o)
treaclechops xx
|
morfe lux
|
Re: A pedant speaks
Sep 05, 2003, 19:16
|
Sorry Treaclechops, as I mentioned above, I wasn't referring to you, just replying to the Hob's comment on 'art'.
I can't compare film and digital, but as far as I know I can get closer to my own true vision at present with digital, and the quality is controlled by myself all the way. With digital it takes ridiculous amounts of time to translate the zone system into post exposure editing and printing, not to mention the pitfalls of colour space and cross-platform colour management, but saying that, I do have 'nth' amount of control over tints and the printing process, whether duotone, quadtone or whatever.
I can never see the issue over 'this vs that', when surely it's the things we make from 'this' and 'that' which ultimately count? I agree that there is a 'sacred space' and smelly things in a darkroom, which adds to the magic of production process.
Keep on keeping on!
Morfe x
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Purists
Sep 05, 2003, 19:18
|
Who said that? Why?
They're coming!
ARGH!
|
FourWinds
|
Re: A pedant speaks
Sep 05, 2003, 19:36
|
I must admit that since having my digital camera I have become a git for taking loads of images. Whereas before I used go out and carefully take 36 photos and get 5 good ones I now go out and take 200 images and get 5 good ones.
If I was doing it for anything other than putting images on the web I'd be a lot more careful :-)
|
treaclechops
|
Re: Purists
Sep 05, 2003, 19:52
|
You've had a nip of the cooking sherry, haven't you? ;o)
treaclechops xx
|
morfe lux
|
Re: A pedant speaks
Sep 05, 2003, 19:55
|
Yeah, when you have to pay for the camera by selling prints you get pretty busy too ;-)
I take about 3 shots each subject, and I'm very conservative about when I press the shutter release. One thing about digital is having the memory of the light and colour fresh in yr mind when you get to review the image on screen. I find with film you are limited not only to the film brand colour cast, but also the paper. Using digital colour management I can get pretty much what I want. Which is daft when 80% of my work is black and white ;-)
Stop scratching chins and get snapping!
|
treaclechops
|
Re: A pedant speaks
Sep 05, 2003, 20:00
|
No worries morfe lux! I think there's space for both disciplines, too. A personal theory is the old fashioned way of doing it will be a sought-after art form in its own right, given the fullness of time. In fact, I know a photographer who's fascinated by all the old techniques and recipes for chemistry, and she's going off to pursue photography using those techniques. We need people like her to keep things alive.
Obviously, there are times when digital has the edge - like I wish I had a digital camera, so that I could get pictures of the places I've visited actually up on this website; I have hundreds of negs to go through and print up, yet not enough time/money/resources to do so, currently. It's a real frustration. The speed is a real asset!
Horses for courses, but it'll all even out in the end. ;o)
treaclechops xx
|
treaclechops
|
Re: A pedant speaks
Sep 05, 2003, 20:06
|
Talking of B/W, I'd be very interested to know how pure joy does his B/W work . . . he may have told me befoe, but I've forgotten, 'cos I is crap, innit? I'd also like to know what Earthstepper uses!
I've got Top of the Pops on at the moment; aren't they playing some shite these days???!!! Shania Twain is hysterical . . . who is she kidding? But it's a bloody catchy tune ("that's a catchy tune, Mildred"). . . . best I get Miles Davis' "Sketches of Spain" on instead!
treaclechops xx
|
morfe lux
|
time and print
Sep 05, 2003, 20:11
|
I think any system is measured well by the output needs. Obviously photography for print is best done using digital SLR, digital backs etc (if they can be afforded) as the resultant 300 dpi magazine/book litho would only have been scanned from the negative anyway should film have been used. So-called 'fine art' photography is a specialist process and I'm conscious of having to work very hard to carve out a niche here for myself. It's not that I don't believe in the methods i use (i do, very much!) , it's that there is huge prejudice as to whether digital photography is cheating or not. I know that's a rubbish argument, because all the same rules apply whichever method one uses to capure the light, and any discerning eye can spot the equation: shit/incompetent effort inwards, shit/incompetent result outwards! Of course there's then the unmeasureable variable: vision, pre-emptive and actual, which in turn is divided by luck!
Onwards and upwards! Woe be to they who say photography isn't an art!
~o~ morfe
|
