Beginner darkroom
d_kennard
> Stefan...@VTT.FI writes about...
> >
> >[computers and digital imaging equipment as superior to
> > conventional darkroom technologies...]
> >The advantages of digital imaging over conventional imaging are numerous,
Yes. However, there are also advantages (some only for some people) to
conventional imaging.
> >and the quality has reached the same level.
Well, no. Not really. But, it *will* get there.
> >
> >To everyone who wants to start a darkroom, I would advise to think about
> >this before spending a lot of money on something you will only use for
> >two more years.
>
Technology marches on, but it's not here yet. If one were to buy today
a conventional darkroom or an electronic imaging setup (which would be
considerably more expensive), the electronic setup would be obsolete
(i.e. inadequate) first.
In article <3ldp75$4...@fun.Direct.CA>
dma...@Direct.CA (Dan Mackle) responds to Stefan:
> Beginners, I truly think that Mr. Deisz is ignoring the really
> interesting and inspiring use of photo-sensitive materials as an expressive
> medium, indeed the fine art aspects of photography. It is this very media, a
> wealth of silver and alternative processes, that allows the skilled artist
> to capture and manipulate LIGHT -- that fascinates and thrills.
I agree with Dan's assessment that Stefan discounts the value,
expressiveness and capacity of conventional imaging. However, I see Dan
doing the same thing about electronic imaging.
> The technical side is only part of the whole process. The more you
> delve into it, the more subtle and interesting it becomes. As one builds a
> personal relationship to the medium, in terms of abilility to express and
> create original images -- it becomes artwork -- other knowledgable and
> skilled photographers can appreciate the mastery of skills and expressive
> energy revealed in the creation of the imagery.
> Artist expression in any medium, be it sculpture, or oil painting,
> indeed any medium, is always limited by the medium itself. That is what
> makes artwork powerful and moving, -- the artist manages to manipulate the
> medium, shaping it and teasing it into extraordinary expressions of
> beauty, often apparent to even a casual observer -- yet inseparably bound
> by the limits of that rock or oil paint medium used.
> That is why people will continue to make true photographs -- and
> take the time and discipline to master wonderful processes such as platinum
> printing and gum bichromate. That is why some photographers prefer simple,
> rather obsolete and inconvenient cameras such as 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras -
> some even do wonderful imagery with pin-hole cameras.
> Old fashioned photography, especially with your own darkroom, offers
> unique and special rewards to those who would master the magic of expressing
> oneself with light. There are many fine artists who have discovered this
> fact. So, by all means try it and see for yourself!
>
> Best regards, Dan
>
These same urges to creativity and art can be the reason someone gets
into electronic imaging, and why he or she take the time and discipline
to master the processes involved. The images may be different, the
processes are obviously different, and the limits and capabilities of
the medium are different, but they are both valid artistic mediums.
To the beginners addressed by Stefan and Dan: ask yourselves what kind
of images *you* wish to produce. What is it really you're trying to
express? The answer to that may lead you in either the conventional or
electronic imaging directions. Neither will go away, and neither is
*the* answer.
-----------------
Dave Kennard
da...@unh.edu
phil chang
---------< S N I P >----------------
DA>These same urges to creativity and art can be the reason someone gets
DA>into electronic imaging, and why he or she take the time and discipline
DA>to master the processes involved. The images may be different, the
DA>processes are obviously different, and the limits and capabilities of
DA>the medium are different, but they are both valid artistic mediums.
DA>To the beginners addressed by Stefan and Dan: ask yourselves what kind
DA>of images *you* wish to produce. What is it really you're trying to
DA>express? The answer to that may lead you in either the conventional or
DA>electronic imaging directions. Neither will go away, and neither is
DA>*the* answer.
I think it is also important for any photographer who wishes to continue
into digital imaging to have a strong foundation in conventional
processes. It is for this very same reason why I feel graphic designers
and electronic production artists should NOT get heavily involved in
Digital Imaging. I think you need to know how to produce a black & white
or color print, understand the process enough to interpret it BEFORE
jumping into the electronic side. We look for the same things in an
electronic image as we do a convention silver image.
