MonoBob wrote:
> Almost any look is possible with SFX and the right paper, and as AG pointed
> out to me a year or so ago, the results are discernibly not from wet
> darkrooms because they don’t contain the flaws that come out of a wet
> darkroom. <Down, AG! You said it, not me. <g>>
Yup, I certainly said it. But you do go on and talk about the papers.
This is likely the more important point now. It isn't difficult to get
a decent on-screen B&W image that has whatever look and feel that your
heart desires. Getting that image to show up on paper in an equally
proper way is a bit more difficult and expensive.
On a cost per square meter basis, digital B&W costs are staggering.
Especially so if the image contains a lot of "density". The
latest/greatest papers and inks have largely eliminated the darkroom
advantage, but not without considerable expense and effort. Three
weeks ago, I saw a set of exhibition-grade B&W prints that were as
good as I've ever managed to get from the darkroom. Excellent?
Absolutely! Schnozz-worthy? You betcha.
Back to your statement, that I quoted, above, they didn't contain the
flaws that come out of a wet darkroom. I know that from a technical
perspective, they were superior to what would have been achievable
from most any 35mm negative on a 11x14 print. Yet, they lacked that
"organic" nuance that I personally appreciate.
But not everybody does. To each his/her own.
> EDITOR’S NOTE: This is not intended in any way to disrespect those who choose
> to work in wet darkrooms with that stuff we call film to achieve their black
> and white vision. It is only to point out—with a little teasing of the
> Schnozz along the way—that it’s not necessary for your fingers to smell of
> fixer to make outstandingly, outrageously good black and white prints with a
> digital camera, a computer, and software.
I would suggest that the one particular advantage to shooting film is
that there is a "look" which you select when you choose your film and
development. That "look" influences the eye to seeing an
interpretation of the scene that may not necessarily occur in your
mind or stumble across in post. It's no different than when I ask
somebody to give me a "Velvia look" in a digital image. I know that CH
Ling knows exactly what I'm referring to. What people usually think is
a "Velvia look" actually has little resemblance to Velvia. Especially,
when I ask Velvia 50, 100 or 100F?
Blank stares.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|