- This topic is empty.
dark room antics….
-
Neelly wrote:
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.
Just because its easier,
doesn’t necessarily make it better-There’s nothing to stop you taking a box of wine into a darkroom either-
where the prints will improve at the same rate,
at least until the morning.I always enjoyed printing,
but I haven’t done it for a few years now-
However, I look forward to the time when I can do it again-
even if it illustrates the absence of a brain.A good silver print will always have a higher value than a good inkjet print-
Archival permanance measured at 130 years tops is a contradiction in terms.And they look more beautiful too-
j
quote Neelly “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.”
You must have been using some strange chemicals :? .
quote Neelly “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.”
Ever think about the damage you may be doing to your eyesight staring at that monitor for so long.
I think the smell of chemicals and their toxicity is woefully over exagerated. Like my sig says I do love the smell of fixer.
Fintan wrote:
…chemicals and their toxicity is woefully over exagerated.
If used sensibly and responsibly and you know what you’re doing the risk is negligible. I’m not really qualified in this area (only a biochemist would be) but I would always take the approach of “better safe than sorry”. Some darkroom chemicals used in toning and alternative processes can be particularly nasty.
Playing it safe in the darkroom is an interesting article from the Photographic Society of America (the US equivalent of the IPF or RPS). Ilford also have a number of articles on safety, including this one “HOW CAN PHOTOGRAPHIC CHEMICALS ENTER AND AFFECT YOUR BODY?” There’s a lot more in their Health & Safety section which is worth looking at, particularly if you’re into making your own developer and other chemicals.
Of course, digital imaging isn’t without it’s health risks either, particularly eye and musculo-skeletal related RSI injuries.
I thought the thread was getting a bit heavy, guess my poor attempt at lightning it failed miserably, still think a PC is a nicer and easier envirionment to work in though
Neelly wrote:
I thought the thread was getting a bit heavy, guess my poor attempt at lightning it failed miserably, still think a PC is a nicer and easier envirionment to work in though
Attempt at lightning it? I would think that your contribution didn’t help it at all.
Personally, digital vs film, darkroom vs PC has been discussed to death not only here but on other forums
and every photographic magazine under the sun.Only thing that matters is the end result and that end result is something that only you have to be happy with. :)
Mark
Mark wrote:
Only thing that matters is the end result and that end result is something that only you have to be happy with. :)
Mark
Here Here
Mark wrote:
Only thing that matters is the end result and that end result is something that only you have to be happy with. :)
Mark
Thats your opinion Mark.
Of course it is, I only speak for myself :)
Anyhow, I think that this topic has probably run its course. Not alot more
can be said about it. Its one of those pointless discussions that never achieves any real outcome.Mark wrote:
Of course it is, I only speak for myself :)
Anyhow, I think that this topic has probably run its course. Not alot more
can be said about it. Its one of those pointless discussions that never achieves any real outcome.Ditto that!
Thorsten wrote:
Mark wrote:
Of course it is, I only speak for myself :)
Anyhow, I think that this topic has probably run its course. Not alot more
can be said about it. Its one of those pointless discussions that never achieves any real outcome.Ditto that!
Ditto that again. Can we actually lock this thread
:wink:byrne5012 wrote:
Thorsten wrote:
Mark wrote:
Of course it is, I only speak for myself :)
Anyhow, I think that this topic has probably run its course. Not alot more
can be said about it. Its one of those pointless discussions that never achieves any real outcome.Ditto that!
Ditto that again. Can we actually lock this thread
:wink:We could if you stopped posting :wink:
Surely achieving a ‘real outcome’ is more than can possibly be expected?
I don’t understand why a thread sould be locked;
are opinions to be censored again?Everyone has an opinion;
as long as they can make their case
while respecting the alternative choices made by others
then I can’t see the difficulty.In a little while,
someone will make a similar post to this one,
and people will make the same points again.So what’s the big deal?
If you’re bored with the thread,
just don’t read it.
Some people may be approaching this subject for the first time,
and maybe it will be of use to them.Others may find that they reconsider their own views.
Whatever people think,
an outcome, favouring one over the other,
was never going to happen.A locked thread is a failed thread,
and I don’t think that’s happened here.j
I agree with Joseph on the locking the thread point. There is no point as someone else will bring it up somewhere else and some of the points here will be of use to someone I presume. If people want to argue in circles, then so what…it’s better than saying nothing at all.
And actually..my opinion is that Neely did lighten the humour of the thread. Of course you have to HAVE sense of humour in the first place to appreciate that :wink: :wink:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
