helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Yay to computers
It’s only a matter of Time
Till our brains will all have a Chip
Then who needs to print OR think
It will be eternally on your hard drive mind and shared thru a subliminal thought ... lol
can't wait!
Cheers & Happy New Year ~.
It’s only a matter of Time
Till our brains will all have a Chip
Then who needs to print OR think
It will be eternally on your hard drive mind and shared thru a subliminal thought ... lol
can't wait!
Cheers & Happy New Year ~.
I don't shoot straight out of camera, but I do know where all the x's and o's are. I apply my own corrections to the image.
You would think Leica could come up with a replacement Screen for the M8. This one was under $20.
zauhar
Veteran
Brian , you are a cool guy !
benlees
Well-known
I did color in the darkroom and now still do color with digital. I prefer digital color for all of the reasons Bill stated. I just had three large color prints done for a show in Italy. I used my laptop screen but I calibrate the screen. They loeked the same on my screen and on the wall.
hap
Well-known
Yay to computers
It’s only a matter of Time
Till our brains will all have a Chip
Then who needs to print OR think
It will be eternally on your hard drive mind and shared thru a subliminal thought ... lol
can't wait!
Cheers & Happy New Year ~.
Yes, that is Ray Kurzweil prediction...the melding of human and machine resulting in what he called a "Singularity"
It should not surprise you that Kurzweil is at Google in important in their AI project.
He is the prophet of Transhumanism. It sounds awful to me, frankly.
About the only thing such predictions like this indicate is how little the person knows about how computers and associated protocols actually work.
I'll volunteer to do the vulnerability analysis.
AI vs NS. NS wins everytime.
(Artificial Intelligence vs Natural Stupidity, for those that were not in this discussion 40 years ago)
hap
Well-known
Another perspective....while the computer/screen/software combo has its' virtues there are downsides to be considered. I have been reading medical images for 35 years, more than half of those years 8-10 hrs/day at a desk with multiple screens. Some of you responding are also spending many hours sitting and staring at screens while ascending steep learning curves and ultimately to manage your images. there is a toll to pay in health and well being given the stresses of close vision and sitting for extended periods of time. We are not yet physiologically adapted to these conditions. Many studies have concluded that life expectancy (at a population level) is significantly reduced by excessive computer time (which includes gaming and plain TV ). Back and neck problems are real problems. As a species we are meant to move and gaze at the horizon. Related metabolic dysfunction is no joke. Would you trade your time being outside or engaged in phsyical or social activities for the many hours at a computer in the name of "creativity"? At least with camera in hand you are out and about...in the environment...on your feet.
Tradeoffs abound.
Tradeoffs abound.
DougK
This space left blank
You make a valid point, although a lot depends on how much you edit your images after uploading. In a straight digital workflow, I'd be surprised if I spent more than 10 minutes or so on each photo, and that's assuming I got anything worth keeping for that particular shooting session; at most it might be an hour or so in any given session (I spend my day job in front of a computer, so I try not to do too much after hours). Even with complex edits, a surprising amount can be done with automation, greatly reducing the time you need to spend tweaking your files. Whether that's better or worse in the end than inhaling fumes in a darkroom, I can't say.
Takkun
Ian M.
Regarding Brian's point: I often think about how, within my lifetime, the biggest technological changes have been how widespread and how we use existing technology, along with incremental advances in software. The smartphone? combining the existing cellular tech with existing touchscreen tech to fundamentally alter how we use the now-ancient technology of the Internet. New physical technologies like OLED screens and faster processors, at least in domestic life, have only made incremental improvements at least when it comes to domestic life.
I'm no futurist (and indeed my other job is in historic preservation!) but I would think/hope that the next 'revolutionary' technologies, the ones that truly change how life is lived fundamentally, will be in energy technology.
Anyway, back to photography—
On hap and Doug's points, that's really why I do photography in general, be it digital or film. It gets me outside and a reason to get away from the screen. Film doubly so, allowing me to quite literally get my hands dirty and have something to show for it. I too try to spend as little time in front of the screen as possible.
As I've been browsing Anchell & Troop's book, I have to say I appreciate the obsessive perfectionism of themselves and others that have contributed to the field, but my own perfectionism doesn't quite go to the same extent.
I'm reminded of some of the shortcuts I learned working at a small speciality magazine, which came as a surprise early on. We weren't Vogue, but we did good work and customers liked the end result. I don't know how many shoots we used shower curtains as softboxes, or last-minute quick-and-dirty edits that wouldn't be noticeable on glossy stock. There's something to be said for mastery of a technique but not every image need hours of work. Personally, I never got on well with wet printing, and a digital workflow has given me far better results with less tears shed.
But the comment I meant to make here before I got off on those tangents: A few of you all have mentioned color darkroom printing. I have enough old photography manuals from the 70s and 80s to learn that I'm very thankful to have been spared that experience. I'm mildly colorblind and have enough trouble as it is; I don't even want to think about how many color test strips I'd go through.
I'm no futurist (and indeed my other job is in historic preservation!) but I would think/hope that the next 'revolutionary' technologies, the ones that truly change how life is lived fundamentally, will be in energy technology.
