how much of it is the dslr and how much is in the ps skill?

[BillBingham2]

There are some real advantages to doing dodging and burning in on a computer. I was never able to dodge more than three parts at the same time. Burning in I could do more once I found out how to cut holes black paper.

Nice shot by the way, great rescue.

B2 (;->

 

[sojournerphoto]

Here is an example of what I have been talking about (regarding the value of post processing to ordinary bums like me.) This is no great work of art but believe me it is much much different to the basic boring and ordinary color photo that it started out as. I have converted to black and white, carefully recovered some of the highlights while allowing others to blow a little for effect, dodged and burned to my hearts content to bring out some shadow details and suppress others and added a touch of grain, flare and even a little sepia tone to provide a little photographic interest. Like I say, no great work of art but at least its now something I can present and call MY workwith some satisfaction. OK, I took the photo because I was able to ssee something that made me think the image had potential. I also chose the framing and the moment. The camera captured the image competently. But the final image was only realised after a few hours of work in front of a PC and not a little trial and error before arriving at the final product that had something of what I envisaged when I first pressed the shutter buitton.

But there are still things I could do to further improve it and probably will. Now that the shadow detail has been pulled out a bit, I can see the need to correct the perspective on the right hand side. Again this is a snap to achieve in post production.

Peter, I like this and understand where you are coming from. The shot below had similar work to retain detail in shadow areas where I wanteed together with the feeling of light in the blossom. I am interested thogh in whether you made test prints along the way. These days I find that I can often get quite close to what i want before I start printing (largely due to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk!), but still often revisit the shot in the light of the print?

Mike

 

[peterm1]

"Peter, I like this and understand where you are coming from. The shot below had similar work to retain detail in shadow areas where I wanteed together with the feeling of light in the blossom. I am interested thogh in whether you made test prints along the way. These days I find that I can often get quite close to what i want before I start printing (largely due to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk!), but still often revisit the shot in the light of the print?"

Mike you are quite right about printing. But to be honest, I do not have a really satisfactory printer for black and white work so must consider upgrading before I can really factor in printing to the final "tweaking" process. But I did make quite a few variants / interpretations on screen before I finally arrived at one I particularly liked. I have kind reconciled myslef to the fact t5hat as thngs presently stand I will probably have to end up with at least 2 versions - one optimised for screen, one for print.

Oh and thank you for your photo it is very nice, well composed and well exeected. Its good to speak to someone who has "been there doen that, got the T shirt" and speaks the same lingo as it were.

cheers Peter

 

[kevin m]

... There is almost nothing you can do in photoshop that you can't do in a traditional darkroom...

Here's one: Fine tune your file to get it just the way you want it. Now print 10 identical copies with no further time/effort.

...but there are many things that you can do in a traditional darkroom that you can't do digitally....

Can you name a few?

The only advantages I can think of, off hand, that digital post processing has is that it is a little easier and it has an undo button.

A little easier? PS has an instant feedback curve. Techniques can be tried and applied - or dismissed - in an instant. And, really, there's no comparison as to the level of fine-tuning one can easily perform in PS vice the wet darkroom. Admit it: at some point in a long night of wet printing, you'll utter the words "good enough" to yourself. My Leica V35 was a state of the art darkroom enlarger, but it's been gone for years now and I can't say I've ever missed it.

The only wet darkroom advantage, as far as I'm concerned: fiber-based paper. That's it.

 

[imajypsee]

Going back to Art Wolfe's photos

Going back to Art Wolfe's photos

do you think the photos will stand the test of time? are they likely to achieve classic status? Frankly, Wolfe is a fine technician, but I wouldn't put one of his photos on my wall. Just because he makes technically perfect pictures doesn't make them interesting for more than a few seconds of consideration.

Mary in SW Florida, USA

BTW, Peter... your picture is what I call "wall worthy."

 

[Brad Bireley]

do you think the photos will stand the test of time? are they likely to achieve classic status? Frankly, Wolfe is a fine technician, but I wouldn't put one of his photos on my wall. Just because he makes technically perfect pictures doesn't make them interesting for more than a few seconds of consideration.

Mary in SW Florida, USA

BTW, Peter... your picture is what I call "wall worthy."

