Y'all please pardon me while I go off topic a wee bit. And please
excuse the cross-posting.
You know, I use digital all the time, and like it fine as far as it
goes. A few months back, I was able to scan some of my negatives and
slides on an Epson 4870 flatbed with transparency unit, which is
capable of something like 2400 dpi (I believe that's the number
anyway). Not a drum scanner, but worlds better than my light-box-and-
digital-p&s arrangement at home.
I made a couple of dozen scans from Rollei TLR negatives, took them
home, started playing around - levels, curves, burning in the
corners, perhaps a touch of unsharp masking, etc. After a few of
these I realized that although the objective quality of prints made
from these digital files may be equal to, or better than, what I
could achieve optically (especially for color materials), I derived
no pleasure from the process. Not less, none whatsoever. I find that
I miss the tactile part of the printing process in a way that makes
the digital production of prints seem a wholly soulless enterprise.
No way is digital printing going to take the place of silver gelatin
in my book. I guess maybe it's the same reason I make music by
blowing air through a wooden tube with holes cut in the sides,
instead of using a more sensible up-to-the-minute digital instrument
that never plays out of tune or needs a new reed. Even though I use,
and even teach, electronic and computer music techniques. Everything
in its place. I love the aspect of digital that lets us all share
photos with friends around the world, but many of my favorites just
don't work as 4" square photos on a low-detail computer monitor.
I don't really recall whether I had a point to make before I took
that prescription cough syrup, but maybe I should just end this
message. There are only so many bytes in the world.
Best wishes, Aaron
On Aug 10, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Marc James Small wrote:
Any thougths? Or should I finish off my chemical darkroom and do things I
understand?
