Necessary? Nope. I don't find it at all painful to try and make photos outside of Photoshop and the "digital work flow." For me it's always about doing things the easy way - I take pride in the skills I have as well as the craft of photography. Photoshop and digi stuff is fine, but there's more to photography than pixels, levels, curves, and Photoshop. There's something wonderful about getting into a darkroom, or working with film and a good printer. While I look towards the future of photography, there's still a place for more traditional methods. I hope to be shooting B&W and working in the darkroom until my arthritic hands can no longer hold a camera or place a negative into the carrier.
You know what pains me? That there are those who have never had experience in a darkroom, who haven't a clue as to what goes on in there in the middle of the night - printing and listening to some jazz or C&W under the spell of the safe lights glow. I have to say that I find it annoying when people espouse the new techniques and eschew the old, even when they are sometimes jesting. Photography encompasses many techniques and skills, and they all have a place and afford someone a pleasure. Long live Tri-X, long live the dichoic head, potassium ferracyanide and D-76 ... long live the silver-based fiber print, Ilfochromes, dye transfers, and platinum printing. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > On Apr 19, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Thanks for your suggestion about exposure ... 'tween you and Bob and a > > comment or two made by another person off list, I think I know how I'm > > going to approach this. After all, photographers did things like this > > for years without Photoshop. > > ... and you find it necessary to perpetuate that pain? ;-)
