New ILFORD Silver Gelatin Products ( Laser )

[kjsphoto]

I know. I am glad to help...

 

[JBrunner]

Give me a break. Digital exists because people love it. Most digital photographers will never ever go back to film based photography because it has too many advantages for them. that includes, for many people, image quality. It has all of photography's history to fall back on as far as "tradition" goes, just like photographer's relied on painting and cinema relied on the stage. Things change, people do great work, even with new fangled things like a motion picture camera, acrylics, or dry plates.

Isaac

All of the things you mentioned represent themselves as what they are, a play is a play, cinema is cinema, and you don't see photographers calling their prints paintings, so actually you are making my point. Photography is photography, and digital imaging is digital imaging.

The problem is that the digital imagers want to pretend to be photographers, as if something is wrong with practicing and admitting their medium and going forward. That somehow they must be accepted as practitioners of what they do not practice. It is very clear that they are different things, and if they were not, APUG could not exist. So no, I won't give you a break.

The point is not to degenerate digital imaging, the point is that it and photography are not the same things, although they share certain attributes, just as cinema and stage do, and that to promote digitally generated images as photographic prints is fraudulent, and a clear dis-service to both mediums, the lay person, and the photographic tradition. I'm proud to practice an art and craft that has a tradition, and recognized iconic masters of the medium. Tradition is not a dirty word.

Its pretty obvious that digital proponents seem to have a problem about being honest about their methods and work because according to minds like Clay "it doesn't matter". That is a situational ethics philosophy, perhaps caused by an inferiority complex, or something else I honestly don't understand. I believe that it does matter. Thats just my opinion, and I respect other opinions, until they promote dishonesty and shysterism. Sorry to disturb the chips up on those digital shoulders. It has nothing to do with being a luddite, and everything to do with a defined traditional craft. Knock yourself out, grab that mouse and click away, just be honest about your methods, and call it what it is. I don't understand why that is such a friggin big deal, I don't call my hand done stuff "digital", although I could and be telling the truth by a turn of words. Isn't digital a big sell word? It's plastered all over everything down at the mall. They should want to call it "digital whatever it is" Why identifing what it is a problem, I don't know. Could it be that there is some unfufilled need lurking down deep? Photographers have a tradition. Digital needs to stop clinging and get its own. Thats all. Over and out.

 

[rjas]

IT IS NOT ART nor will it even be considered art. It is graphic deign at best .

Weren't painters saying the same thing about analog photography when it first was invented? I'm no art major but history is full of these recurring themes... take a step back and see how arrogant you sound.

There are a lot of photographers out there shooting crap on film for the sake of shooting film. A lot of people on this forum really hate digital and take a lot of time to speak out against it, but still produce very average work at best on film. At least if they'd be shooting digital they would be saving the gallons of chemicals being dumped directly into the water systems....

 

[kjsphoto]

Weren't painters saying the same thing about analog photography when it first was invented? I'm no art major but history is full of these recurring themes... take a step back and see how arrogant you sound.

There are a lot of photographers out there shooting crap on film for the sake of shooting film. A lot of people on this forum really hate digital and take a lot of time to speak out against it, but still produce very average work at best on film. At least if they'd be shooting digital they would be saving the gallons of chemicals being dumped directly into the water systems....

The difference is that printers called their artwork painting, sketches on paper with graphite were called drawings, photographs with film were called photographs but now you have digital users calling ink prints photographs which they are not, digital painters calling their painting watercolor which they are not. They always have to mimic what they cannot do because they do not have the skill or patience to master the craft.

Once again instant gratification needed screw having to learn, too much work and to hard.
You ever hear the saying if everyone was doing it, it would be easy. Ever think of why everyone is going to digital but yet not everyone is going to hand processes such as oil painting, printing photographs in the wet darkroom, hand coating paper, drawing, etc….

They all want instant gratification and lie to get their way and deceive everyone around them including the buyers.

If you are a digital user then call it what it is, Digital Painting, Digital Photograph, etc.. Why is that so hard? Maybe because down deep inside they realize they are cheating and really do not considered it art themselves so therefore have to falsify what they are producing to make you believe it really is “ART”.

So no, I really do not think I sound arrogant I just believe they need to stop be liars and start telling the damn truth.

At least if they'd be shooting digital they would be saving the gallons of chemicals being dumped directly into the water systems...

