[dazzajl]

The more I look around this place the more I come to think I'm sharing a forum with a bunch of folks that would rather have a paint brush and pallete in hand to a blacked out box and glass. :lol:

Now, I have no problems with potatochop and I use it for work daily (although not nearly as well as many people here) but I still have a major issue with using it on any image I've crafted that I care at all about.

There isn't much of a point to this post I supose, other than to see if anyone else out there still strives to create the grail on the ground glass and considers the shot to have failed if needs more manipulation than can be done with an enlarger, some silly bits of cardboard and a cut up wire hanger.

I should just add that I love to see any photographs and I am constantly grateful for the oportunity to see peoples effort and passion on this site.

[Matt]

Your post isn't pointless dazza.
I try capture the photograph on the camera how it will be displayed 99.9% of the time.
All I do is fix the exposure and add sharpenning on most of my images.

Now and again I will play with an photograph to see what can be done with this excellent tool called 'potatochop'.

IMO, A photograph stops becoming a photograph as soon as you add/remove parts from it, it then becomes an image.

[milou]

It's good to try and capture the image "in-camera" but a lot of photographers, esp. B & W, used to dodge, burn, selectively expose (matron) etc in the dark room. Personally I see a difference between photographs and images.

[Steep]

I consider myself to be a photographer, but it's the final image that's important to me and if I can't make it straight from the camera I'll happily shop around

[dazzajl]

but a lot of photographers, esp. B & W, used to dodge, burn, selectively expose (matron) etc in the dark room

.. and this is where I cant help but see some hypocrasy (sp?) in my whole perspective on this. I am more than happy to take a shot with printing manipulation in mind and this is still a photograph. Possibly somehow even more pure to the original concept of the craft.

BUT as soon as it comes to manipulating pixels I cant help but feel totally different about the end result.

Interesting use of past tense for B&W btw. :lol:

[petemc]

Originally Posted by Matt

IMO, A photograph stops becoming a photograph as soon as you add/remove parts from it, it then becomes an image.

Agreed. I never remove things from my shots, apart from the odd spot or distracting post. The only things I do in Photoshop is to adjust colours and levels. I may add a layer to the shot to stop the sky being burnt out too. The darkroom was needed to develop film, just as Photoshop is needed to develop RAW files. Its pretty silly to ignore using Photoshop considering everything you take on a digital camera is essentially a processed image, of sorts. I don't think I've actually anything but photographs on this forum. Aside from the photoshop comp, I don't think I've seen any real kind of image manipulation.

[CT]

Originally Posted by dazzajl

.. and this is where I cant help but see some hypocrasy (sp?) in my whole perspective on this. I am more than happy to take a shot with printing manipulation in mind and this is still a photograph. Possibly somehow even more pure to the original concept of the craft.

BUT as soon as it comes to manipulating pixels I cant help but feel totally different about the end result.

:lol:

You remind me of that guy waving the flag in the desert when everyone else has gone home. :lol:

[dazzajl]

[smilie=t: Dinosaurs are us at your service. :lol:

[Matty]

i have to crop and alter everything i take, cos im rubbish otherwise, lol...

[CT]

:lol: Don't become a dinoasaur mate. We did have this discussion in depth some time ago anyway, but it really is a nonsense looking backward, digital photography is here to stay, and we see few images in magazines and the media these days which aren't heavily manipulated in some way anyway. What do we think we achieve by denying ourselves the same tools? The recognition of being a 'proper'photographer? Do leave it out. :wink: Photography has changed out of all recognition and the initial nay sayers have abandoned film in their droves recognizing the enormous advantages of going digital.

I think what some people resent is the loss of the mystical alchemy practised in the dark by the glow of a safe light, and the ease with which it is now possible for the newomer to produce quality images with a minimum of technical knowledge. Photography is still about creativity and it's the final image which matters - not the process. We should all be thankful for the new media and the powerful editing tools at our disposal. :wink:

[dazzajl]

That is most eloquently put CT. 8)

It's not that I'm anti digital (well not very much) although I do believe it has made lfe almost too easy for the pro, as there is little presure remaining to capture that elusive moment as a quick peek at the preview and the histogram will tell you if all's well. I guess I still feel that it was the mastery of the "mystical alchemy" that allowed us to charge a hefty fee and stand proud knowing that we were offering something far beyond that which a client could achieve.

In the modern era it's only by using a large format camera, the very very best glass and a ridiculously expensive digi back that lets me offer that "far and above" level of quality.

Using digi capture for work means I take probably less than 2% of my output on film these days but it's still that 2% that I get any real sense of satisfaction out of. Why? I don't think it really comes down to the choice of silver crystal or pixel, as I can achieve a very similar quality of end image either way and digi is certainly far cheaper. For me I think the answer lies in the fact that it IS harder to produce the results on film and somehow that makes it more worthwhile.

Does that make me mad or just stupid? dunno :lol: but as long as someone still makes film I'll be giving them the dosh I earn by turning my back on it.

[milou]

Interesting use of past tense for B&W btw. :lol:

An unintentional past tense tension (o_0) - a result of too much research today into the intricacies of the blessed Freedom of Information Act i.e. I should read through a post first! Brain in imminent shut-down alert...

Edit: I'd like to give a panaromic camera a go though; maybe a Fuji GX617 for example.

[petemc]

Originally Posted by dazzajl

I guess I still feel that it was the mastery of the "mystical alchemy" that allowed us to charge a hefty fee and stand proud knowing that we were offering something far beyond that which a client could achieve.

I know plenty of graphic designers and web designers who haven't a clue how to do the things I do in Photoshop. These are people who've been using Photoshop longer than me. On the flip side I don't know how they do the things they do in Photoshop. Its not about reading books and knowing what button does what, its simply about having the skill, the eye for a good photo. Web design is a far more saturated industry than photography. Everyone can make a website using things like Word or Publisher, but does that make them web designers? It certainly doesn't. I'm sure there will always be a place for someone with the right skills and talents in this world.

