I'm sure we've all thought about this. First of all, I also sharpen
just about every scan, no matter what the source of the original
image. The scans just don't match the sharpness of the original
print without it in my opinion.
As for combining pinhole and digital, I guess I justify myself with
Adams " the negative is the composition, the print is the
performance" I can't get the same images (or the same experience
doing it) with regular cameras, and having been out of daily
experience with the darkroom for fifteen years, I'm a pretty lousy
performer with traditional methods any more, particularly contact
printing paper negatives, but with a digital scan of that negative, I
can get full range, burned and dodged, dust and scratch free prints,
more honestly expressing what I want and what the negative holds. I
imagine this discussion probably came up when Muddy Waters started
playing the blues on an electric guitar.
Nick
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 16:53:08 -0800
From: Jean Hanson <jhan...@pon.net>
To: "pinhole-discussion-request@p at ???????" <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????>
Subject: [pinhole-discussion] wondering
Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???????
About the message two days ago; a member took a pinhole image,
"sharpened" it in Adobe or a digital method, and printed it out. I
wonder why we don't just take traditional lens photographs and smear
them a little and print them out to look like pinhole work.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Dvoracek dvora...@uwosh.edu
Director of Media Services Voice: 920-424-7363
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Fax: 920-424-7324
http://idea.uwosh.edu/media_services/home.html
http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/handouts.htm