Are you kidding me, have you looked into the landfill problems with computers, monitors, ink cartridges, printers, digital cameras, these are not biodegradable items and much more toxic to the environment than the photo chemicals. Sure when you buy an ink cartridge then give you postage to ship back but most everyone I know that uses digital just throws them into the trash. Do the research and look into it. You can always reclaim your chemicals, try reclaiming a HD, Monitor, Computer, Circuits, DVD, CD, Card Readers, Memory Cards, NiCad Batteries to power Cameras, and the list goes on. Talk about an environmental hazard, which no one ever wants to discuss especially the corporation that produces the items.

 

[clay]

Oh darn. Guess I will have to toss my handmade copperplate photogravures into the trash now. That silly ink thing. Crap!

As long as an image is printed with ink or manipulated with a computer IT IS NOT ART nor will it even be considered art.

I still maintain that feel how you will about digital, when the point is reached where you cannot tell the difference in how it was made, then calling it 'fraudulent' is just howling at the moon. No one will care. And it sounds like a silver gelatin output of a digital file has probably reached that point. Harsh, but true.

We've been here before. Here is a delicious quote from Peter Henry Emerson in 1889, from "Naturalistic Photography":

"Some people have tried to propagate the false idea that a picture taken on a plate of the exhibitor's own making has a special kind of merit, but obviously this is only true when the object is an "Emulsion process competition". In judging of the merits of a picture, no facts should be taken into consideration, save the art expressed by the picture.

So this battle has been going on for some time. It boils down to a decision whether the means should be exalted above the ends. Each photographer will have to decide that for his or her self. In 1889, there were wet plate photographers calling fraud on anyone using a dry plate.

 

[JBrunner]

There are a lot of photographers out there shooting crap on film for the sake of shooting film. A lot of people on this forum really hate digital and take a lot of time to speak out against it, but still produce very average work at best on film. At least if they'd be shooting digital they would be saving the gallons of chemicals being dumped directly into the water systems....

I really enjoyed checking out your gallery. A very impressive body of work. No chemicals wasted there.

 

[removed account4]

this is good news simon, if it helps ilford make money to help their niche market ( tradional film + paper products ) -- i'm glad you folks are doing your best to help both sides of the street.

 

[kjsphoto]

Right but they called them dry plates they did not call them wet plates. They called there medium what it was and didn’t try to mimic the other. If you sell you images fine but tell the end user, gallery, etc what they are and be truthful about it or it is complete and total fraud.

Why it is so hard for the digital user to do this. I know many people that make platinum prints from a digital neg from a image that was shot on a digital camera but yet they still refuse to tell the truth how the image was made. They call it a traditional platinum print. It isn’t. It is a Digital Negative printed on hand-coated paper using Platinum, a hybrid process. Now if they would tell the truth I would have not a problem.

And it does matter to some collectors, as they don’t want to buy images that were done on a computer and then printed by traditional means. They want to know exactly how it was created. It is not all about the image, which is the biggest lie going, for many the process has a lot to do with it which also brings more value to that print.

Why do people spend millions on a Rolls Royce and only a few thousands on a Honda? Because the Rolls Royce is hand made ( or used to be ) where the Honda is assembly line production. The people paying high prices for art and then only realizing afterwards they were lied into believing they actually bought a real traditional print (Rolls Royce) is just plain and simple fraud on the galleries and artist part and they should be held accountable, which bring us back to this original post on Ilfords new paper. It will make deceiving even more easier and devalue real traditional work as now everyone and anyone cant make a fiber print with just a click of a button and an FTP program to upload to their favorite lab that offers this new product.

That is the problem.

 

[livemoa]

I did and so what is your point?



You are still making digital prints so how is this helping traditional photography? You will still scan, upload and make input and have a machine make your final print via a lab. No matter how you look at it, it is still digital.

Don’t see how this will help anyone that wants to continue down the path of traditional hand made silver gelatin prints.

The way I see with the responses read most of these propel will scrap film all other buy the next digi piece of crap and make false fiber prints via digital.

Which means film will be harder and harder to get in time.

Thanks for paraphrasing me. Shows a lack of education or a hidden agenda. Deffinately a lack of respect. I know that Ryan thinks well of you, at the moment I am at a loss to understand why. And as to your definition of what is art, well, it's yours, and would be accepted by very few.

To make my point clear, I want to make the best work that I can. To do this I use ALL avenues open to me. I am not so stupid as to limit myself to someones proscribed idea of what art is.

