Digital images on a film site??

[eclarke]

Too much thinking...

 

[pdeeh]

I would run away, life is too short to mess with analog ayatollahs.

good heavens, what on Earth are you doing here then?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I can understand the attraction of analog photographic technology tools; it's far more exciting to see an image 'come up' in a developer tray than it is to see one come off an inkjet printer.

Digital photography is simply another set of technology tools that can be used to achieve the same end results as analog photographic technology.

If you are a 'photographer', you should be free to choose the tool set that best lets you achieve your photographic vision and from reading the posts on this Forum for some time, it appears that many (most?) of of participants in the Forums do just that - choose the tools that meet their needs - mixing and matching where necessary.

What I can't understand is why there are a few individuals here who feel compelled to make derogatory comments about the digital tools and users. The digital tools require the same vision and skills as analog tools. Yes, programs like PS have an 'auto correct' button, but traditional analog printing machines (both B&W and color) had the equivalent when making images for the masses. People with a strong interest in photography didn't use the auto adjustments then anymore than knowledgeable PS users use the 'auto correction' button now.

If the object of a forum is to show a users skills in traditional photographic printing, because a scan of a print may - or may not - actually match the print, there should be NO scanned images of any kind in forum galleries; mailing actual prints to participants is the only way to show such skills (and I know some of you here do just that).

 

[jjphoto]

I can understand the attraction of analog photographic technology tools; it's far more exciting to see an image 'come up' in a developer tray than it is to see one come off an inkjet printer.

Digital photography is simply another set of technology tools that can be used to achieve the same end results as analog photographic technology.

If you are a 'photographer', you should be free to choose the tool set that best lets you achieve your photographic vision and from reading the posts on this Forum for some time, it appears that many (most?) of of participants in the Forums do just that - choose the tools that meet their needs - mixing and matching where necessary.

What I can't understand is why there are a few individuals here who feel compelled to make derogatory comments about the digital tools and users. The digital tools require the same vision and skills as analog tools. Yes, programs like PS have an 'auto correct' button, but traditional analog printing machines (both B&W and color) had the equivalent when making images for the masses. People with a strong interest in photography didn't use the auto adjustments then anymore than knowledgeable PS users use the 'auto correction' button now.

If the object of a forum is to show a users skills in traditional photographic printing, because a scan of a print may - or may not - actually match the print, there should be NO scanned images of any kind in forum galleries; mailing actual prints to participants is the only way to show such skills (and I know some of you here do just that).

I concur.

 

[Dali]

good heavens, what on Earth are you doing here then?

I hope one can be analog photographer and open minded...

 

[NedL]

hi nedL
i agree with you and i disagree with you at the same time.
i think at a certain point 2 images made with different methods
and printed the same way tend to look the same ..

Hi John!

I suspect we are close to complete agreement. It's hard to even hint at a "d vs. a" topic in a single sentence and give enough details. It's hardly surprising my silver prints lose a lot when I scan them and then view on a computer screen. Viewing inkjet b/w prints in a gallery, I often feel like they are missing something in a similar less extreme way. But I would not be surprised if a silver print made from a digital negative could get most or all of that back, and I might feel that an inkjet print made from a film negative was "missing a certain something" too. It comes down to saying that different ways of printing look different, which isn't exactly profound.

Ralph will probably become an superb digital printer... and what will be interesting is not if they are the same ( they can't be ) but if he gets the same amount of satisfaction and is a happy and content with his results. That will be interesting to hear. Maybe he will say they are so different they can't be compared, or maybe he will like one or the other better for reasons that only matter to himself. Still interesting.

I use a chemex, and usually let the beans rest about a day and a half before drinking for the next 3 days. After about 4 days - depending on type of coffee - there is a drop-off in flavor and by 5 or 6 it's usually not as good. Do I love my home-roasted coffee a little too much? Probably. Although quite a few of my friends have said it's the "best" they've ever tasted, so I'm not totally delusional! We might get a little that way with our photography too!

Cheers!

 

[removed account4]

hey ned

i agree with you completely !

chemex is nice ( when im not slurping down submarine coffee im a sucker either for a vacuum pot or a perk LOL )
yeah, i know 2 ( or is it 3? ) polar extremes

vive la difference !

john

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...and what will be interesting is not if they are the same ( they can't be ) but if he gets the same amount of satisfaction and is a happy and content with his results.

If only everyone here could see this as clearly and succinctly...



Ken