RE: [Leica] The digital darkroom

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Other than the actual taking of a photograph on film, there is little else
that gives satisfaction like producing your own masterpieces in a "real"
darkroom. There is something about the personal involvement from the
beginning to the end. That "you" are "personally" creating the print. I is
unforgiving in technique. You must expose the film properly, process the
film properly, in order to make a print that speaks for your efforts and
abilities.

The digital process allows one to be very sloppy from original photograph,
to final output. Lets face it... Photoshop can correct virtually anything
that you might have done wrong along the way. You can remove that piece of
litter you didn't see during the photographing. You can change the gamma of
that improperly exposed and/or improperly processed film. You can add
sparkle to that water, to that hair, to those eyes, since you forgot to
arrange yourself and/or the scene to take advantage of those things that
add so much to a photograph. Basically, you can create everything you
forgot, make adjustments for sloppy process, and generally create your
vision in the computer.

For me, this has little satisfaction.

It's akin to teaching someone photography with a fully automatic, autofocus
camera. The person never learns the process behind photography. The digital
darkroom, like digital photography, has it's place in the world. Everything
from happy snaps, to gifts, to office decor, to promotions, etc... There
are many many uses for digital prints. But remember, they are far from
archival. Dye sublimation has some ability to last. Ordinary ink jet output
is pathetic for longevity. There are sprays that help. But two years from
now, that digital print you hung on the wall will be gone. That B&W or
color "darkroom" print you made will still be an infant in it's archival
life.

IMHO,

Jim

Jim -

On the other hand, I haven't had a darkroom or easy access to one for
decades. I find that scanning, manipulating, and digitally printing my
photos is giving me much of the satisfaction I used to derive from printing.

While you are correct in suggesting that PhotoShop allows for photographic
sloppiness, so does a darkroom in the hands of someone with decent skills.

I have recently been spending time with a massive Abrams book in W. Eugene
Smith - I think the title is W. Eugene Smith - 1934 to
1970whatever....Anyway, what is clear is that this "heroic figure" in the
world of documentary photography as good as created many of his most famous
images in the darkroom - the famous portrait of Albert Schweitzer, with the
pith helmet, African behind him, and hand and saw in the right foreground?
That was created using two negatives, the second of which had the hands and
saw. The Haitian mad woman, whose eyes and face pop out of the dark? A much
lighter photo that had other people in it....

The point isn't that Smith isn't great, but that the creative photographic
process often involves darkroom "magic" that allows the photographer to
produce a picture of what he saw, as opposed what was technically "there."

I am certainly not proposing putting Monica Lewinsky's head on some Bay
Watch body and passing it off as a photo of Monica. Nor am I suggesting, or
for that matter, condoning, combining negatives as Smith did...But gamma
manipulation, etc...? Isn't that what we all have done or try to do in the
darkroom?

The other thing to keep in mind is that PhotoShop is a tool, it is not an
"auto" anything. The photographer still has to know what it is he or she
wants to convey with the photograph. The photographer still has to know what
makes a great photograph, and the photographer has to know how to improve a
photo that is mediocre.

Just some thoughts...

B. D.