You are not even in the same conversation as the rest of us, Paul. We
have already stipulated that digital is preferred for commercial
production work. However we are talking about photography as a hobby.
By the way with a Kodak Versamat Processor you could have turned out
those 20 prints in about 10 minutes. Using a 1930's style darkroom for
commercial production is a pretty silly idea. About like using an
original IBM XT for digital production, or hand painting the covers for
Time magazine.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I used to have to make twenty or more BW prints for every magazine
article. It would frequently take me at least ten hours. It wasn't art.
It was hard, smelly, backgreaking work. Now I can turn out 20 digitals,
color or BW in a couple hours at the most. And the convenience of
digital means I can apply more artistry to the work. Both have their
place, but Aaron is correct, neither is necessarily more artful than the
other.
Paul
On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and
versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up
photography to be tied to a computer. You might
be able to do much more with Photoshop than a
traditional enlarger, but where is the
satisfaction in that?
Photography is a craft. Digital imaging is a
science. Working at a craft is infinitely more
satisfying, and I think it's a lot more fun.
Working at science is just a chore.
Why is one a craft and one a science? They're both craft and science.
And 15 years of pro darkroom made me bored as hell with the darkroom
-- it became a chore. The darkroom is just a different set of chores
from the computer. One is not intrinsically less "work" than the other.
-Aaron