[CT]

Don't get me wrong Daz, I'm forever looking at 'blads and other medium format and studio cameras on fleabay which are going for silly money these days and it's very sad to see the demand for these cameras declining. Tempted as I sometimes am though, I know full well it's highly unlikely I'd ever put a roll of film through one if I bought. it. Big format cameras still rule, but the day will come, and you'd be wise to keep a firm foot in the other camp pending that day, as I'm sure you're well aware. :wink:

[Pook]

Originally Posted by dazzajl

The more I look around this place the more I come to think I'm sharing a forum with a bunch of folks that would rather have a paint brush and pallete in hand to a blacked out box and glass. :lol:

Now, I have no problems with potatochop and I use it for work daily (although not nearly as well as many people here) but I still have a major issue with using it on any image I've crafted that I care at all about.

There isn't much of a point to this post I supose, other than to see if anyone else out there still strives to create the grail on the ground glass and considers the shot to have failed if needs more manipulation than can be done with an enlarger, some silly bits of cardboard and a cut up wire hanger.

I should just add that I love to see any photographs and I am constantly grateful for the oportunity to see peoples effort and passion on this site.

Strange post... but interesting. Why has it failed unless it needs darkroom work only? Surely, the computer is just replacing teh darkroom? How come people can spend hours in a darkroom... pre-flashing paper, dodging, burning... spending hours cuting out masks to burn in, or dodge out a small part of a print... then mixing toners... toniong prints, bleaching prints.... etc, etc, etc...... but that's ok to do all that on an image they've "crafted" and care about, but using Photoshop is somehow not as noble.. not as desireable... as if it's cheating. I don't know about you, but the vast majority of what i do in PS is pretty much only what I'd do in a darkroom. i.e., burning, dodging etc. The only difference is you can be more precise with PS. You have levels and curves control, and precise masking, but it's still dodging and burning, and levels and curves is nothing more than the equivalent of using multigrade paper and a set of contrast filters if you're honest with yourself. So... why do you have a major issue with using it on any image you're crafted and care about? WHat you gonna do when film is all but dead and buried and you have to use a digital camera? Just give up Photography, or accept that PS IS the new darkroom, and whether you use it to replicate the darkroom, or to butcher your images is entirely up to you!

The darkroom is dead... deal with it, and accept that manipulating your image in PS is the same thing.... but with the light on.... and you don't get your hands wet :lol: You don't have to use filters, and ruin your images you know? Photoshop can be a subtle or as wild as you want. The real photographers just use it to do what they either did or wanted to do in teh darkroom... or create something that completely validates the sceptics.

If you're gonna be that precious, then from now on, no more multigrade paper!! You can only use grade 2 or 3 paper. No BURNING, NO DODGING..... no toning, no pre-flashing.. No N+1 devving, and definitely no zone system.... OK? Just shoot, process, and STRAIGHT print! Anything else is cheating..... right??

:lol:

[Pook]

Originally Posted by dazzajl

That is most eloquently put CT. 8)

It's not that I'm anti digital (well not very much) although I do believe it has made lfe almost too easy for the pro, as there is little presure remaining to capture that elusive moment as a quick peek at the preview and the histogram will tell you if all's well. I guess I still feel that it was the mastery of the "mystical alchemy" that allowed us to charge a hefty fee and stand proud knowing that we were offering something far beyond that which a client could achieve.

In the modern era it's only by using a large format camera, the very very best glass and a ridiculously expensive digi back that lets me offer that "far and above" level of quality.

Using digi capture for work means I take probably less than 2% of my output on film these days but it's still that 2% that I get any real sense of satisfaction out of. Why? I don't think it really comes down to the choice of silver crystal or pixel, as I can achieve a very similar quality of end image either way and digi is certainly far cheaper. For me I think the answer lies in the fact that it IS harder to produce the results on film and somehow that makes it more worthwhile.

Does that make me mad or just stupid? dunno :lol: but as long as someone still makes film I'll be giving them the dosh I earn by turning my back on it.

Digital hasn't made my life easier at all... it's just made it different. Shooting loads in teh hope of getting one right doesn't work mate... never has, never will, and only a fool tries that. I don't understand why you find it easier with digital at all. I find it... exactly the same! :lol: For example: If I want to darken a sky to match a foreground, I either use a grad, or I do it in teh "printing" stage. Either way, I meter teh same, compose the same, shoot the same... I've changed nothing with the way I work. To me digital is just another kind of "film". Why is it harder with film? In some cases, digital is just as fussy with exposure, especially highlights... colour can be just as big an issue, if not MORE of an issue actually. No.. it's no harder with film... in fact, if I had to put money on it, I'd say film is easier. I have to wonder what sort of work you do if you're finding film more difficult.

As for quality, i use a H10 back for work, and it rocks! Easily outperforming 6x7 tranny film. I stopped using 5x4 ages ago anyway as I didn't need teh movements, but to be honest, the quality I can get from teh H10 is almost there if you use the whole chip. The days of quality being an issue with digital are long gone.

[dod]

This is quite interesting. Digital is simply a different technology for producing images, in exactly the same way that 35mm is an technological advancement over ambrotypes, and all technology in a camera now is an advancement from the first Camera Obscura.

I can't help wondering if, as the various changes were happening, people were also having the same debate about getting rid of glass plates etc. I also seem to recall discussions about the merits of autofocus and whether or not it would take over from a decent manual focus camera. What I'm getting at is that I think the discussion might be a function of time, and possibly nostalgia, rather than technology. After all the cream always rises to the top, no matter what the medium is.