And as to tradition, I see your work is in a certain area. Thats fine. Don't think that that is the only tradition.

 

[clay]

I think you missed the point in that quote.

The finished product he was talking about was a print. No one in that day distinguished between a platinum print made from a dry plate and one made from a wet plate. They did not call their prints "Wet plate/platinum" or "Dry plate/platinum". They were simply platinum prints.

His point was that no one gives a fig how you get there, if the print looks like a print. My point is that when you are presented with a digitally printed silver gelatin print that cannot be distinguished from a traditionally printed silver gelatin print, then we can holler all we want, but no one will care. I am not saying that an inkjet print looks like a silver gelatin print - it doesn't. Yet.

But assuming this digitally printed silver gelatin product will be able to look like a traditional print, it is perfectly okay in my book to call it a "silver-gelatin" print.

Because it is.

Demanding more information will inevitably lead us down the path to seeing prints called "Kodak Tri-X/D-76 silver-gelatin/Dektol printed by vegan, Green Party member driving a truck that runs on recycled french-fry grease, Print"

Right but they called them dry plates they did not call them wet plates. They called there medium what it was and didn’t try to mimic the other. If you sell you images fine but tell the end user, gallery, etc what they are and be truthful about it or it is complete and total fraud.

 

[Sean]

No one will care.

Seen what is happening with synthetic diamonds? Some pretty striking similarities, I think people will always care regarding such things, why? It's human nature. Some will care some won't:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

In fact, Gemesis is developing a marketing campaign that portrays synthetics as superior to naturals. The General came up with a proposal to brand the company's diamonds "cultured" - a deliberate echo of the designation given to the wildly successful (and more valuable than natural) cultured pearl. In an ambiguous April 2001 ruling, the Federal Trade Commission said that it was "unfair or deceptive" to call a man-made diamond a "diamond," but offered no opinion on the question of calling it a "cultured diamond."

So, for now, Clarke is sticking with cultured. But in the end, he insists, it won't really matter. "If you give a woman a choice between a 2-carat stone and a 1-carat stone and everything else is the same, including the price, what's she gonna choose?" he demands. "Does she care if it's synthetic or not? Is anybody at a party going to walk up to her and ask, 'Is that synthetic?' There's no way in hell. So I'll bite your ass if she chooses the smaller one."

Wrong, says Jef Van Royen, a senior scientist at the Diamond High Council, the official representative of the diamond industry in Belgium. "If people really love each other, then they give each other the real stone," he says, during an interview at council headquarters on the Hoveniersstraat in Antwerp. "It is not a symbol of eternal love if it is something that was created last week." So goes the De Beers-backed line. And forget the cultured pearl comparison, Van Royen says. Man-made diamonds are more like synthetic emeralds, introduced in large quantities in the mid-'70s. At first, their price was very high, but then the gem labs discovered that the synthetics could be easily distinguished using a standard microscope. The price collapsed and is now less than 3 percent of naturals.

 

[kjsphoto]

Apparently you do not get it so it isn’t even worth trying to explain it.

To make my point clear, I want to make the best work that I can. To do this I use ALL avenues open to me. I am not so stupid as to limit myself to someone’s proscribed idea of what art is.

No one said you were stupid and no one said you were not doing the best you can.

What I did say it that I do not consider anything digital traditional no matter how the original image was made. If you create art without the aid of a computer from start to finish than that is a traditional piece of art no matter what medium you are working with, if a computer is used in any way whatsoever with any medium, it is no longer traditional but rather digital no matter what you print, draw, sketch, photograph or paint.

Why are piano players called pianist and keyboard players called keyboardist? Think about it and maybe you will start to understand where I am coming from.

Thanks for paraphrasing me. Shows a lack of education or a hidden agenda. Deffinately a lack of respect.

Did I miss something? I posted your quote and responded to it. There is no hidden agenda I just all it as I see it. If digital fiber prints work for you then great.

Again I realize that you do not have a darkroom and I can sympathize, but even so if you scan your negative, upload it and have it printed by digital means onto fiber prints it is not a traditional print it is a hybrid. If someone prints are Fuji Crystal Archive via a scan it is not a traditional print, same goes for Kodak Metallic Eudura.

If your print it printed by hand at a lab or by yourself and the film in the carrier is from film and not a digital negative, then yes you have a true traditional piece of art. Again if digital is used in any part of the game you do not have a traditional image you have a Digital Image that is from a Hybrid process.

