Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done enough
darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the computer,
it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult and
tedious.
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Aaron, you, and others, don't get it. It's about personal perception
and
feeling, which doesn't have to conform to ~your~ logic. There are
those
who take a very pragmatic view of the digital world and what it
offers/doesn't offer, and there are others who feel things more
emotionally
or subjectively. I have a hard time grasping why there have been
almost
200 messages in this thread, which will neither resolve anything nor
change
anything. We all have our preferences - Kevin has his, some of us
understand it better, or differently, than others - so be it.
Let's wrap this up and move on to a subject from which we can learn and
grow as photographers and equipment fondlers ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Aaron Reynolds
Kevin Waterson wrote:
allow me to finish
If you paint with light.......... you use an enlarger.
The painting with light does not finish with the camera exposure.
Mudh more is done in the darkroom.
This is what digital removes. Yes, you can fiddle with pixels all you
like
and change iso and white balance etc but it is not light, it is
binary.
Um, what's the difference between a pixel and a grain of silver? Both
are highly technical processes, and I still fail to see how one has
magic where the other does not.
I understand the feeling of people who work with computers all day
that
they don't want to work with computers on their free time, but the
feeling is the same for those who work in the darkroom all day. The
darkroom is not an inherently magical place -- it is what you bring
into it. The computer is the same.