Why is he a fine technician & not a fine photographer????

 

[Al Kaplan]

I get sick of the "digital can make ten prints EXACTLY the same as one another". Digital prints posters. Posters all look alike. Fine Art prints, whether hand done serigraphs, lithographs, or one of the intaglio methods? The hand inking of the plate for each impression, how much ink, how much was wiped off, the amount of pressure applied to the paper on the plate, all these things make it impossible to make even two prints exactly the same. You make a bunch of prints. You pick the ones that meet your standards and sign them. You destroy those that don't. That's why a print made by the photographer using traditional methods will be priced a lot higher in a gallery than an ink jet. Is that really such a difficult concept to understand?

I have a modest collection of artwork hanging in my house. Oil and watercolor paintings, pen & ink drawings, charcoal drawings, photographs, etc. Some have become quite valuable over the years as the various artists' fame have grown. Others I still like but they're not very valuable. Had they all been computer generated prints none of them would be of much value compared to an original piece in some conventional medium.

I don't make the rules, the gallery owners don't make the rules, and you don't make the rules either. The collectors ready to write a check? They make the rules.

 

[russianRF]

Actually, I believe you have that backward. There is almost nothing you can do in photoshop that you can't do in a traditional darkroom (pretty much all of the photoshop stuff is based on tried and true darkroom techniques), but there are many things that you can do in a traditional darkroom that you can't do digitally. The only advantages I can think of, off hand, that digital post processing has is that it is a little easier and it has an undo button.

Have you discovered the world of plug-ins? Layers? Metadata? The healing brush? Sure you can airbrush, but that's much more tedious and difficult...

But I'd wager just on plug-ins alone... Okay I concede you could do most of it in the wet darkroom, if you're willing to produce dozens of inter-negatives and learn lots and lots of exotic chemistry.

And you can't do ANYTHING like Viveza in the wet darkroom...

 

[gavinlg]

Here's one: Fine tune your file to get it just the way you want it. Now print 10 identical copies with no further time/effort.



Can you name a few?



A little easier? PS has an instant feedback curve. Techniques can be tried and applied - or dismissed - in an instant. And, really, there's no comparison as to the level of fine-tuning one can easily perform in PS vice the wet darkroom. Admit it: at some point in a long night of wet printing, you'll utter the words "good enough" to yourself. My Leica V35 was a state of the art darkroom enlarger, but it's been gone for years now and I can't say I've ever missed it.

The only wet darkroom advantage, as far as I'm concerned: fiber-based paper. That's it.

100% agree.

 

[JohnL]

Those are all top-of-the-line lenses and cost several K$ in total. But that is just one contributing factor. The 1DsII and 5D are both superb cameras for image quality, that is another. Certainly he is a very competent photographer, and post-processor. There's two more. Technically, there is no "utter magic"in these shots, they are just very good.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Another thing rarely considered by the younger crowd. Some of us spent years getting to where we are now, learning optics, chemistry, B&W films, papers, and techniques because we LIKE working in that medium. Some of us actually enjoy getting our hands wet, working in the dark or by the soft yellow light of an OC safelight filter. Rock music (or whatever you fancy) playing on the radio, the gurgling sound of water in the print washer, the hum of the air conditioner. I don't give a hoot about curves and layering. My hands can create shadowgraphs in the enlarger's light beam. They know how far from the lens they need to be to get the desired feathered light effect needed for a particular burn. I can smoke in there, and if a visitor complains I tell them to get their own darkroom if they don't like smoke, then demonstrate the subtle diffusion created by blowing smoke into that beam of light emanating from the enlarger lens.

Yes, there are a lot of effects that you can mimic with a digital "darkroom" but you can't enjoy the mystical experience of doing it in semi-darkness to the sounds of gurgling water behind a door with a sign saying "In the Dark. Please Knock." and no one ever disturbs you...

