Two good friends, both highly successful and known photographers, shoot with film, scan, edit, and then make negatives from which they contact print. It's not an either or equation. If I had the time, I'd do that. Doug ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:30:29 -0400 >There is an excellent hybrid/combination of the two technologies that >satisfies your criteria, Carlos. That is the production of contact >negatives via digital work flow. I know printmakers who are using this >technique for platinum and silver prints with wonderful results. > >Frank comments that some regard the plastic feeling of digital is a >consequence of lack of grain... there are many many contributing >factors beyond this for the plasticy feel that digital can produce... >a quick google will reveal numerous possibility and hundreds of >discussions... > >Eric Goldstein > >-- > >On 7/23/07, Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> For the art market only photographs made by >> traditional means are valuable, only traditional >> photographs are considered art, no digital images, >> please give me a sample about a digital image sold >> like a masterpiece, I can quote a lot of samples about >> traditional photography and not old photographs, >> photographs made today. >> >> Your comparison about the situation for painters and >> photography is not valid, photography regarding >> painting was a change in depth about the way to >> represent the image, changed the means and the final >> product too, that difference does not exist between >> chemical photography and the digital image. The art >> for the traditional photography is in the image as the >> photographer work results, the digital image is the >> software use results except for the composition work >> and this is is the reason it is not valuable for the >> fine arts market. >> Daguerrotypes are traditional photography using older >> processes, it is as fine art as moderner traditional >> photography, guessing the image has conditions to be >> conisdered art of course.- >> >> All the best >> Carlos >> >> >> --- Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> escribió: >> >> > Grain is indeed a feature of film, and can either >> > add character or >> > ruin a photograph, depending on intentions. >> > >> > "Traditional" photography is in no way more fine art >> > than digital >> > photography. Daguerrotypes are not more fine art >> > than silver/gelatin >> > either. The art is in the result, not the medium. A >> > great picture is >> > great, regardless of the medium and a grotty little >> > picture from a >> > mobile phone or digicam is as uninteresting as >> > similar dross from an >> > instamatic (or Rolleiflex if the photograph is >> > poor). >> > >> > This risks getting like the old "photography is not >> > art because it >> > isn't difficult enough" argument we used to get from >> > painters. >> > Frank >> > >> > >> > On 23 Jul, 2007, at 11:55, Carlos Manuel Freaza >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Grain is superb for the image texture if the grain >> > is >> > > not exaggerated and according the image >> > composition, >> > > it contributes for the image character. >> > > Traditional photography is fine arts. >> > > >> > > All the best >> > > Carlos >> > > --- Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > escribió: >> > > >> > >> They are very much different but, IMHO, not as >> > >> different as, for >> > >> example oils versus acrylic paint, and certainly >> > >> either of these >> > >> compared to watercolour. >> > >> At the end of whatever process one has chosen, >> > film >> > >> - develop - >> > >> enlarge - develop print. Digital to print, >> > digital >> > >> to print via some >> > >> sort of manipulation software or a scanned film >> > >> hybrid to digital >> > >> print a photographic print is the result. >> > >> Some people refer to prints from digital as >> > >> "plastic" I assume they >> > >> refer to the lack of grain (???) in fact for me >> > it >> > >> has taken >> > >> "photographic realism" to a higher plane. >> > >> >> > >> I processed my own film all my photographic life. >> > I >> > >> have had a >> > >> darkroom in my house most of the last 45 years. I >> > >> still take >> > >> photographs on film for fun - but for me the >> > whole >> > >> enlarge and >> > >> develop process - which is a technical skill I >> > felt >> > >> I was still >> > >> improving even after so long - particularly >> > >> "mastering" the tiny >> > >> dynamic range and extreme contrast of Cibachrome >> > - >> > >> was hard work and >> > >> very time consuming. >> > >> (Incidentally anybody thinking digital has a >> > >> restricted dynamic range >> > >> should try enlarging a Kodachrome slide onto >> > Ciba). >> > >> >> > >> I now print entirely from the computer and if I >> > am >> > >> interrupted it is >> > >> no longer an inconvenience/catastrophe. >> > >> If your main objective is to consistently produce >> > >> good prints my >> > >> experience tells me digital is the best way. >> > >> The downside is cost. My Canon EOS 1Ds mk2 was >> > very >> > >> much more >> > >> expensive than my Rolleiflex so you need to have >> > >> been a real film >> > >> eater for digital to be a choice based on economy >> > >> rather than results. >> > >> Frank >> > >> >> > >> On 23 Jul, 2007, at 02:57, ERoustom wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> My first two days in my darkroom have me >> > gleefully >> > >> puzzled. There >> > >>> is so much to learn, and it will be a while >> > before >> > >> I'm comfortably >> > >>> making the all those connections from behind the >> > >> lens to in front >> > >>> of the fix bath. It makes scanning negatives >> > seem >> > >> easy and fast. >> > >>> Peter's simile is so apt. Gaining skill, >> > >> intellectual, physical and >> > >>> technical, and truly learning to be patient is >> > >> what film >> > >>> photography (that goes the full cycle from click >> > >> to print) is all >> > >>> about. It's a medium, and a discipline. >> > >>> My thinking about how I use my camera(s) what >> > >> films I choose, >> > >>> has changed completely since the darkroom (and >> > my >> > >> underdeveloped >> > >>> film) humbled me this weekend. Maybe film and >> > >> digital shouldn't be >> > >>> compared. It's clear to me now that they do >> > >> different things, and >> > >>> demand different approaches. >> > >>> >> > >>> Elias >> > >>> >> > >>> On Jul 21, 2007, at 3:06 PM, J Patric Dahlén >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Peter Nebergall wrote: >> > >>>>> Comparing film to digital is like comparing >> > the >> > >> NY Philharmonic >> > >>>>> to a state >> > >>>>> of the art rock synthesizer. One is cheaper, >> > >> faster, and more >> > >>>> convenient; >> > >>>>> the other is high art. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Very well said, Peter! >> > >>>> >> > >>>> I own a digital compact camera, but I don't >> > like >> > >> to use it to take >> > >>>> photos of my loved ones... Instead I use it for >> > >> fast documentation >> > >>>> and when I need photos of something to show on >> > >> the internet/send >> > >>>> with email... >> > >>>> >> > >>>> There are more feelings involved when I use my >> > >> cameras for film, >> > >>>> and work in the darkroom. Then I feel creative. >> > I >> > >> can always >> > >>>> digitalize film/prints when I want or need to. >> > >> Digital has it's >> > >>>> place, of course, even for me. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> /Patric >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ >> > >>>> Trött pÃ¥ att pendla? - Sök jobb där du bor! >> > >> http:// >> > >>>> jobb.msn.monster.se/ >> > >>>> >> > >>>> --- >> > >>>> Rollei List >> > >>>> >> > >>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > >>>> >> > >>>> - Subscribe at >> > rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > >> with 'subscribe' >> > >>>> in the subject field OR by logging into >> > >> www.freelists.org >> > >>>> >> > >>>> - Unsubscribe at >> > >> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >> > >>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by >> > logging >> > >> into >> > >>>> www.freelists.org >> > >>>> >> > >>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at >> > >>>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >>> --- >> > >>> Rollei List >> > >>> >> > >>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > >> === message truncated === >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Preguntá. Respondé. DescubrÃ. >> Todo lo que querÃas saber, y lo que ni imaginabas, >> está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta). >> ¡Probalo ya! >> http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas >> >> --- >> Rollei List >> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org >> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org >> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at >> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list >> >> >F?ez ?p?Ûi --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list