Seems to me we're just hardwired differently. I'm not trying to fake anyone
out. I don't care if my B&W doesn't look like a particular film or a particular
paper. I care about how I think it looks in the sense of what I'm trying to
express. Well, maybe that's too artsy-fartsy . . . in the sense of what I'm
trying to portray. The individual who comes in and proceeds to inform me how I
failed to achieve the look of the wet darkroom will be treated politely, but
shown the door as quickly as possible--unless, of course, he just has to blow
off some steam before he actually buys something. <g>
A short story, and then I'm done. Don't mean to get the whole film-digital
thing going at critical mass again . . . <wink>
As I've mentioned before, during the past year and a half I've had an
opportunity to spend some time with Paul Caponigro and his son, John Paul, whom
I call Obi-wan Adobe. JP tells the story of when he was a kid growing up under
foot of such luminaries as his dad, Ansel Adams and Edward Weston and others.
Pretty rare air, all things considered. One of the constant refrains he kept
hearing was the Grand Masters complaining bitterly about how film and paper
companies were dead set of reducing silver content and doing other things to up
profits and degrade quality of materials. They were, and are, correct. I know
real corporate support for wet photography is flagging, I just hadn't been
aware of the degree to which it had been flagging long before anyone even
imagined a digital world.
Now, in today's digital world, just the opposite is true. Not more than a
couple of days goes by that some innovation isn't brought to market. At all
levels of the digital world, quality is increasing at near exponential rates.
The sensors are better. The engines that work on what the sensors give them are
better. The cameras are better. The glass is better. Printers are better and
getting better still. Ink is better and getting better still. Paper is better
and getting better still. All the while it's also becoming more affordable.
It's a great time to be working as a photographer, when your materials are not
deteriorating, but rather expanding in options and quality. True, it means
there's a lot of genuine dreck out there, but for those willing to take the
time to learn the tools, the times have never been better.
I truly believe, and I'm not trying to be insulting here, that wet photography
will survive, and perhaps even thrive, among ever decreasing numbers of people,
supported by what will amount to a boutique association of companies putting
out the chemicals, film and paper. How much of a choice you have, and how much
it's eventually going to cost, still to be determined.
--Bob
On May 10, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> So, now we are well down the road to "Digital B&W". Can it be made to fake
> out the viewer into thinking it's something it is not? Sure! But not
> naturally. There is a way the files want to be processed and printed and
> unless you actually are shooting film side-by-side with the digital you may
> not be aware of how the film nuanced the scene differently than your own
> mind thinks it is going to.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|