the main consideration is that you can make hundreds and thousands of exact duplicates of digital prints and no two aghalide prints can be exactly the same. ed -------------- Original message from Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: -------------- > 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 > 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 > > > 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 på 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. Descubrí. > Todo lo que querías 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 >