Digital BW, The Print

Hi Again Austin,

> No, I haven't, but I don't shoot landscapes...and I'm sure my belief in what
> makes a perfect picture is different than yours...

Ah, that explains a lot. I don't know where I got the idea you also shot landscapes.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> That to me makes the image disingenuous...not reality.  I know it's a fine
> line, and there is a lot of debate on this exact issue, 

Reality? But the sky was there. The lens simply didn't have enough wide
coverage to include it. Why on earth would it matter if you added the
sky in the camera, in the darkroom, or in the computer? You are creating
an image. That's what I do, anyway.

I create and make images, I don't just take what's there before the
camera and settle for that. An image can always be improved!

This is especially true in this instance:  MANY times in my life I have
seen a beautiful waterfall setting.  There is always a little twig or
stick, or in come cases even a tree trunk that is sticking out of the
waterfall that absolutely SHOULD NOT be in that image. It is only by
accident it is there. It wasn't always there. Why would I include it in
an otherwise beautiful photograph? I wouldn't. I'd remove it. THAT's the
way I see the picture. Makes not a whit of difference if I make the
alteration or not, for me.  

I could always wade out and remove the stick I suppose, but the result
would be the same in the photo. 

I had an instructor at Brooks, who is no longer with us, who let me in
on his little secret one time when we were shooting pictures. This
couldn't apply today, you'd end up in jail. But he used to carry a
pruner and saw on a long handle. If a tree branch or bush ruined his
composition, he'd just saw it down, or remove the branch.

There's plenty of times I'd have loved to have done that, but never did.
But now there's photoshop. Nothing to it!

> > > > 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.

Can't understand that. Don't think Ansel Adams or Weston ever made a
straight print. 

How could you possibly get the deep shadow detail with great contrast
without burning and dodging?

Or are you talking about studio lit setups? There, I can beleive you can
light it so you wouldn't need dodging etc., but I was mainly thinking of Landscapes.

> >
> > Austin, then I would have to question the quality of your prints.
> 
> Have you ever seen any?  No one has ever questioned the quality of my
> prints...and I've been doing commercial photography for near 20 years...as
> well as commissioned fine art work.

Yes, I'm sure they are fine, but couldn't they be better?  Did you
REALLY want that telephone line in your picture? 
> 
> > Every
> > print I've ever made in my life required burning and dodging.
> 
> REQUIRED???  I can't imagine that.

And I can't imagine printing without doing that. I don't think, as a
student at Brooks, I ever saw anybody ever make a straight print of
anything. I can't recall even one time that could have happened. They
were merciless about print quality there, and if there was the tiniest
thing that could be improved by dodging or burning, you did it.
>
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.
> 
> How do you gauge "improvement"?????

Ahh, we finally get to it. What's a great improvement to me may not be
to you. I can understand that, of course.  But I'm still right on this
one :).

> 
>
> Not to me...or to the people who buy them.  Jerry, you're not the be all and
> end all of what, to me (or any one else), is a perfect print.  

Sure I am. :)


> > > 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.

Well, I have been told I have an obsession with sharpness... I guess it
all stems from the fact that I would love to have 8x10 contact quality
with lesser cameras... The images I shoot would be most difficult with a
large format. And I couldn't carry around that heavy equipment any more.

> A good photo to YOU...  Keep that in mind.
>
> 
> Well, I have a 90x ;-)

Stereo?


> > You can get MUCH better tones that way than simply desaturating the
> > color image.
> 
> Er, huh?


Surely you are aware of photoshops Channel Mixer and why you would use
it.  You would NEVER just desaturate an image, that would result in a
pretty lame print.

Jerry

If you Love Hamburgers, you REALLY don't want to eat at our Burger King....