Digital BW, The Print

Paul Roark said:

>Bruce Barnbaum has an article in the >latest (September/October, 2005) 
> >Photo
>Techniques magazine entitled, "The >Future of Traditional Photography." . . 
>. >The article struck me as a thoughtful >piece rather than a dogmatic 
>reaction
>of a silver theologian.

Paul - I read that article too but I had a  different reaction to it than 
you did. The principal problem I had is that it purports to be about 
"traditional" photography (camera and darkroom) vs "digital" but he doesn't 
distinguish between use of a digital camera and printing digitally (whether 
from a digital camera or a scanned negative). Many of his statements, 
arguments etc. relating to "digital" are actually relevant only to digital 
cameras and are irrelevant to printing digitally as such. But he never 
ackowledges that distinction and instead just talks about how much better 
traditional photography (camera and darkroom) is than "digital."

For example, a good part of the second page of the two page article is taken 
up with the advantages of having a negative vis a vis only having the image 
stored on a disc. That's all fine and good but it's relevant only to using 
digital cameras, not to printing digitally from scanned negatives (or 
positives). He also talks about the "contemplative" aspects of traditional 
photography as compared with the "immediacy" of seeing a digital image in 
the camera, something that's obviously relevant only to use of a digital 
camera.

Basically he seems to me to present a mish mash of objections to "digital," 
most of which apply only to using a digital camera, not to printing 
digitally. But he never makes that distinction and instead just lumps 
everything he dislikes under the rubric of "digital."

Then there are the just plain wrong statements, e.g. "the traditional 
darkroom has improved tremendously in recent years." The only example he 
gives is the advent of variable contrast paper, which has been around since 
at least the early 1970s. I can't think of any change in darkroom practice, 
procedure, or equipment in "recent years" that would be considered a 
"tremendous improvement" and if pressed for specifics I doubt that Bruce 
could either.

And then there's the totally unsupported opinions presented as fact, e.g. 
"art is a contemplative and solitary process and traditional methods lend 
themselves better to that approach."

All in all I thought this article was just more of the usual stuff that 
comes from diehard darkroom types who are trying to justify the fact that 
they learned to work one way, they built their reputations that way, and 
they don't want to change that way for whatever reason so they feel 
compelled to justify their way.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: John Sexton's comment on B&W print


Bruce Barnbaum has an article in the latest (September/October, 2005) Photo
Techniques magazine entitled, "The Future of Traditional Photography."
While he thinks both media will co-exist quite nicely, he does prefer the
traditional approach.  He likes the solitude and process of the darkroom,
and he dislikes what he sees as "instant decisions" that tend to be made
with digital capture -- seeing the image on the LCD, etc. and deleting
images too quickly.

The article struck me as a thoughtful piece rather than a dogmatic reaction
of a silver theologian.

Frankly, my view is that the skills of making a good B&W print are quite
transferable between the wet darkroom and the computer.  Most of the content
of the articles Barnbaum writes about working up a print could be talking
about digital tools rather than the darkroom analogies.

Digital B&W technology is at a sufficiently high level now that it's the
image and skill/"eye" of the (human) printer that distinguishes the good
ones from the mundane.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links