* OLX 2.1 TD * This tagline is umop apisdn
Dan Mackle
>
>> In article <Stefan.Deisz-2...@deisz-mac.tte.vtt.fi>,
>> Stefan...@VTT.FI writes about...
>> >
>> >[computers and digital imaging equipment as superior to
>> > conventional darkroom technologies...]
>> >To everyone who wants to start a darkroom, I would advise to think about
>> >this before spending a lot of money on something you will only use for
>> >two more years.
>In article <3ldp75$4...@fun.Direct.CA>
>dma...@Direct.CA (Dan Mackle) responds to Stefan:
>> Beginners, I truly think that Mr. Deisz is ignoring the really
>> interesting and inspiring use of photo-sensitive materials as an
expressive medium, indeed the fine art aspects of photography. It is this
very media, a wealth of silver and alternative processes, that allows the
skilled artist to capture and manipulate LIGHT -- that fascinates and
thrills.
>
>I agree with Dan's assessment that Stefan discounts the value,
>expressiveness and capacity of conventional imaging. However, I see Dan
>doing the same thing about electronic imaging.
Just a note to correct this erroneous assumption. I did not once put
down the value of electronic imaging. I merely replied to the rather narrow
view Deisz expounded that it useless to invest time and money into
conventional photography as it is now obsolete.
An enthusiastic defense of conventional photography does not
automatically mean rejection of digital methods. From the fine art
viewpoint,I see them as essentially separate media, with some commercial
overlap.
In fact, surprising as it may be, I have been involved in digital
imaging in the past few years, find it fascinating, and view it as another
valuable form of visual medium available to the creative artist.
Best regards, Dan
Stefan Deisz
In my original post I wrote "...you will only use...". This was a mistake,
it should be "...you might only use...". If you get addicted to the
darkroom you may use it for the rest of your life.
What I wanted to say is that I expect that conventional photography will
disappear within ten or twenty years, I think we will see a big growth in
digital imaging before the year 2000.
Once the digital camera´s are cheap enough for the mass market, (They are
already good enough) lot of people will buy them. They are a lot cheaper
to use, and also a lot easier. (You don't have to buy film, develop and
print the film, store negatives etc.)
At the moment the mass market switches to digital imaging, conventional
imaging will disappear. (Because it is simply much too expensive to keep
factories running for only a small group of enthousiastics.) We saw the
same thing happening with records: people said that records will never
disappear. At the moment it is very hard to find new records. (At least
in The Netherlands it is.)
As a last reason for the disappearance of conventional (chemical) photo-
graphy I look at our current environmental laws. We see that at the moment
a cleaner alternative to something is available, the old thing is forbidden,
or at least made very expensive.
I don't discount the value, expressiveness or capacity of conventional
photography, I am an enthousiastic user of my darkroom. However, I do
think that there is nothing you can do with conventional methods that
you can't do with a computer. (Considering the final image)
The only advantage of conventional photography over its digital
counterpart is the fun. I like working in my darkroom, and I doubt if
working on a digital image is as much fun.
--
Stefan Deisz.
Stefan...@vtt.fi
@primenet.com David Cunio
method. Just like the guy still driving the model T, there will be
someone out there using a chemical darkroom.....
Personaly I think it should be the begining of each persons training
when they start learning to process their own prints.,Just as it should
be a manual camera to learn on first.....It's to easy just to point and
shoot and people tend to be creatures of habit.......
r...@primenet.com
Franz Amador
>
> At the moment the mass market switches to digital imaging, conventional
> imaging will disappear. (Because it is simply much too expensive to keep
> factories running for only a small group of enthousiastics.) We saw the
> same thing happening with records: people said that records will never
> disappear. At the moment it is very hard to find new records. (At least
> in The Netherlands it is.)
This is a tempting argument to make, but I'm not convinced. Consider
the continuing existence of large-format chemical photography. Hardly
a mass-market medium, yet it shows no signs of disappearing. Perhaps
only 35mm is at risk, or perhaps not even that.
Franz Amador
fam...@nmo.gtegsc.com