- This topic is empty.
dark room antics….
-
It’s a poor tradesman that restricts himself to a couple of tools. PS or its equivilents are now photography tools. Photography, to me, is the final result. How you get there has to be a satisfying to the originator and not labelled as cheating or inferior because they rely on what is available to them.
I agree about the comment on Roberto’s work. It’s unusual. It’s a signature of his work. It’s unconventional but I don’t care on the path he took to achieve this, it’s attractive to me and many others. If it’s film or digital, it’s immaterial.
Just do what you do best that satisfies your own aims. Other peoples preferences don’t make it wrong.
My preference is the computer screen. I don’t and won’t use film anymore due to the expense and my own personal preference to use the other photographic tools available to me.
Alan.
Just to be clear, I do agree that programs such as PS are a valuable resource to any photographer
and I have used them myself.
To be honest though my preference towards getting shot right first time is based more in my preference towards
spending as little time behind a monitor as possible.
I have said before on many occasions that i really enjoy the style adopted by people like Roberto. For me however unless
there was a simple action that gave me the same results in under a minute I’m not sure I would have the patience for that kind of processing.When I say want to get the shot right first time it is well worth noting that this often fails spectacularly. However it’s what I aim for.
I also, however, seriously believe that any good, well rounded, photographer should have a basic understanding of other mediums.
Which is why I am personally so enthusiastic to get into a dark room and develop some film. I don’t think I would ever use film as my primary
medium but I still want to understand the methods behind the processes.Just to be clear, I do agree that programs such as PS are a valuable resource to any photographer
and I have used them myself.Actually I belive photoshop or others a like are actually essential tools for a photographer, well particularly for a digital photographer
But to answer the question, I have only developed 2 or 3 rolls of film, with the help of someone at the camera club i am a member of, but I have worked with photoshop forever, mind I have only been taking pictures since aug last year. I have work on other people photos before then for my work
I must say I do enjoy working on images sometimes behind a computer screen, but i can see the attraction of darkroom printing. But I like the convience of computer based manipulation.
Actually on a slightly side note, someone gave me an article today. the jist of which is that it suggests serious film photographers actually develop a neg differently if it is for scanning than for traditional printing, and quite substantially, like dirrent chemicals etc
I’m not sure it’s essential. Valuable yes but not necessarily essential.
I’ve seen several really good photographers on this site and others whose use of PS
is minimal at best.
I’ve seen photgraphers who never use it all and they are still producing great shots. Straight from the camera.I cant belive any digital photographer can consistantly produce results that need not attention in photoshop
for starters if they are shooting RAW they well almost every time need a levels and contrast adjustment
Not everyone shoots raw.
I’ve often shot street shots that have gone straight from the camera, to a usb key and
straight to the printers.
I think it’s the point of some styles of the photography that post processing in unnecessaryI’ve often shot street shots that have gone straight from the camera, to a usb key and
straight to the printers.The key word here is ‘often’. Not all the time
What I am saying is to be able to leverage the maximum from their art a digital photographer need some form of image manipulation / processing
As I’ve mentioned before I do not and never would dismiss anything that will help me produce better end results.
I’m just not entirely convinced it is a complete necessity for all.
I guess it depends on what you want your end result to be.
I’d have to agree with Steve on this one. In fact the whole idea of non processed shots from digital camera is ludicrous anyway. If you shoot Jpeg..then the shots are already processed in camera. How much that is depends on how you set up your camera. From my understanding, the only way to produce “as shot” images from a digital camera is to shoot raw, and there is no way you are going to print those without processing.
I could never understand this holier than thou attitude with some people who shoot digital (not you Graham…god knows with your recent work here you could never be called anti photoshop..hehehe) saying …”Oh I never process my shots..they are as they came out of the camera”. Well the only difference is they allowed the computer in the camera to do the processing for them. So what? 8)
Thanks Robbie, you are right I’m not standing on top of the mountain preaching to the purist’s.
I do use photoshop (as i said ), i don’t enjoy using it, but I do use.I just don’t think it’s necessary for all styles.
irishwonkafan wrote:
It’s a poor tradesman that restricts himself to a couple of tools. PS or its equivilents are now photography tools. Photography, to me, is the final result. How you get there has to be a satisfying to the originator and not labelled as cheating or inferior because they rely on what is available to them.
I agree about the comment on Roberto’s work. It’s unusual. It’s a signature of his work. It’s unconventional but I don’t care on the path he took to achieve this, it’s attractive to me and many others. If it’s film or digital, it’s immaterial.
Just do what you do best that satisfies your own aims. Other peoples preferences don’t make it wrong.
My preference is the computer screen. I don’t and won’t use film anymore due to the expense and my own personal preference to use the other photographic tools available to me.
Alan.
If a poor tradesman restricts himself to a couple of tools, and you wont use film anymore, you are calling yourself a poor tradesman Alan.
Personally I find photography as a hobby more a journey than a destination. Chimping histograms isn’t really my vibe.
stcstc wrote:
if they are shooting RAW they well almost every time need a levels and contrast adjustment
aren’t contrast filters and usm used in the traditional darkroom? as well as dodging and burning. i have no knowledge of the darkroom since i’ve never used it, but once had the displeasure of listening (for more than an hour as she was subbing for my art teacher) to the overenthusiastic high school photography teacher tell me that most of the photoshop tools were derived from things done either during film processing or in the darkroom.
bethIf a poor tradesman restricts himself to a couple of tools, and you wont use film anymore, you are calling yourself a poor tradesman Alan.
In the context you put it Fintan, yes, you’re right. The context I referred to was as the thread was developing to was the use, or non use of post processing tools.
As regards your referral to a journey – I took this journey. I bought my first SLR in ’88. The costs and my lack of skills restricted my photography to where people say cheese. This journey wasn’t what I’d have liked as a photographer, and a poor one at that. The development of digital allowed me to learn about the skills of photography without the processing costs. Since I bought my DSLR in February I’ve shot over 2000 photos as a journey of learning. A very small percentage are useable but this percentage is growing. I could not have done this with film hence my point. I don’t see film cameras as not using a tool just using a different one, one that allows me to follow my hobby. To those that use film and are skillful enough to hold a high rate of keepers, I applaud you. This wasn’t my referral to not using tools, as I explained.
This thread has gone way beyond what I assume Carrie intended and has brought up the film/digital argument up which is as futile an argument as CD & Vinyl. Lets just take photographs as we do best.
Alan.
[/code]
I will answer the original question with a resounding vote for the PC. When I think back to my darkroom, temporary of course, the setting up, the smell of chemicals (God knows what they were doing to your lungs), the faffing about the waiting to see it you had C**cked up either the time or the temperature and screwed either the whole roll or merely the print you had spent ages dodging and burning No Thanks.
Now I can sit with a nice glass of Chardonnay and fix things in the comfort of my chair,and the more glasses the better the final prints, has to be a no brainer.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