It is funny when you do not agree with the digital users, you are labeled many things, but yet the digital crowd can sit here and force there propaganda and ilk down our throats and we are suppose to take it?

Sorry I can’t and wont.

 

[Sean]

Clay, just curious. If someone shoots an image with a dslr, uses watercolor studio in photoshop to transform it into a watercolor painting, outputs it to watercolor paper with an "Epson painter2000" brand printer using water color paint for ink, would you call the finished product a "Watercolor Painting"? Are you saying because it looks identical to a hand painted watercolor and uses the same exact physical materials that it makes no difference how it arrived and no one will care, that it is 100% a water color painting end of story? The Epson techinically 'painted' the watercolor paint onto the watercolor paper. I'm just trying to find where some in the digital camp draw the line and how they come to the conclusions they do..

 

[kjsphoto]

I think you missed the point in that quote.

The finished product he was talking about was a print. No one in that day distinguished between a platinum print made from a dry plate and one made from a wet plate. They did not call their prints "Wet plate/platinum" or "Dry plate/platinum". They were simply platinum prints.

His point was that no one gives a fig how you get there, if the print looks like a print. My point is that when you are presented with a digitally printed silver gelatin print that cannot be distinguished from a traditionally printed silver gelatin print, then we can holler all we want, but no one will care. I am not saying that an inkjet print looks like a silver gelatin print - it doesn't. Yet.

But assuming this digitally printed silver gelatin product will be able to look like a traditional print, it is perfectly okay in my book to call it a "silver-gelatin" print.

Because it is.

Demanding more information will inevitably lead us down the path to seeing prints called "Kodak Tri-X/D-76 silver-gelatin/Dektol printed by vegan, Green Party member driving a truck that runs on recycled french-fry grease, Print"

Clay I respect what you are saying but it isn’t. It is a hybrid prints and should be called for what it is.

Why does the buyer always have to be lied to. This will destroy the confidence in the consumer and kill and devalue real traditional prints.

I think this mentality is just plain wrong on all levels.

A print needs to be labeled fro what it is;

Traditional Silver Gelatin Print
Digital Silver Gelatin Print

This way the collectors realizes that the traditional print was done form someone who cares enough about art and craft to keep it alive. Where the print labeled Digital the collectors knows it was done on a computer and not from the hand of a skilled printer.

And I honestly down the road think it will be very important to the history of photography to be able to track an image back to know exactly how is was produced.

Even if it looks the same it isn’t.

Looks at the cloning of animals. They both look a like but the clone has defects and a shorter life span. My point it that it is different no matter how it looks on the outside.

 

[Helen B]

"This way the collectors realizes that the traditional print was done form someone who cares enough about art and craft to keep it alive. Where the print labeled Digital the collectors knows it was done on a computer and not from the hand of a skilled printer."

What has the opinion of collectors got to do with photography? What kind of a photographer would allow the opinion of a collector to influence what they produced?

Thank goodness that we don't all have to share the opinions and values of the kind of collector that Kevin mentions; that we can make our own minds up about what is and isn't art. Anybody who tried to lay down rules about what is and isn't art, and expected other people to conform, would be a very ignorant fool.

Best,
Helen

 

[kjsphoto]

Apparently you are missing the point and clearly didn’t read what I am talking about. Typical.

 

[JBrunner]

Just for the record, I have never said you can't make art with a computer. You just can't produce a traditional photographic print with one. Computers produce a digital image, or giclee, or carbon print, digital silver or whatever. The fact that not even the practitioners know what to call it, shows its status as a new and different medium. What's the big problem with that? Why pretend?

Hell, you can make art with sticks and stones or curdled milk. If an individual photographic print or digital image qualifies as art is another matter entirely.

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

I think this paper is a good thing for the promotion of all forms of B+W photography, even film based. Hopefully it will allow a group of digital capture photographers (I'm thinking of students) the option of making a silver print when they might not have otherwise. There may be some that then become interested in the right way of doing things (just stirring a pot that's already boiling, don't flame me). Light Jet style prints have been around for a while as it is so having a new (improved) media hasn't really changed much. I've seen a few exhibitions of this style of print and I think they can produce wonderful results.