Anyway, back to photography—
On hap and Doug's points, that's really why I do photography in general, be it digital or film. It gets me outside and a reason to get away from the screen. Film doubly so, allowing me to quite literally get my hands dirty and have something to show for it. I too try to spend as little time in front of the screen as possible.
As I've been browsing Anchell & Troop's book, I have to say I appreciate the obsessive perfectionism of themselves and others that have contributed to the field, but my own perfectionism doesn't quite go to the same extent.
I'm reminded of some of the shortcuts I learned working at a small speciality magazine, which came as a surprise early on. We weren't Vogue, but we did good work and customers liked the end result. I don't know how many shoots we used shower curtains as softboxes, or last-minute quick-and-dirty edits that wouldn't be noticeable on glossy stock. There's something to be said for mastery of a technique but not every image need hours of work. Personally, I never got on well with wet printing, and a digital workflow has given me far better results with less tears shed.
But the comment I meant to make here before I got off on those tangents: A few of you all have mentioned color darkroom printing. I have enough old photography manuals from the 70s and 80s to learn that I'm very thankful to have been spared that experience. I'm mildly colorblind and have enough trouble as it is; I don't even want to think about how many color test strips I'd go through.
hap
Well-known
More time at the computer is a separate domain from the darkroom and so are the various tradeoffs. to complex to analyze in this thread. Plus, you may decide to print from inkjet etc and then there is more time sitting , waiting, making changes, etc, and add that on to your day job. The "damage" is also cumulative and effects are non linear.
hap
Well-known
Regarding the internet.....we look to David Bowie for insight.
https://tidbits.com/2020/11/01/david-bowies-1999-insights-into-the-internet/
I got spoiled having two Tektronix Phaser IISDX Dye Sublimation printers back in the 90s. Slow, expensive- but the prints were photographic quality. The "VuGraphs"- remember those? were incredible. 25 years later- still look like they did when new. The printer was about ~$10,000 (I forget) and the prints were $5 each, letter-sized paper. Each print was made using 4 passes through the CMYK "ink roll". Of course this was for work, and it was cheap compared to the $40~$50 for artwork from the graphics department at the time. Before this- set the F3HP with a telephoto lens up and photographed the CRT onto Ektachrome.
What is the state-of-the-art for a good quality printer these days? One that is analogous to a good color enlarger for use at home?
What is the state-of-the-art for a good quality printer these days? One that is analogous to a good color enlarger for use at home?
DougK
This space left blank
I gave up printing at home because I don't do it frequently enough to justify the cost of ink cartridges and photo paper, nor can I afford a larger format printer (EDIT: if I'm going to print, 11x14 is the smallest I like to print; go big or go home). Now I usually upload to Adorama or a similar service and I've gotten fantastic results from doing that. For the number of images I have worth printing large, the costs work out in my favor. I've also grouped related photos together and used a service to print a small photo book.
Dogman
Veteran
I spend more time at the computer goofing off, shopping and reading forums like this one than I do working on photos. Of course I'm no photoshop artist and I never was a great darkroom manipulator either. I also don't take a mountain of photos for each subject--I became a very conservative shooter when I had to pay for my own film. But my pictures come out of the camera pretty much as I want them to look and it only takes a little fiddling around to get them "print ready" so my computer time is minimal.
The beauty and attraction of the computer-developed photograph for me is that, once it is edited and made to look the way one desires, printing becomes only a matter of clicking "Print" and waiting for it to come out of the printer. A prefect print with no trash basket full of rejected prints all stuck together at the end of a session.
The beauty and attraction of the computer-developed photograph for me is that, once it is edited and made to look the way one desires, printing becomes only a matter of clicking "Print" and waiting for it to come out of the printer. A prefect print with no trash basket full of rejected prints all stuck together at the end of a session.
Axel
singleshooter
For me printing is not so important.
Content is my goal and the look of my pictures as I like them to have.
A little GIMP, sometimes a film effect filter and I´m done.
No hassles with computers here.
Content is my goal and the look of my pictures as I like them to have.
A little GIMP, sometimes a film effect filter and I´m done.
No hassles with computers here
.
Franko
Established
My computer and scanner "freed the slaves" years ago. I never liked spending hours in a darkroom for a few keeper prints - and that's before we even discuss print spotting. I always wanted my output (documentary) to be in book format and digital has given me that. That said, I'm not a "techie" at all. Although I'm on my second dedicated scanner, I still use Photoshop 5 and film cameras.
Peter_S
Peter_S
While this is not directly addressing the original post, I do truly embrace the new image editing possibilities. I like the fact that I can re-edit old images with much more powerful software. Recently I upsized old Sigma DP2 files for gallery sales with Topaz Gigapixel. Just one example.
And while we do see in color, the perception of a scene is so much more (hearing, peripheral vision, emotions) than just the "look" of a certain section of our vision. The ability to alter images to represent that (subjectively) better is wonderful. And I think some of the popularity of black & white lies in its ability to capture such scenes often better. Black & white is abstract from the start and heavier processing is/was more accepted.
And while we do see in color, the perception of a scene is so much more (hearing, peripheral vision, emotions) than just the "look" of a certain section of our vision. The ability to alter images to represent that (subjectively) better is wonderful. And I think some of the popularity of black & white lies in its ability to capture such scenes often better. Black & white is abstract from the start and heavier processing is/was more accepted.