Dunno. But big dif in fade resistance between a dye inkjet and pigment inject print.
There is no such thing as a "pigment printer" in this sense. Another misleading marketing myth. True process pigments would never fit through those tiny inkjet nozzles. That's why they have to use such complicated blends dyes, pigments, and lakes, and so many different colorants which will inevitably fade or shift at different proportional rates. A real color pigment print is something entirely different.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on R&D, and nothing yet in digital technology can come close to arriving at subtle hues and their relationships that any decent watercolorist can mix in seconds. But people prefer to paint with a camera! Most of them don't know the difference between that and a paintball war. Some of the galleries are worse. Smear sugar and jam and honey all over something and call it color. I call it noise.
It's impossible to say whether Ansel would have embraced digital technology. But to say that he did not manipulate his images is not very accurate.
Moonrise as a "straight" print;
Moonrise as performed;
Source page; https://whereisharold.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ansel-adams-and-group-f64/
How about this?
How has that changed the aesthetics of photography?What has changed for me big time is what you get when you fill the buffer at 12 fps.
The old Kodachromes are still around. Much of the Ektachrome has faded.
Less chance of finding out when you get home that one of your subjects had their eyes closed.How has that changed the aesthetics of photography?
I have both Kodachrome and Ektachrome from early 70's. We always sent directly to Kodak in Chicago. Nothing faded. Kodak prints made from Ektacolor-S negatives were great. Good processing and storage .Faded Ektachrome has almost entirely to do with quality of original processing and/or method of storage. The worst way to store slides is undoubtedly in those soft plastic pages (don't remember the brand).
The E4 my lab (Media Generalists) processed in the 70s has not faded any more than Kodachrome of that vintage...which is to say, not at all. My slides have been casually stored in original film boxes and slide trays for decades in San Francisco (cool, humid) and in Albuquerque New Mexico (decidedly not cool or humid).
Surely this is baloney. I've seen a lot of Ansel Adams' prints up close and from all angles and there is some almost invisible spotting and knifing here and there. But I'm sure Ansel did not intend the spotting and knifing to be part of the image content of his photographs. The prints are, no more and no less, than an accurate record of all the actinic light that hit them in the darkroom. There is no hand-work in them, no manipulation of any kind. The photographic cycle, development and fixation, is absolutely dispassionate (mere chemistry and physics) and cannot add or subtract objects depicted in the pictures it makes visible.
The deadest horse of all in the critical analysis of picture making is the mantra "it's all manipulated" or "everything is manipulation". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. To insist otherwise is, if not misguided, at least empty of useful meaning.
Thank you. I get tired of responding to the same inaccurate drivel from the same source, even though I agree with other things the source has posted.
It's impossible to say whether Ansel would have embraced digital technology. But to say that he did not manipulate his images is not very accurate.
Moonrise as a "straight" print;
Moonrise as performed;
Source page; https://whereisharold.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/ansel-adams-and-group-f64/
so ansel adams didn't heavily manipulate his flm in camera using the zone system he borrowed from people before him, he didn't do N+/- development or
do burning and dodging when he made his prints?
the idea that he didn't heavily manipulate his prints so they looked like / correspond to what he wanted his prints to look like ...
is about as absurd as it gets. he printed down, burned, dodged, toned and did every other "enhancement" that he could do to achieve what he wanted
just like some folks do with their file editing software today.
yup, baloney and drivel alright ...
i'm note defending either one moose10101 ..im trying to understand how no-manipulation means not a straight print, or not exposure/development manipulationsApparently "no hand-work" means that he didn't physically draw or erase anything directly on the paper. I don't see how that's relevant to what's being discussed in the thread, but for some people, the "sanctity" of the a****g process must always be defended.
i'm note defending either one moose10101 ..im trying to understand how no-manipulation means not a straight print, or not exposure/development manipulations
whether it was drawing or erasing physically on the paper or using one's hands to let the light/exposure erase or draw something on the paper or with a computer
its the same thing. ( to me at least )
so ansel adams didn't heavily manipulate his flm in camera using the zone system he borrowed from people before him, he didn't do N+/- development or
do burning and dodging when he made his prints?
the idea that he didn't heavily manipulate his prints so they looked like / correspond to what he wanted his prints to look like ...
is about as absurd as it gets. he printed down, burned, dodged, toned and did every other "enhancement" that he could do to achieve what he wanted
just like some folks do with their file editing software today.
yup, baloney and drivel alright ...
John, you know that over many years I was talking about adding or removing part of the image and completely changing the composition to non-existent. I have never complained about exposure manipulation nor burning nor dodging.
Thank you. I get tired of responding to the same inaccurate drivel from the same source
weird, must be an evil twin or glitch ?
i have NEVER commented on removing parts of images or complete changing of composition yet
you have continually responded / commented as if " exposure/burning/dodging"" ( with a computer ) was evil ...
even in this thread you referred to what i said as "inaccurate drivel"
i have never changed my stance --- burning dodging, camera work and darkroom/exposure compensation during development are
manipulation
maybe you should re-read what you wrote ?
Why? They are just images of imaginary things.I am strongly against the images like the shark jumping out of the water attacking the helicopter.
No, read what I wrote, not what you want to think I wrote. I have never changed on this. I am strongly against the images like the shark jumping out of the water attacking the helicopter.
As per the title of this thread,
Digital technology and specifically digital photography has removed the technical photographer from the running. In the bad old days if you knew what you were doing and got great exposures you would find work. The artistic vision was not as tied in as being able to work with the medium. Even with the most advanced SLRs you still needed to know how and what to do to get that exposure.
Along came digital and you can park a camera in full auto and get well exposed shots. For someone (like me) who has a natural eye for composition this was amazing. I knew nothing of anything when I picked up my first camera. Aperture? Shutter Speed? ISO? No matter, parked camera in A and blazed away for a few months getting some excellent shots. When I felt that was limiting I then moved on to exploring how photography works.
The investment of film and development would have held me back from learning how to shoot, digital freed that up and paved the way for learning. I then moved onto film and honed my skills beyond what I learned with the DSLR. I've recently moved back into digital and feel I'm the master of the equipment rather than the other way around.
Why? They are just images of imaginary things.
People have been jumping the shark for years. I think it's their turn.
This sounds exactly like my wife's experience. She really got interested in photography in 2004 when digital superzooms hit their stride in image quality. She takes wonderful photos while knowing nothing (and wanting to know nothing) about how a camera works. On vacation last week, the autofocus on her mirrorless stopped working and she was lost until I showed her how the focus ring on the lens worked. A couple days later she found in the right menu that she had somehow turned it off. In those 2 days she did experience a sense of accomplishment and involvement in her photos, and hopefully came to some understanding that I'm not just crazy for using these old cameras.
Like a bird with a shark with a fish ?Why? They are just images of imaginary things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?