- This topic is empty.
dark room antics….
-
…….. does anyone else feel the darkroom is more rewarding than sitting at a computer screen???
sorry, but no. i’ve only been in a darkroom a few times as an observer, loved the smell, but prefer to do everything on the computer..
bethWelcome aboard. I didn’t take part in your poll because you didn’t have an option for people like me who enjoy both film and digital. Do I prefer the darkroom instead of sitting in front of the computer screen? Well, considering I’ve done both I can emphatically say that both have their place. Unfortunately at the moment, I don’t have space for a permanent darkroom. Doesn’t matter too much, because where I really like to be is out shooting with the camera – if I shoot film I develop my negs and usually send them out for printing and if I’m shooting digital, I shoot in a manner that minimises the amount of time I need to spend at the computer! What ultimately matters to me is the final image, not how I got there!
Thorsten wrote:
Doesn’t matter too much, because where I really like to be is out shooting with the camera……..What ultimately matters to me is the final image, not how I got there!
Hit the nail on the head Thorsten
i would have to disagree strongly with you both…. i think the production of the image is as much a part of making the image as taking the picture. after all, whether you work with digital or in the darkroom, you change the image while printing. therefore the final image is not necessarily the image you took in the first place…. wouldnt you agree?
I would always TRY and get the shot right first time in the camera.
I feel that this is my ultimate goal as a photographer.
Having never spent any time in a darkroom I cannot speak to the methods used or satisfaction gained
from watching your picture develop before your eyes.
I do however get the majority of my shots printed ( i don’t see the point in having them fill a hard disk ).
When it comes to printing I generally leave that to someone else who I trust to print the shots as she knows I
would want them.I try to minimise the amount of time I spend in front of the pc for the same reason Thorsten mentioned.
I prefer to be behind the camera and not in front of the monitor.Henri Cartier-Bresson ( i could be wrong about this ) never developed his own shots and left that up to someone else.
He felt his job was to capture a moment on film and it was someone elses job to put that moment onto paper.I must say I really enjoyed working in the darkroom. I agree with Thorsten when he says it’s the final image that counts. However there’s nothing like seeing a photograph appearing from a blank sheet in front of your eyes. I built a new house about ten years ago with a dedicated darkroom. I removed the sink from it last year hardly having used it. The enlarger, lights, baths etc etc have been sadly consigned to the attic.
carrieday wrote:
i would have to disagree strongly with you both…. i think the production of the image is as much a part of making the image as taking the picture. after all, whether you work with digital or in the darkroom, you change the image while printing. therefore the final image is not necessarily the image you took in the first place…. wouldnt you agree?
Sorry i don’t agree you should capture the image in the field using tools such as the eye, experience, polarizers and grads etc to balance and get exposure correct. Post processing should always be kept to a minimum (for me its about 2 minutes per image). If you want to spend allot of time post processing your images and changing them around take up painting:-), this is photography. I used to shoot slide film all the time and then used to project the slides onto a wall. There is no post processing and cropping etc when projecting slide, its up to you the photographer to get it right in the field. When printing black and white i do see some advantage and reasons for it but for colour its a total no no to go over board. When shooting raw you have to post process but this should be kept to a minimum ie changes to levels, curves, saturation and a small bit of dodge and burn.
Really good images taken in the field correctly don’t need much post processing they can stand on their own feet
This might be just me :-)
MartinPS: Hopefully i don’t come across to negative i just love a debate on this issue:-)
Agree with you there Martin – I know Digital Photography has made me very lazy. I shoot about 20 times more images and if when I look through the viewfinder I see something that doesn’t work I think “I’ll sort it out in photoshop” I remember going on holidays and taking two or three rolls of film a max of 72 shots. Now I take about 10gig of memory and worry that I won’t have enough.
Pop Quiz – which PI member often says photography is about “catching light”
Well I know one member who has said it to me a few times.Anyway that is how I see what i do. I catch light in a little box with a sensor.
The printing is a job for someone else whose job is to do so.I must admit I do like to print the odd shot at home but generally I give the usb key into
Gunns and Louise does the rest.Does Digital Photography make yme lazy well yes and no. I have found myself spending less time
focusing on composition in the field and trying to get it right in PS. Those days, I hope, are gone.If anything I am less lazy than I used to be. If I have 10gb free space on cards then I want to fill it all.
I want to walk through the entire city all day looking for shots, to spend hours in the country side shooting at will (pictures).I’m not sure I would have done that with film.
carrieday wrote:
i would have to disagree strongly with you both…. i think the production of the image is as much a part of making the image as taking the picture. after all, whether you work with digital or in the darkroom, you change the image while printing. therefore the final image is not necessarily the image you took in the first place…. wouldnt you agree?
Spot on.
Personally I feel that if the shot I print is dramatically different that the shot I
took on the camera then I have failed somewhat. It doesn’t apply all the time and some
of recent posts have involved a lot of ps work.However i am kinda fussy when it comes to landscape and street ( espeicially street )
I want to get right in the camera as Martin mentioned. I want the printed result to be a
reproduction of the JPEG. I don’t want to spend hours on a pc or hours in darkroom perfecting the shot.I want to get it right the first time, in the box.
Again this does not to everything type or style of shot.
I am not sure I quite agree with ‘get it right in the camera’
I know some photographers who take a shot know what they will do to it in photoshop or whatever to produce their art.
I guess in one sense they are getting it right in the camera, BUT that doesnt mean that it will look like a replication of what came out of the camera
One of the members here would be a good example
Roberto
I dont think his camera produces shots like the posts he produces here
Post processing is part of photography and as integral as caputring the light into the box.
If you get either wrong the shot wont work,
stcstc wrote:
I am not sure I quite agree with ‘get it right in the camera’
I know some photographers who take a shot know what they will do to it in photoshop or whatever to produce their art.
I guess in one sense they are getting it right in the camera, BUT that doesnt mean that it will look like a replication of what came out of the cameraI have to agree-
Who is to say what is right or wrong?
If it is the way you work, and you can get consistently good results,
than any set of techniques can be defended-j
carrieday wrote:
…….. does anyone else feel the darkroom is more rewarding than sitting at a computer screen???
well the question is “is it more rewarding” not better not anything else and as for me it is a resounding yes, I do find it more rewarding. Much more in fact.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