As far as the art market goes I think that each artist has to identifiy the value a potential buyer might see in their images and methods. If we pretend that I have some money, I would have no qualms about buying Giclee or C Colour prints, or laser silver prints if I liked the image enough, even where the artist was not responsible for the printing. However I wouldn't expect to pay the same price as a print where the artist has personally crafted the result, and hasn't used a computer. An appreciation of the effort that's gone into the making of the print factors fairly strongly in my view. One of the associated sources of value for handmade prints, B+W or colour, is that no two will ever be exactly the same, even when bought as part of an edition.

Buyers, collectors and interested parties will usually be able to identify a handmade print from a machine made one and will often have an appreciation for what went into making it. I don't think there's any need to be concerned about people making laser-silver prints, there may be positive impacts on the availablility of silver based materials.

My only beef is in calling it Gallerie; now there are three very different "Ilford" products on the market with the same name. There's the non-Harman inkjet paper, the real Gallerie and now this. I hope the reason it's been called Gallerie is because it shares something in common with the real Gallerie and will extend the viability of that priceless product.

 

[MattKing]

This is a question for Bob Carnie.

I would assume that this new fibre paper, with it's ability to show nuance and tonality, would have the tendency to reveal every flaw in technique, whether same originated from scanned film or original digital capture.

Would it be correct to say that this new paper demands a higher standard of technique before it yields the best results?

I ask this, because if so, I think that it is good for photography of all kinds.

Matt

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

I'll let Bob anser your question Matt but you might like to have a look at Michael Light's site if you haven't seen it already Dead Link Removed .
There's a good discussion of the digital process used in that exhibition.

This was one of the first I saw using laser silver technology and the means (method) suited the end (images) very well. The abrasiveness of the moondust, the highcontrast light that pierces an environment without atmosphere and the blackness of space combined to make it a worthwhile exhibition. It was noticeable when viewing the prints that they appeared much sharper than you would expect from a traditional print.

As far as the medium being more critical I think that even if it is, there is a great deal of opportunity to edit your image for shadow detail and sharpness in its digital form. If it was good enough for a fine art, hand-made print, it should be good enough for this method, no?

Matt.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi Matt

first off, In total I think there may be no more than a few thousand of these Images printed. Four labs have had the product for 6months , we did produce prints on Agfa for a couple of years but the sum total of prints is not large. * I am not talking about any RCversion but the fibre version.*
To be honest I am still learning the different nuances of this paper..
Someone in this very long thread has said that there are a lot of crappy photographs already printed in a traditional method. I can add there are a lot of poorly processed negatives *specifically the C41 black and white in roller transport machines, as well as my hated dip and dunk replenished film that goes on a refrema and is under 4min dev. this film always lacks shadow detail*

When we recieve film under any of the above conditions , the scanner is unforgiving and at the ppi we print at the print sharpness edge to edge on a lambda is unforgiving.
This does create a certain problem, do we soften the image to match or do we let the photographer see the real film.
I always have this problem under our enlargers with the above mentioned problem films as our prints are under glass, registered enlargers and condensor light source with sharp optics.
there is the photographers lunch bag letdown , *where did those scratches come from bla bla bla.*
Does this paper demand a higher level of technique??
I have noticed from scanned film that I can dodge and burn more intensly than that from Phase files, not sure why.
the cleaning of the negative now is a double step if it is going to be scanned since dust will attract in the 20min scan time that a large file requires.
This has forced me to learn dustbusting which I totally hate, in fact we now out source this to a young lady who has started this service for us.
As far as the image look, ie dodging and burning and contrast, I personally do not find it very troublesome as I split print with 3 filters under the enlarger which is much like the way I work in Photoshop therefore the move to lambda work wasn't that hard.
Here is a suprising feature of moving to this new printing paper that was a pleasant supprise for me. Because these digital devices will not perform unless all conditions are ideal, I have learned more about sensitometry in 1 year than I did in 30 years of printing. I admit, my weakest ability in Photography is sensitomety and how curve shapes work and all issues related to it. In fact I was lousy in my command of this area.
I have also found with some of the young french dudes that did internship here that they understand, toe*they say foot* to shoulder relationships of a curve shape. This floored me because a 20 year old had a very good grasp of sensitometry which I had to gain by the school of hard knocks.
So Matt , getting the exposure on paper is a bit harder but once it is on paper the reaction seems to be very much the same as reqular fibre printing.
There are areas that I want to investigate, *does the paper work under an enlarger.*
Can I flash the paper the same way for highlight detail. I am still not sure how the pixel to highlight section totally works out therefore I think I have better control traditionally.I think the highlight region is one of the most difficult regions for digital capture to control.
How do I work faster , without 30 long steps in PS to get to a point that takes me seconds to achieve under an enlarger.
I have seen tutorials on PS where every point of the image is modified and I think this is silly, I prefer to lead the eye to an area of the print without a lot of work and It could be just as simple as a split print method and this is what I am working on. Trying to use the same thinking when printing on the Lambda as well as on the Enlarger.
Harmon , is calling this paper Harmon Digital Fiber Paper, as well is Elevator. we are not trying to fool anyone on the product as some here suggest.
We just finished a show in a gallery where 5 of the ten prints were lambda fibres and they were noted as Lambda Fibers. I think this concern about misrepresentation is a non issue. From my viewpoint, if a photographer is going to misrepresent a product they will eventually be found out , and shame on them. I have spent thousands of extra hours in my printing career double fixing, hypo clear , selenium toning and washing prints to make sure that these prints are what my client requests. I have no problem doing the same with this paper and standing behind my craft.
This paper does require skill sets that are not in your darkroom but I am 54 years old and If you asked me 5 years ago whether I envisioned doing this I would have said no.
Now I can see the potential for this product and the device required to make it happen and I am just starting all over again and very happy to do so.
Side note. I have 17 enlargers from 4x5 to 11x14 onsite paying their rent as well as this new machine. I have just learned how to hit from both sides of the plate.
I hope this helps answer your questions