 

[russianRF]

Another thing rarely considered by the older crowd. Some of us spent years getting to where we are now, learning Photoshop, pluggins, printers, inkjet papers, and techniques because we LIKE working in that medium. Some of us actually enjoy getting working with a mouse, or an electronic pen-pad, working in our pajamas or by the soft muted glow of our moniters. MP3s (or whatever you fancy) playing through the speakers, the soft hum of external drives, the faint whine of a flim scanner. I don't give a hoot about chemicals and concentrations. My hands can create layers upon layers and stack and blend them. They know how to tweak a setting just so, or which layer effect can bring out striking, surreal colors. I can smoke in there, and if a visitor complains I tell them to go back to their own desktop if they don't like smoke, then demonstrate the subtle diffusion created by blowing smoke into that beam of light emanating from the screen.

Yes, there are a lot of effects that you can mimic with a wet "darkroom" but you can't enjoy the mystical experience of doing it intimately, with just you and your lone machine in semi-darkness with the faint hum of the computer fans within the machine, with your Instant Messanger status set to "Away, don't bother me" and if someone does message you, you're so entranced and absorbed you just ignore the IM window...

 

[iridium7777]

there's an ass for every seat, or in this case, a wall for every picture.

wolfe wouldn't be here if people weren't interested in what he produces, he wouldn't have a show and wouldn't publish books that won't sell. so if we're talking about the test of time being the span of his career, i think it has been withstood.

equally, i am sure that someone looking at wolfe's pictures would look a the one you praised and say "wtf is wrong with this?". i don't like blanket generalizations like this, but i hope you see my point here. as a landscape/wildlife photographer, or whatever his actual label is, he markets and appeals to a completely different persona, never mind the dslr/rf argument.

from the discussion, though, it seems that being proficient in any type of post processing is mandatory to achieve good photographs, but it also doesn't hurt to have some of the best equipement to get you to that pre-ps step.

do you think the photos will stand the test of time? are they likely to achieve classic status? Frankly, Wolfe is a fine technician, but I wouldn't put one of his photos on my wall. Just because he makes technically perfect pictures doesn't make them interesting for more than a few seconds of consideration.

Mary in SW Florida, USA

BTW, Peter... your picture is what I call "wall worthy."

 

[Brad Bireley]

there's an ass for every seat, or in this case, a wall for every picture.

wolfe wouldn't be here if people weren't interested in what he produces, he wouldn't have a show and wouldn't publish books that won't sell. so if we're talking about the test of time being the span of his career, i think it has been withstood.

equally, i am sure that someone looking at wolfe's pictures would look a the one you praised and say "wtf is wrong with this?". i don't like blanket generalizations like this, but i hope you see my point here. as a landscape/wildlife photographer, or whatever his actual label is, he markets and appeals to a completely different persona, never mind the dslr/rf argument.

from the discussion, though, it seems that being proficient in any type of post processing is mandatory to achieve good photographs, but it also doesn't hurt to have some of the best equipement to get you to that pre-ps step.

Amen! Very well said.

 

[russianRF]

I would just like to point out how shocked and amazed I am at the extreme political correctness demanded by the analogue/"wet" zealots in this forum. My original post was not meant to disparage analogue processes; indeed I *praised* it. I also implied that if one wishes to learn how to make great digital pictures, from a digital camera especially, then one must devote time and learning to the digital darkroom process with the same fervor, reverence, and general open-mindedness that one approaches analogue photography with.

But apparently, even implying that there are any advantages, or possible reasons to enjoy -- if not prefer -- digital photography is unacceptable to the zealot luddites in this forum.

I was told last year, in APUG, that I really should learn the wet darkroom process, that I was missing out by staying "digital only." I didn't throw my hands up in the air and start a film vs. digital debate. No, I went and took a class. After that experience, I can honestly say that I prefer a good fiber-based darkroom print to most all digital print outs.

However, that class also focused on digital photography, and for our final projects some of the students decided to go the digital route. They had high-end dedicated film scanners, used special archival ink on expensive calibrated Epson printers, and likewise used special archival ink jet paper to produce the prints. And indeed, we had to be TOLD which projects were made digitally to know the difference between those carefully crafted digital works and the traditional prints.

Another thing I learned from the class was, despite the romance of the analogue process, I simply can't stand making contact sheets. For my personal workflow, at least, I much prefer scanning my film, reviewing it side-by-side in Photoshop, sending web-sized copies to my friends, getting their feedback, etc. Only when I am finished with the -- to my mind easier -- digital "contact sheet" process am I able to confidently select which frames make the cut for a wet darkroom printing.

