Film or digital

[Andy K]

If you want inkjet prints have inkjet prints. It is you who will be sorry, not me. I'll still have real silver prints, made in a real darkroom, by real traditional wet process methods.
I think I'll start using that terminology every time I mention Real Darkroom work. If inkjet printers can use the term 'digital darkroom' to feed their fantasies, then I can use the accurate term Real Darkroom. 🙂

 

[Kin Lau]

The 'tech' is easy - question becomes - what is your work through put?

The ease and challenge of digital are a juxtaposition.

You need to decide when NOT to shoot - because elsewise the work flow through put becomes clogged and unmanageable.

My digital shots are 90-99% nature/birds. Deciding when _not_ to shoot is not usually an option. If it's _close_ enough and you can get _a_ shot, _any_ shot, get it.... in fact, get several. If it's willing to sit still for a bit, then get a whole lot more, because you may never get the chance again...ever.

The philosopy is almost the complete opposite of RF shooting.

 

[fgianni]

is it just me or can you get a greater depth of field with film? seems like unless you have a very expensive dslr with a large sensor, dof doesn't compare with a 35mm...just seems to me

It is actually the other way round, the smaller the sensor the greater the DOF for a given field of view, however with the same lens then yes, you have a greater DOF with the bigger sensor, but a wider field of view.

So a 50mm lens on a 1.5 crop factor has the field of view of a 75mm on a 35mm film but with more DOF than a 75mm (and less DOF than a 50 mm on 35mm film)

That's why you might find difficult to throw the background out of focus on a pocket digicam with a very small sensor.

Clear as mud I guess, for a detailed calculation with a 1.5 crop factor see richard_l post here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10722&page=1&pp=20

 

[Kin Lau]

is it just me or can you get a greater depth of field with film? seems like unless you have a very expensive dslr with a large sensor, dof doesn't compare with a 35mm...just seems to me

Yes... DOF gets less (not more) the larger the format. Greater DOF means more is in focus.

When I was _short_ DOF, I have my medium format and the 4x5 Speed Graphics and view cameras 🙂

 

[fgianni]

To make it short, if you compare FOV then the smaller the format the greater the DOF, if you compare the focal lenght then is the other way round.

But of course most of us are interested on DOF for a given FOV when comparing different formats.

 

[Socke]

If you want inkjet prints have inkjet prints. It is you who will be sorry, not me. I'll still have real silver prints, made in a real darkroom, by real traditional wet process methods.
I think I'll start using that terminology every time I mention Real Darkroom work. If inkjet printers can use the term 'digital darkroom' to feed their fantasies, then I can use the accurate term Real Darkroom. 🙂

And be sure to use real baryt paper, the longevity of resin coated paper is unproven at best 🙂

 

[Kin Lau]

And be sure to use real baryt paper, the longevity of resin coated paper is unproven at best 🙂

Maybe this is just my own perception, but I don't consider prints on RC to be "real traditional b&w". In my mind, that's always been reserved for FB, which are then properly toned.

Of course, as I mentioned before, my current level of expertise and equipment (or lack thereof) limits me to RC prints. There's a darkroom rental place in the city that's all setup for FB, with dryers, presses and 4x5 enlargers too. Now if I can just get a shot worthy of all that work 🙁

 

[Andy K]

And be sure to use real baryt paper, the longevity of resin coated paper is unproven at best 🙂

The same can be said for ALL inkjet paper. RC has a better track record purely because it has been around a hell of a lot longer than any inkjet paper.
Like I said, you stick to making posters and I'll stick to making photographs.

 

[Socke]

Andy, no personal attacks please! I too make photographs.

 

[Andy K]

Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.

 

[T_om]

Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.

Who said anything about digital darkroom processing being limited to inkjet output?

Tom

PS: Your personal definitions of "poster" are pretty meaningless. For example, if you asked a passerby to define "poster", would you at any time expect a respondent to reply with "a poster is ink sprayed onto paper"? See?

Of course, the same applies to "digital darkroom". In that context however, I believe you would find more people actually understanding the definition and accepting it as reasonable.

 

[Andy K]

As I said, I'll work in my Real Darkroom, you work in your fantasy darkroom.

 

[Socke]

Andy, do you have any photobooks?

 

[Andy K]

Andy, do you have any photobooks?

I have a few, mostly reference books. No photos in them though, just inferior ink reproductions.

 

[T_om]

Andy, do you have any photobooks?

You may as well give up... we are being trolled and have both swallowed the hook in this thread.

I'm not fishing any longer. 🙄

Tom

 

[Socke]

T_om, you're right.

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.

Hi again

Print longevity and aesthetics are different matters. I thought we were discussing the former.

Please rest assured: I admire good traditional fibre prints, but also carbon prints on fine art papers. True, they look ( a little) different, but they are beautiful in their own right.

Have you, Andy, ever seen one, varnished to a beautiful shine?

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Andy K]

You may as well give up... we are being trolled and have both swallowed the hook in this thread.

I'm not fishing any longer. 🙄

Tom

I didn't start this thread. If you think it is trolling to speak up for real darkromm work and object to the hijacking of traditional wet process terminology by digital users, then I guess I am trolling. Personally I don't think so. The people who are trolling are those who say things like 'can sniffing fixer and eating photo paper daily really have such a devasting impact on a persons social competence ?'
But then I would expect no better from those who have never experienced the full photographic process from negative to print.

Why are you so embarrassed by working on a computer that you feel you have to hide the fact by saying 'digital darkroom'? Be proud of your process, call it what it is: still video capture and digital image manipulation.

 

[Socke]

Yes Andy, the purity of the language is at stake here!

There are people who claim to make prints without a printing press

print (n.)
c.1300, "impression, mark," from O.Fr. preinte "impression," prop. fem. pp. of preindre "to press," from L. premere (see press (v.1)). Sense of "picture or design from a block or plate" is first attested 1662. Meaning "piece of printed cloth" is from 1756. Out of print "no longer to be had from the publisher" is from 1674. The verb is c.1384, "to impress with a seal or die;" the sense of "produce a book" (1511) is from earlier imprint. The meaning "to record (someone's) fingerprints" is from 1952. Printer is recorded from 1504; in the computer sense, from 1946. Printer's bible so called from mistaken substitution of printers for princes in Psalm cxix.161, which led to the misreading:

"Printers have persecuted me without a cause."

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Ink sprayed onto paper to create a picture is a poster.

Now I know that airbrushes are only postermakers when used on paper, and nothing else.