Re: [Leica] B&W output from digital devices (long)

["Isaac H Crawford" <eyes1@mindspring.com>]

>>
>> RBedw51767@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I would sure hate to think that prints from an Epson printer
>> would rival what
>> > I am gettiing from my darkroom.  I am far from a professional
>> and really don't desire to be one or to do exhibition prints.  I
>> have extreme pride of
>> > ownership after working on a print and finally getting one that
>> is worthy of
>> > mounting.  I will never posess this feeling from an ink-jet
>> printer.  The word
>> > to come to my mind when I think of this process is prostitution.
>
>Why would you ever say that?...After scanning the neg, you use PhotoShop or
>a similar program to do everything you would otherwise do with the
>enlarger - enlarge, reduce-  crop, don't crop - burn in, dodge - darken
over
>all, lighten over all - adjust color to make it more "real," adjust color
to
>correct "reality." Additionally, you use the software to "spot" the print
>prior to printing, so that you get a final print without any dust or gunk
>anywhere. All of this requires your intellectual and physical input. All of
>it requires your having an understanding of photography, printing,
>etc....It's simply using a different medium.
>
>When all that is done, you turn the image over to the printer and get a
>print...Why is that so different from developing the print inside a drum
>system?
>
If the final print is all you're worried about, then I guess there's no
difference. But then again, if the final print is all you're worried about,
why don't you hire someone to do it all for you? You get a print in the end,
so what's the difference? I've found that making prints digitally is about
as satisfying as getting my work done at a lab. Sure, I make the decisions,
but there is a distancing or removel from the work that I find unsatisfying.
Being fully involved in the craft is not only emotionaly satisfying, but the
whole process is different. Craft will inform and change the way you do
things, and will eventually dictate how the image turns out. I am of the
firm belief that photography done in the darkroom has the potential for
turning out differently (and IMHO better) than any digital process.
    If you've never worked at mastering your craft, the darkroom may seem
like a waste of time. I am of the opinion that time in the darkroom is an
invaluable contribution to my appreciation for photography. The "flippancy"
of manipulations in the digital realm is a real nefarious influence. If you
screw-up, just hit the undo button. I think that the cheapening of
consequences will retard your growth as a photographer by not driving home
issues of craft.
    Some would argue that the "unlimited" choices offered to the
photographer by the computer are an asset. Perhaps... but only to a true
master of photography... someone who knows exactly what they want and will
not treat the possibilites as "quick fixes". For the rest of us, the digital
proces will amount to "playing with the image", which is fine, but it will
never teach us the skill of previsualisation, which is crucial to any
expressive art. The limitations of the chemical process forces you to set
goals, and then try to acheive them, and I think that this is a much more
informative way to approach image making than the digital route.

Isaac