Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Erwin Puts wrote: > > A photographer who deploys the fully chemical imaging chain to produce > his/her endresult, is using a long string of techniques and even > technologies. To master any of these techniques, from exposure and > development matching, choosing film and paper, selecting chemicals, and > employing expert knowlegde for detail rendition, range of tonal scale, > he/she needs to know basic theory and a number of hard won rukes, based on > practical experience. That is what we call the craft and even theory of > photography. Whatever the result in comparison to another technology, > mastering this chain is gratifying in itself and up till now the results are > yet unsurpassed and even when the moment arrives that a different technique > will produce equal or better results, this specific result is a unique > interpretation of or expression about reality. In music analogy: a > synthesizer may well emulate a flute or a violin within the range of > auditory recognition, making the sounds indistinguishable for the listener, > does that mean that the craft or art of plying the violin is obsolete or no > longer worth pursuing? > So whatever the perceiced, interpreted or measured image quality of a > digital print and a chemical print and whatever the means by which this > result has been generated, any mix of imaging technologies has its own > unique value. > It would be nice if the proponents of the digital print would try to > discuss the digital-chemical print technology as two different, but valid > ways of recording and representing an image, trying to find the specific > qualities of both and the pros and cons of both techniques in a series of > applications. > Now that they prefer to define the comparison as an old (obsolete) versus > new technology and see the users of the chemical technology as backward > people who cling desperately to hopelessly outdated technology and who > refuse to see the light of the future, they have cast the discussion in a > fruitless mold. > The technique of scanning of negatives, manipulating the digital file with > Photoshop and printing the files is a craft in itself, that asks for far > more expertise and experience that most even dare to hope. As far as mastery > of any technique goes, (and the few really good books about the employment > of Photoshop stress the fact that it is a very steep and long learning > curve), the digital one is as exacting and precise as the chemical one. > The best books I know about Photoshop (I am teaching Photoshop courses for 5 > years now, so I feel entitled to have an opinion), all imply that to learn > Photoshop is as exacting and time consuming as any difficult technique and > ask for skills that relate to the printing industry that many photographers > and other users of Photoshop cannot dream of. > These writers feel that using Photoshop in its image manipulation > possibilities directed to digital output, is closely related to the crafts > required in the printing industry. > These crafts are not easily acquired and demand a different approach and > mindset that when making a print in the wet darkroom. > I truly would hope that we can lift the discussion of this in itself > exciting topic,to a level where we can appreciate the relative merits of the > results and the different skill sets required. > > Erwin I admit freely to not reading every post of the hundreds I get from the Leica Users Group, but I can recall few if any posts here that denigrate anyone using silver based technology. Certainly, the vast majority of those talking about digital seem to use and enjoy both. I think your seeing a dichotomy where none exists. John Shick