Richard G
Veteran
Frank, come on. Nowhere did I refer to you. It Is the OP who suggested a different name for digital photographers. Don't you think the xkcd chess/Go cartoon is funny?
Ansel
Well-known
Well, there is absolutely nothing stopping you doing that with analogue. I regularly D&P in the same day and as far as I am aware there are plenty of places that will turn your film around and provide prints within the hour, called 1-hour labs!
I guess I believe the most important aspect of photography happens inside the frame when you are making the photo...the rest is just making that image stronger through how you choose to process the image.
I've worked extensively in B&W and color (c-prints / cibachromes) darkrooms. Sure, there is more hands on effort in the darkroom. However, if you do not know what you are doing, it is easy to make crap via both the analog and digital processes.
I guess I don't worry about the difference between exposing paper for a longer period of time and pushing a slider. Both are not that hard once you know what you are doing.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I was a handprinter for over 25 years and I can tell you there is a huge difference in levels of difficulty between non destructive moving of sliders with real time feedback and printing with an enlarger.
Honest question:
When you worked as a wet lab printer what percentage of images did you sharpen with unsharp mask?
What percentage of digital images do you sharpen?
Do you think sharpening in a wet print is as easy as digital?
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry, but that was not my contention I originally said ... "I was not challenging your statement, just pointing out it was incorrect ... the definition of artisan does not preclude treating a computer as a tool ... would you consider an artisan using a steel blade less authentic than one using a knapped flint?" ... was my assertion
I would suggest you are shifting your stance to fit your argument. Personally I would have said it's all about "the value of the words" surely photography is all about the value of the image after all the print is what one looks at at the end of the process ... and anyway who is to say that in the future computerisation won't produce a superia print? ... even if you don't think that is the case at present
FrankS
Registered User
Okay, sorry. I thought that was directed my way.
doolittle
Well-known
Approximately 150 years since humankind began arguing the artistry of using a mechanical light recording device versus marks made on sheets of material, we have thankfully moved on to arguing the merits of photons causing a state change in silver salts versus photons interacting with crystal silicon.
FrankS
Registered User
Stewart, I would say that artisan precludes the use of a computer in directly creating a product. To me, artisan means hand made by traditional methods. That's my understanding of the definition of artisan.
FrankS
Registered User
Right. So just as drawing is different from photography, so is photography from digital photography, even though the end product looks very similar. Very different process. One is reliant on the direct use of computer hardware and software, while traditional photography does not.
The argument of computer designed lenses is not relevant because we are talking about the difference in the process of creating the final print, and traditional photography can be done without computer designed lenses if one wishes.
Sparrow
Veteran
Yes I can understand that, but in drawing the line at the use of a computer you must answer the question Why There? why not at the LF contact print? or the negative, or the obscura ... one would end up only accept someone rubbing red-ochre on an African cave wall as a true artisan
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139736
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139736
I see nothing wrong in Ralph Gibson's decision.
i am 70, so have somethings in common..age, future.
i want easier.
Film and paper is not same quality as before.
Others have also noted this..Ctein.
i way prefer my film cameras.
A side note.
The piano was regarded as a mechanical device as it evolved.
Musicians wanted only wind and string instruments..
Once masters made music with it..
Liszt, Beethoven,Mozart etc, the view changed.
If one likes Film,use it.
i love film and wet prints.
It's easier for me after a lifetime, to do digital.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139736
I see nothing wrong in Ralph Gibson's decision.
i am 70, so have somethings in common..age, future.
i want easier.
Film and paper is not same quality as before.
Others have also noted this..Ctein.
i way prefer my film cameras.
A side note.
The piano was regarded as a mechanical device as it evolved.
Musicians wanted only wind and string instruments..
Once masters made music with it..
Liszt, Beethoven,Mozart etc, the view changed.
If one likes Film,use it.
i love film and wet prints.
It's easier for me after a lifetime, to do digital.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I stated that being an Artisan does preclude the use of a PC, it isn't about the tools but the method of use of those tools.
An artisan uses those tools to fashion things by hand. An artisan writer is a calligrapher, using a PC to do his job puts several abstraction layers between the operator typing the keyboard and the end result coming out of a laserjet; compared to the person actually drawing cursive script on the paper by his ACTUAL hand with a pen.
FrankS
Registered User
Very simple: it is the power of the computer hardware and software. There is nothing like it that came before.
nongfuspring
Well-known
So much defensiveness.
Isn't the proper answer to every single one of the arguments in this thread "it depends"?
Isn't the proper answer to every single one of the arguments in this thread "it depends"?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sparrow
Veteran
Perhaps you missed this part? ...
I would suggest you are shifting your stance to fit your argument. Personally I would have said it's all about "the value of the words" surely photography is all about the value of the image after all the print is what one looks at at the end of the process ... and anyway who is to say that in the future computerisation won't produce a superia print? ... even if you don't think that is the case at present
... you will excuse me if I end our discourse at this point.
I've only done my own personal darkroom work for the most part. I went to school for Photography in the 90s when you had to use film and print in a darkroom. I didn't use masks in the darkroom (as I've stated earlier). I do sharpen in digital. No, it can't be as easy in the darkroom. I get that.
I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the darkroom is not harder, more time consuming work... of course it is. What I'm saying is that just because digital is easier doesn't mean work utilizing the process results an inferior photo. Whether I like someone's work or not has nothing to do with if they've used a darkroom or a computer... it has more to do with the content and framing.
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry, but what Keith said ... I can see your point, but who knows where these things go? I don't understand many aspects of contemporary art but I try not to condemn it as inferior
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I dismissed it because it is irrelevant to the discussion of weather an artisan can use a PC or not.
As I have said all along it doesn't matter about the quality, the value of the words to the viewer, being an artisan is about using your hands DIRECTLY on the product you are creating.
I think you'd be wise to stop flogging the horse
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I was replying to this:
I took that to mean that the difference between non destructive pushing of sliders seeing in real time the result and the time consuming density changes, test, reprint, test (and the colour shifts) are both not that hard.
One is easy enough after a 30 second lesson the other takes time to learn, patience and some skill.