On 14/10/2011 7:56 AM, Tom C wrote:
And digital is perfect?
Actually, in the real world, what rules is the media that the artist
feels most comfortable working with. This may be digital, it may equally
be oil paint or macrame.

William Robb

What 'digital' has done is put the entire range of the photographic
process (capture through final image processing) within reach of the
ordinary person. It's opened up the world of artistry to many more
people who otherwise were/would have been constrained to mostly
'capture-time photography'.

This is what was said about photography when the first Kodak hit the market in the late 1800s, except the comparison was being made to painting.


Many, if not most people interested in photography did not have the
funds, space, or time to devote to a wet darkroom. The digital
darkroom is easily obtainable and justifiable, taking up far less
space and costing less money, and it doesn't have the continued
consumable expense, aside from paper if/when printing. OK, occasional
hardware/software upgrades.

Before DSLR's, when I bought Photoshop 3.0 and a film scanner in the
mid-90's, a whole new side of photography began to emerge. I wasn't
just limited to the locked-in post-capture image on the slide or
negative. The combination of digital capture and post-processing has
improved my output considerably and I've gone from the belief that my
1st generation slide image was the ultimate, to believing that the
ultimate image is achieved through post-capture fine-tuning and
adjustment prior to displaying in whatever form. That, in retrospect,
while a long journey, has been liberating. (I am woman hear me roar).

I don't particularly like sitting in front of a computer adjusting
images either (as opposed to being out seeing and capturing images).
The learning curve with complex software tools can seem overwhelming
at times, but I can imagine I far prefer it to standing in a darkroom
for hours on end, messing with smelly chemicals, and suffering the
aggravation of irrecoverably destroying a good potential image or
having to redo processes over and over because I didn't get it quite
right (all the while my eyeballs drying up and scaling over for lack
of light). It's akin to the advantages of using a word processing
program and spell checker as opposed to a typewriter ribbon, paper,
and correcting fluid.

I got into photography in the first place because I like working in a darkroom. The camera wasn't the tool of choice for me, the enlarger was. Even the final image is of secondary importance to me. I like the process of making the image more than either capturing it on film or sensor, or even the final print itself, which is just proof that I've done something I enjoy doing. I suppose its surprising that I've been as successful a photographer as I have been, given that attitude. If all that matters to you is the final image, and you don't care about how you get there, I actually feel sorry for you. You use the typewriter vs. word processor analogy, but consider a different one for a moment. I could jump on an aeroplane tomorrow morning and be in Boise in the afternoon, and that would be that. I'd be in Boise. If that was all that was important, then fair enough. But I'd miss seeing the rivers, the wildlife and the mountains between here and there.
I'd miss the trip in favour of the destination.
I happen to prefer the trip, and am willing to take the extra time required to make it in comfort rather than just arriving, smelly and in a bad mood from being cooped up in a cattle car for 8 hours after being strip searched by a large ugly person with a bad attitude.

--

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Reply via email to