This is a question for Bob Carnie.

I would assume that this new fibre paper, with it's ability to show nuance and tonality, would have the tendency to reveal every flaw in technique, whether same originated from scanned film or original digital capture.

Would it be correct to say that this new paper demands a higher standard of technique before it yields the best results?

I ask this, because if so, I think that it is good for photography of all kinds.

Matt

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

Hi Bob,
do you think you can pick a Lambda print from a line up? LightJet prints have always had a certain look, does this new material and process have a particular visual signature?

Thanks, Matt.

We just finished a show in a gallery where 5 of the ten prints were lambda fibres and they were noted as Lambda Fibers. I think this concern about misrepresentation is a non issue. From my viewpoint, if a photographer is going to misrepresent a product they will eventually be found out , and shame on them.

 

[rjas]

I really enjoyed checking out your gallery. A very impressive body of work. No chemicals wasted there.

oh god, i haven't uploading pictures into my gallery for the sake of proving to apug's forum members that I am artistically able. Some of you really need to ease up and start acting like human beings instead of pretentious art snobs. I appreciate the technical advice I've gotten on this forum but I still think that these dead horse discussions about digital not being art are very lame. Try putting that passion into your work and maybe more will come out of it than waterfalls and film tests.

kjsphoto, I think if you take a moving picture, most of the population (read: not photographers or art critics) will not care or even spend a second thinking about what medium it was shot or printed on. Isn't it silly that we all argue about this kind of stuff and the most important people (the viewers) don't care?

But I'm biased. I'd rather take a picture that changes how people think and distribute it on xeroxed paper than take still lifes of bannana's on an 8x10 camera with limited edition "handmade silver gelatin prints". there is no problem in photography right now, digital cameras aren't putting photographers out of business, photographers are putting photographers out of business. produce brilliant work, give it a few years for this digital craze to likely average out, and you will somehow scrape on. we've all got bigger things to argue with eachother about.

 

[JBrunner]

oh god, i haven't uploading pictures into my gallery for the sake of proving to apug's forum members that I am artistically able. Some of you really need to ease up and start acting like human beings instead of pretentious art snobs. I appreciate the technical advice I've gotten on this forum but I still think that these dead horse discussions about digital not being art are very lame. Try putting that passion into your work and maybe more will come out of it than waterfalls and film tests.

I never said it couldn't be art. You need to read.

Your derision and name calling is pretentious.

Discarded digital devices are a documented enviromental threat, and pose serious harm to the enviroment with far reaching consequences, because of the extremely toxic materials they contain. No such evidence exists concerning the home darkroom enthusiast.

I have never posted a film test, nor a waterfall.

Hmmm. Am I missing something? Or are you completely random?

 

[rjas]

I have never posted a film test, nor a waterfall.

Hmmm. Am I missing something? Or are you completely random?

I wasn't taking a jab at you, I'm speaking in general. I think its better if we stop arguing because I don't dislike any of you especially since this is just an internet forum, I'm sure if I had said this to you in real life it wouldn't have come across as that offensive. happy face?