Lawrence:
Yes, you are putting words in my mouth, but they are the ones I would use if I
had been more loquacious.
As I stated (or alluded to) earlier, I want to SEE with my very own eyes,
completely digital B&W prints before I take any conclusions. While the input
of others on such a knowledgeable forum is valueable guidance, there are lots
of variables and only I can make my own decision for my own needs and tastes.
Having professionally printed repro-grade optical prints in the past, I know
exactly what I want to see.
I too am a techie... network engineering, so I have "touched" a computer or
two, both local and remote, in my time. I have no fear of PS processing, etc.
As you indicated, there is something far more "primal" (photographically
speaking) involved here.
Another issue is archival print quality. With wet darkroom methods and
materials, one can produce prints of archival fairly easily and inexpensively.
My understanding is that the equipment and inks for archival digital prints is
not a throwaway purchase... maybe I am wrong. I strongly doubt that walking
into Costco and coming out with an archival print for $2.99 is possible.
Again, someone correct me if I am wrong. And no, I don't want to start up the
digital vs. film storage/archiving debate!
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/7/2003 at 1:56 PM Marc Lawrence wrote:
>> Earl Dunbar [mailto:edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
>> Stephen: Your points are well taken. I am not trying to be a
>> curmudgeon (it just happens!)... what I guess I am saying is
>> that there are some psychological issues involved....
>
>Earl, I'm going to put some words into your mouth here (I'm
>starting by not quoting you in full context ;) ).
>
>For me, you've highlighted something that is very relevant
>to me whenever I see discussion in favour of digital or
>film (or b&w and colour). A lot of the arguments about the
>end product miss, for me, the fact that I have to get to the
>end product first.
>
>Firstly, I'm a gear-head and a tech-head. Working with computers
>in the "digital darkroom" is an absolute joy.
>
>I love digital - a C*n*n 300D is possibly in my near future -
>and my working with digital during the taking photos has improved
>my photos no end, and makes that part of the creative process
>for some type of photography I do (for example, street/city
>photography), another absolute joy. However, using my C*n*n E*S
>50E with the 100-300 USM "consumer" lens is startingly
>enjoyable while taking sports photos. The "lock" of focus
>and the user-friendliness of adjustments made my experience
>taking photos of the Touch Footy for the Gay Games last year
>easy and fun (and with successful, for me, result).
>
>However, some of my best and treasured photos have only come
>from the OM1 and 50/1.4, and these are "still-lifes" from up
>at the Hut, and those of my family at family-gatherings (I've
>showed some of these in the past), taken on Kodak's Black &
>White C41 film (these have both been what I've used for summer/
>winter swaps, for instance.). No matter what I do digitally,
>I have no interest in getting rid of this OM combination, as there
>is a "psychological issue" involved with it that works for me
>(I recommend a book called...ummm..."The Tao of Photography"
>I think. I'm too lazy to go upstairs and check). It brings me
>to a state of mind conducive to a particular type of photography
>(which is why I can empathise when people say that large format
>"slowing" them down improves photography).
>
>I guess what I'm trying to say is that *for me* (the only one
>that matters in my attempts to create photos), there are aspects
>("psychological issues") to film, digital, 35mm, MF, colour,
>b&w that all come into play at the taking stage and that are
>perhaps necessarily "irrational" at that creative stage that
>are difficult or impossible to include in any comparitive
>"Review" except on a purely personal level only relevant to the
>reviewer (which is, ultimately, me anyway). It's not the be-all
>and end-all, but it is very significant.
>
>...and, I *think* that's what you were saying, much more succinctly,
>in a couple of words. :-) (if not, I apologise)
>
>Cheers
>Marc
>Sydne, Oz
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|