Digital BW, The Print

> > > What, exactly do YOU use PS for?  Why do you need to
> > "manipulate"/"process"
> > > the image?
> >
> > I use it for every image I print. You surely don't think you can get
> > such nice images right out of a camera, do you?
> 
> Er, I do.

Not possible Austin. In your entire lifetime, you would never come upon
a perfect, flawless landscape that couldn't be improved, however
slightly by a tweak in photoshop. Even Ansel Adams, would have loved
photoshop. He was well aware of the digital revolution and stated many
times that he wish he could participate in it.

There are many little tiny things that would result in an improvement in
a lot of his prints, if he had only have had photoshop. In some cases,
it would have amounted to nothing more than adding a little more sky
than he had captured on film.  Or retouching some of his best images
that were damaged by the fire that damaged a lot of his negatives. I'm
speaking of little tweaks here, nothing major. 
> 
> > I do burning and dodging
> > techniques that simply cannot be done in a darkroom.
> 
> I never burn or dodge at all these days, and haven't had to for years.  The
> only time I did that in the darkroom was when I made a mistake in exposure
> or development.

Austin, then I would have to question the quality of your prints. Every
print I've ever made in my life required burning and dodging. And there
is no mistakes made. If you know exactly what you want your print to
look like, dodging, burning, curves, levels are everyday standard fare.
No print should leave you home without some.

Same with Weston, Adams, etc. It simply not possible for you to have a
PERFECT print every time without darkroom tweaking, or photoshop
tweaking.  To prove it, send me a file and a print that you think is
perfect, one you think could not be improved upon no matter what. One
that is a straight print, that you have made no adjustments to. I'll
make a minor adjustment or two, which will improve it. Maybe a lot,
maybe just a little bit. But there will be an improvement.


> > Also color
> > corrections, and of course the touch up and addition and removal of
> > little things, like twigs, leaves, etc., that simply don't belong in a
> > nice landscape.
> 
> That I understand for your use, I simply don't need it.

Then you are not shooting fine art landscapes.  What kind of photos do
you shoot?
> 
> > > > Why else would programs like photoshop be so popular
> > > > if they couldn't do better than film?
> > >
> > > Actually, I use PS simply for dust spotting very infrequently,
> > but mostly
> > > for simply printing to the Piezo plug-in, that's it.  Nothing else.

Then I'd have to say, even sight unseen that your prints can stand improvement.

> > I do everything in Photoshop. I love it. It is a creative
> > person's dream program.
 
> Hum.  I don't believe I'd say it that way.  I'm quite creative, but I do my
> creating in the scene/exposure/development etc.  I have no need to create
> outside the image that is on film, it's final in and of it self...

Then it certainly is not all the image it could be.

Again, send me a file and print that you think is perfect, one that you
have made no alterations in. I'll improve it for you. Free, even.
> 
> > > Also, I don't sharpen...I have no need to, as I've said...
> >
> > So no sharpening program can make any of your images any sharper.  I
> > just don't buy it.
> 
> I didn't say that, sure you can make them "sharper", but to what good?  You
> lose tonality, 

Not if you apply just the right amount of sharpening....

and then the image is degraded. 

Wrong. That means 99 percent of all photoshop users degrade their images
when they sharpen them. This is patently absurd.

 I believe you are really
> overplaying the "sharp" issue.

I love sharpness, along with all the other things that make a good
photo. And that certainly includes dodging and burning, and tweaking. 
 

> How do you know that was the scanner, and not the original film?

I have a 20X stereo microscope. I know exactly how sharp a piece of film is.
> 
> Also, are you talking B&W (after all, this IS a B&W list, now isn't it ;-)?

As of a couple years ago, I have been shooting everything in color, and
converting in channel mixer in photoshop. This goes for Digital as well.
You can get MUCH better tones that way than simply desaturating the
color image.

Jery