[Leica] Re: Re: The quintessence of Leica photography? - Long response -

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

Even though I rally for the side of traditional silver photography, and I
do use film for my originals, most, but not all, of my large display prints
are LightJet prints.

My total point was that it is a crying shame that the real silver negative
- - enlarger - silver print process, as it has been refined over the years
(by people like Adams) is slowly slipping away. I am extremely happy that
my daughter has chosen to learn that process and use it.

As Bob says, my real point is toward the "point & shoot" digital crowd.
This, of course, includes the M6 point, develop without thought (maybe
T400CN), scan and inkjet out 8x10's What is important is that they are
having fun. What is lost is the craft of traditional photography. And the
industry is heading this way like a runaway train.

I am in awe of Doug Herr's work. How he attains his result is immaterial. I
know that he spends an inordinate amount of time working with the medium
(his craft) to produce these fantastic results.

Jim


At 10:26 AM 7/29/00 -0400, rnkramer@mindspring.com wrote:
>Personally, I think it is cool that Jim's daughter is learning skills to
>produce excellent negatives.  Real silver on film stuff that we all love.
>Get yourself a great negative and it makes the printing process so much
>easier and more rewarding.  No matter how you choose to print it.  Seems to
>me Jim's beef ought to be more toward the digital point and shoot crowds who
>never even use a roll of film, much less ponder the exposure and processing
>control required to realize a vision of an image.  I am going to get two
>more Leica-H cameras so I can have N-1, N, N+1 bodies!
>
>I do have a question for both the silver/gelatin and digital camps.
>Although I use a film scanner with relatively low resolution and density
>range (it's what we have at the office that's available for me to use), I
>have noticed that I can print decent tonal range images that I have found
>hopeless in the darkroom, mainly because the negative was way too thin.  Has
>anyone else noticed this as well, or is this just a function of my lack of
>skill in the darkroom?  Or are there times when the scanning processing will
>give you better print results than in a darkroom, no matter what your
>darkroom skills?  Just curious what other people's experience has been.
>
>Bob Kramer