[Leica] The digital darkroom

[RedDrake@aol.com]

From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> said: >>>

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.
<<<

Wow, my head about spun around on my neck when I read this. Ok, for
those of you who haven't actually done a lot of work with photoshop, it's
a MYTH that you can just "fix" any blunder you might have made with the
camera. Yes you can usually remove a cigarette butt a little easier, but
most of the facilities on computer have a traditional darkroom counterpart.
One is not easier than the other, they are just different. Using a good
inkjet printer is a liberating experience for someone who could never have
a color darkroom because of cost and space required. The only thing I
have ever heard like this before was an article by a painter who was saying
that photography wasn't a real art because you just pointed the camera and
snapped the picture. Anyone out there agree with this?

Secondly, ink jet prints are really beautiful these days. I for one won our
local photography club's Photographer of the Year last year and it's the
only kind of print I make. You really need a loupe to tell the difference.

Third, about longevity. It's true that most digital prints last a shorter time
that traditional color prints. Black and white prints of course last even
longer
if archivally washed and selenium toned. Even so, some of the more expensive
digital processes are rated at 100-150 years life. Inkjet printers like the
Epsons
are believed by Wilhelm Research at about 2-3 years displayed in light 12
hours
a day and dark the rest of the time (like in a museum). Most Color papers you
get at your lab will last something like 14 years. The only fading I ever saw
was
a picture of my cat that was up for 2 years in constant bright flourescent
light.
I've put pictures up on my sliding glass door facing out for 6 months without
any degradation.  Furthermore, the "dark storage" of digital prints should be
even better. My 2.5 year old prints still look brilliant and beautiful. And
yes
my inkjet black and whites are better than my darkroom ones, though I
am certainly no darkroom master.