shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
John, you are not in the minority.
From talking to a lot of photographers, I am willing to venture that 50% of people would enjoy hands-on darkroom experience, and the other 50% will not. And that's perfectly fine.
Hmmm. I think you are only the minority in this minority.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be watching the slow (and sad) disintegration of the film sector.
I agree with you.
What I find sad is those 50% of people who live today will never get a chance to even try darkroom just because they think it has went the way of the Dodo.
PATB
Established
I actually like the look of digital BW. However, I much prefer printing in the darkroom, not so much for the result, but the actual process of doing it. So much more relaxing to me.
In fact, when my local public darkroom closed three years ago, I practically gave up on photography as a hobby and only took pictures of family events once in a while with digital. My enthusiasm for photography was only recently revived when I found out that a local high school has a darkroom and allows adults to print there
Happy times again. The problem is, I have no idea how long the darkroom will remain open to the public.
In fact, when my local public darkroom closed three years ago, I practically gave up on photography as a hobby and only took pictures of family events once in a while with digital. My enthusiasm for photography was only recently revived when I found out that a local high school has a darkroom and allows adults to print there
Happy times again. The problem is, I have no idea how long the darkroom will remain open to the public.
Teuthida
Well-known
Leica just announces the m9-m. Ships with SEP 2.
Will it take "REAL" or "FAKE " photos? Can't wait for the mental jujitso this is going to entail.
Will it take "REAL" or "FAKE " photos? Can't wait for the mental jujitso this is going to entail.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Silver Efex Pro is a wonderful program, much more than the "fake grain" product its sometimes portrayed as. Like any plug-in, someone with a lot more time and Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture skill than I have can achieve he same effects without it, but for me, it's a timesaver, and I think it improves my pictures. I also sometimes use it for color, using the luminosity blending mode in PS (but I guess that won't work with the Monochrom
) I have some skill with the PS selection tools, but I find Silver Efex better for me in making selective tonal, sharpening, and contrast changes. The film emulations are not simply there to pretend the picture was shot with film -- they make curve and colour adjustments. I have no idea how closely they resemble the films they are named after, and it doesn't really matter. You can use them as a starting point and you can see what they have done by looking at the sliders and at the curve -- and you can tinker with those settings. Bravo for Nik. And although the Monochrom's not in my future -- I don't need to buy it to get the SEP -- I will be interested in watching any tutorials NIK puts out for using SEP with the Monochrom.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Makes two of us at least. It, the M9-M, adds a whole new dimension to this issue. I enjoy pop corn while watching gymnastics.
Bob
mani
Well-known
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. This thread has moved away from any sort of rational debate now...
Anyway, over to the M-Mono thread instead...
Teuthida
Well-known
I expected as much.
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
When I say "it's fake" I mean the medium --digital photography-- is not a black-n-white one (until the new M9 just came out, which is rather odd so lets not talk about that yet). Watercolors do not look like oil paints, and should not be employed to imitate them. It won't work. Bronze sculpture is not wood, and shouldn't pretend to be. Cement is not porcelain, and should not masquerade as such.
So here you've got this wonderful technology (digital photography) pretending to be a whole other thing, which it is not. Digital photos capture RGB light on zillions of tiny sensors and render color images. Silver emulsion is entirely different, since it yields negatives with organic grain that then have to be printed. Pears aren't apples. Black and white digital is fake.
Then there's the M9-Monochrome. I'm willing to listen to that idea. I saw the images big and was very impressed. Not gonna buy one, but still...
So here you've got this wonderful technology (digital photography) pretending to be a whole other thing, which it is not. Digital photos capture RGB light on zillions of tiny sensors and render color images. Silver emulsion is entirely different, since it yields negatives with organic grain that then have to be printed. Pears aren't apples. Black and white digital is fake.
Then there's the M9-Monochrome. I'm willing to listen to that idea. I saw the images big and was very impressed. Not gonna buy one, but still...
paulfish4570
Veteran
but aren't the photos from the new leica fake, too?
;0
;0
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
No, they are real. Maybe the first true black-n-white digital images. I never heard of a monochrome sensor. It's either brilliant or just weird. But if it naturally produces b&w pictures as a default, I don't know how you can say they're fake.
paulfish4570
Veteran
but they are not black and white photos made on a negative. they are digital, whatever the sensor is; ergo, fake.
hay, i'm just joshing this whole thread ...
hay, i'm just joshing this whole thread ...
Deep Fried
Established
actually that's all wrong. Digital sensors are all innately b&w. just like silver.
cool eh?
Deep Fried
Established
All photos made with leica's are fake because they focus the light too well.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
It is harmonics and information in very high frequency signals that are blocked (or at least modified) by the CD's brick wall filter that change the music from what we really hear to something "like" what we really hear. I think it's the same for digital b&w vs film. Photography, like music, is about emotion as much (more than, actually) as about "data".
At its core digital is about convenience and efficiency (read = cheaper to manufacture and use,) which may or may not preserve or enhance emotion. Quality is not equivalent to higher resolution.
cancan7
Established
if I set my digital camera to monochrome jpeg, are my images real or fake?
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
You seem to know everything about it, so please start a new thread and explain how to "do it right". We all want to learn and settle this forever.
Chris, this is a seriously good idea. I've always liked the look of your B&W conversions. A tutorial would be great!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I began working on some articles on processing digital images several months ago, but school got in the way, then LR4 was introduced that changed all the controls in RAW conversion. I'm going to finish them soon, just wanted more practice with LR4 first.
sahe69
Well-known
Very much a psychological issue as well. I wonder how many posters here could really tell the difference having seen a good quality print on quality paper. Like with analog record players vs. high quality CD players, its very much knowing the source which has an impact in itself. Or , for instance, having a good wine in a very nice atmosphere and then having the same wine from an ugly cup in a not-so-nice place makes a huge difference.
But the main point is: whatever makes you happy, go for it. Be it digital, analog or both.
But the main point is: whatever makes you happy, go for it. Be it digital, analog or both.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
I've done comparisons in print, 11x14 and 16x20, output to HM Photorag on a piezography print. Tri-X and Neopan 1600 on my F5 compared to my D700 and Silver efex 2. The result, no one could tell beyond random chance what was film and what was the D700.
willie_901
Veteran
Good plan. Development in LR 4 is very very different and much better than previous versions.
There's an excellent recent article in LULA that is a tremendous tutorial for color.