I certainly hope that when I am as old as some of the zealots on this forum (and indeed most all of them seem to be older), I will not be as inflexible, as blind to new ways and new technologies. I hope I will still be able to both embrace the new and celebrate the old at the same time.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Have you discovered the world of plug-ins? Layers? Metadata? The healing brush? Sure you can airbrush, but that's much more tedious and difficult...

But I'd wager just on plug-ins alone... Okay I concede you could do most of it in the wet darkroom, if you're willing to produce dozens of inter-negatives and learn lots and lots of exotic chemistry.

And you can't do ANYTHING like Viveza in the wet darkroom...

And you can't run a rock, or a feather, through an ink jet.

Edit: Well, I just went to a website raving hysterically about Viveza and it seems to me, based on the descriptions, that it is pretty much just a digital version of split contrast filtering.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Another thing rarely considered by the younger crowd. Some of us spent years getting to where we are now, learning optics, chemistry, B&W films, papers, and techniques because we LIKE working in that medium. Some of us actually enjoy getting our hands wet, working in the dark or by the soft yellow light of an OC safelight filter. Rock music (or whatever you fancy) playing on the radio, the gurgling sound of water in the print washer, the hum of the air conditioner. I don't give a hoot about curves and layering. My hands can create shadowgraphs in the enlarger's light beam. They know how far from the lens they need to be to get the desired feathered light effect needed for a particular burn. I can smoke in there, and if a visitor complains I tell them to get their own darkroom if they don't like smoke, then demonstrate the subtle diffusion created by blowing smoke into that beam of light emanating from the enlarger lens.

Yes, there are a lot of effects that you can mimic with a digital "darkroom" but you can't enjoy the mystical experience of doing it in semi-darkness to the sounds of gurgling water behind a door with a sign saying "In the Dark. Please Knock." and no one ever disturbs you...

Well said. There is also the world of "Liquid Light," which allows you to print on pretty much anything. There is the fact that with film, you have hundreds of films to choose from, while with digital stuff you're stuck with one sensor.

 

[russianRF]

And you can't run a rock, or a feather, through an ink jet.

Edit: Well, I just went to a website raving hysterically about Viveza and it seems to me, based on the descriptions, that it is pretty much just a digital version of split contrast filtering.

So in other words, you completely missed what U-Points are, and how powerful they are?

If you are going to tell me that this [link] is just split contrast filtering, I don't see how I can take anything else you say seriously.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Yes, most of the stuff in their demonstration is split contrast filtering, and (since you apparently want to do this in color) possibly some modifications to the color filtering. In a wet darkroom, to do the same thing, you'd use a handmade burning mask to localize the effect, keeping it moving to blend it in. People were doing that sort of thing long before there was any such thing as a computer image editing program. We darkroom people have a lot steeper learning curve to deal with is all.

Edit: Their own ad says that it allows you to do this without masks, implying it is taken from a wet darkroom technique (we use masks to do it).

The ability to skip over all the intermediate steps, in order to achieve a certain effect, is one of the advantages of digital photography. It's great for work flow. However it can also be seen as one of the disadvantages, if you are doing another type of photography and coming at it from a different direction. It leaves you with no understanding of how the effect is reached, and how it can be modified.

 

[russianRF]

Download the trial and give it a run yourself. You'll see that comparing wet darkroom techniques to U-Point technology is like comparing a meat cleaver to a surgeon's knife. And I will concede, once again, that if you're willing to make dozens of internegatives, masks, etc. for each image you work on, you can indeed replicate what takes a few mouse clicks in the Plug-In.

Perhaps a more photographic metaphor will clarify my point of view: saying that Viveza is equivalent to wet darkroom techniques is like saying that digital black-and-white conversion is equivalent to true black and white film -- in a sense it is, but you're missing the essential artistic appeal of the tool.

Edit: you get instant feedback as you adjust the U-Point (or U-Points) within the plugin; whatever is missing in seeing the "true process" is more than made up with the ability to preview everything that's going on, all at once, as the edits cascade over each other. Again, give the trial a try...