Sunday, April 18, 2004
I should have a couple new pictures in the next day or so. I've been busy selling photos!!
There's a discussion on yahoo artshow listserve that really hits home for me. It's a discussion about photographs as reproductions in view of the digital revolution. There was a very negative article in Sunshine Magazine, which is all about selling your art/crafts at art/craft shows, where many photographers make their living. The basic gist was that photos were repros--which they're not.
I feel like I can talk about this with some authority, since I've made my photos the modern and traditional way in the last year. Now everything I do is done traditionally in a darkroom with chemicals and water. But I had been using an inkjet printer and carbon inks and scanning the negatives.
No matter what anyone who makes photos the new way says, they have to agree that it is easier overall. Yes, there are unlimited things you can do, and of course, some will say it is harder because they have to learn Photoshop, but to me that's just Digital Photo 101. Yes, there is a big learning curve, learning about papers, inks, etc. But it's still digital photo 101. To me it's akin to learning to roll film on a reel. Because once you've got it down, it's not too hard.
I think what gets the dissenters hung up is that printing photos digitally, whether on an inkjet printer or from a pro lab, is that the digital process is easier. Once your file is ready for printing, you can push print. If you want it bigger or smaller, than change the dimensions in Photoshop, and then click print--not too hard, really.
For me the most glaring difference is the time involved. A traditional photo takes a lot longer to make. I'm assuming that you're just making one print that you've got figured out. In digital you print it, maybe it has to sit overnight to let it dry. In analog, you set up, expose it, sit over the chemicals for a few minutes, then wash it, squeegee it, lay it out to dry, spot it (if needed). Sure a digitally output print takes a while to print, but you can watch TV or clean the bathroom while that's happening. In the darkroom you have to not scratch the negative, focus, watch the timer and not fall asleep--maybe not the work of a genius, but you've got to be there.
But the number one difference in my mind is what happens when you have dust spots. In Photoshop you use a tool to remove the dust spots and it is fixed forever--whether you print one photo or 200. With a silver print, each photo has to be spotted (luckily a few negatives don't have dust spots). This is where you use Spotone and a very fine sable brush and actually paint or spot the white dust specks out of the image by hand (I'm sure this is obvious to many, but in this digital age, I'm sure lots of people don't know this is done). The thing is with the Spotone is if you screw up, you've screwed up the print and in the garbage it goes--you can't just wipe it off. In Photoshop if you screw it up, you just undo your mistake and that's only for photo number 1. I saw a video of Brett Weston spotting his prints and his were already mounted when he spotted--he was brave.
Personally I'm much happier printing in the darkroom again. I love the hands-on craft of photography. I really feel like I'm creating something. I didn't get that satisfaction using an inkjet printer and Photoshop.
Although I'm way happier in the analog world of photography, there is nothing wrong with digital photography. It's really all the same, you just get there by two different routes. There's nothing wrong with progress and photography has always been linked to technological advances. I've just decided to stop my technological advance and put my energy into the image.
Another way to look at it, by the time I'm 60--18 years from now (I think) how many times do you think software, printers, inks and computers will have to be upgraded to keep with the times. On the other hand, I'm sure there will be the same if not similar photo papers and developers and I don't need to upgrade my enlarger. For those obsessed or at least keeping up with tecnology, how much time will be spent in that pursuit instead of spent improving the actual photo taking. Remember, one of the main reasons for technological advance in this consumer driven culture is to sell stuff.
There's a discussion on yahoo artshow listserve that really hits home for me. It's a discussion about photographs as reproductions in view of the digital revolution. There was a very negative article in Sunshine Magazine, which is all about selling your art/crafts at art/craft shows, where many photographers make their living. The basic gist was that photos were repros--which they're not.
I feel like I can talk about this with some authority, since I've made my photos the modern and traditional way in the last year. Now everything I do is done traditionally in a darkroom with chemicals and water. But I had been using an inkjet printer and carbon inks and scanning the negatives.
No matter what anyone who makes photos the new way says, they have to agree that it is easier overall. Yes, there are unlimited things you can do, and of course, some will say it is harder because they have to learn Photoshop, but to me that's just Digital Photo 101. Yes, there is a big learning curve, learning about papers, inks, etc. But it's still digital photo 101. To me it's akin to learning to roll film on a reel. Because once you've got it down, it's not too hard.
I think what gets the dissenters hung up is that printing photos digitally, whether on an inkjet printer or from a pro lab, is that the digital process is easier. Once your file is ready for printing, you can push print. If you want it bigger or smaller, than change the dimensions in Photoshop, and then click print--not too hard, really.
For me the most glaring difference is the time involved. A traditional photo takes a lot longer to make. I'm assuming that you're just making one print that you've got figured out. In digital you print it, maybe it has to sit overnight to let it dry. In analog, you set up, expose it, sit over the chemicals for a few minutes, then wash it, squeegee it, lay it out to dry, spot it (if needed). Sure a digitally output print takes a while to print, but you can watch TV or clean the bathroom while that's happening. In the darkroom you have to not scratch the negative, focus, watch the timer and not fall asleep--maybe not the work of a genius, but you've got to be there.
But the number one difference in my mind is what happens when you have dust spots. In Photoshop you use a tool to remove the dust spots and it is fixed forever--whether you print one photo or 200. With a silver print, each photo has to be spotted (luckily a few negatives don't have dust spots). This is where you use Spotone and a very fine sable brush and actually paint or spot the white dust specks out of the image by hand (I'm sure this is obvious to many, but in this digital age, I'm sure lots of people don't know this is done). The thing is with the Spotone is if you screw up, you've screwed up the print and in the garbage it goes--you can't just wipe it off. In Photoshop if you screw it up, you just undo your mistake and that's only for photo number 1. I saw a video of Brett Weston spotting his prints and his were already mounted when he spotted--he was brave.
Personally I'm much happier printing in the darkroom again. I love the hands-on craft of photography. I really feel like I'm creating something. I didn't get that satisfaction using an inkjet printer and Photoshop.
Although I'm way happier in the analog world of photography, there is nothing wrong with digital photography. It's really all the same, you just get there by two different routes. There's nothing wrong with progress and photography has always been linked to technological advances. I've just decided to stop my technological advance and put my energy into the image.
Another way to look at it, by the time I'm 60--18 years from now (I think) how many times do you think software, printers, inks and computers will have to be upgraded to keep with the times. On the other hand, I'm sure there will be the same if not similar photo papers and developers and I don't need to upgrade my enlarger. For those obsessed or at least keeping up with tecnology, how much time will be spent in that pursuit instead of spent improving the actual photo taking. Remember, one of the main reasons for technological advance in this consumer driven culture is to sell stuff.
Comments:
Post a Comment
