Digital BW, The Print

Given reasonable technical skills the abilities a good print comes from 
the photographer's vision. The art of photography is to capture an 
arrangement of photons on a sensor (film or CCD) that existed at some 
point in time and producing a final image that conveys to the viewer the 
vision in the mind's eye of the photographer.

The negative is alike the musical score and the final print is like the 
performance of the score with the printer being the conductor. The 
performance may change over time just has a person may make a different 
print from the same negative at different times. But the final image is 
the vision of the photographer. I cannot produce a score that would 
sound like the classical masters or Pink Floyd or the Greatful Dead, 
etc. no matter who plays it. If the negative does not capture that 
vision, it cannot be added in either PS or a darkroom.

Truman

Martin Wesley wrote:

> Austin, Tim,
>
> I think you are both largely correct and I understand your positions. They
> sort of combine in the statement:
>
> The camera rarely lies but it seldom tells the truth.
>
> Personally I don't care how little or how much a print has been 
> manipulated
> before or after the shutter clicked or in the dark or in the computer. 
> If it
> is a good print and I like it, how it got that way is not important. 
> (Unless
> I want to know how to do it myself!<G>)
>
> Good printers (as in people who make photographic prints) will 
> probably make
> good prints regardless of whether they are in the darkroom or the 
> computer.
> The making of a good print is a matter of artistic talent and 
> dedication to
> the craft.
>
> Martin Wesley
>
> <http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]