Digital BW, The Print

Carolyn -

   I, like others, have always been interested in what photoshop can do. I'm an engineer and programmer by trade and as a result, I tend to move towards the tech side of things. I used to keep my photography "pure" - only 4x5 or 8x10 work and lots of straight neg printing to keep the scene "pure". The fact is, there is little difference between dodging and burning, bleaching and other techniques and that which is afforded to us with photoshop. It is funny - I did some commercial work during my highly active period of photography (I had a darkroom equipment manufacturing company) and had no problems at all using scitex machines to get the images I wanted. I guess that as the tools are afforded to us we take advantage of them. I am still not a big fan of dramatically altered images but for some reason appreciate Jerry U's work. Go figure?!

Brian

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Carolyn Frayn 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Shooting for Inkjset was Re: Technically PerfectPrint was: Uncoated Papers



  I find your views on this very interesting. Having focused on Black and
  White photography "after" gaining experience digitally I do not get hung up
  on the "is it digital/manipulated?" pro's and con's. I just shoot what I
  like and then if required I edit it in Photoshop. Always having the thought
  that I can remove or fix what displeases me later.

  As you have a more traditional photographic background I'm curious, did you
  first take offense at what editing skills photoshop offered when you were
  first introduced to it?  There has been so much debate in the magazines and
  on the web over the years about the manipulation of "pure" photography and
  whether it renders it unacceptable to some groups of people. Did you feel
  that way at one time and change your mind... or were you always open to new
  ways to interpret your work?


  Carolyn

  > 
  > Brian,
  > 
  > Thanks for the feedback. The digital aspect is slowly creeping into
  > my thoughts in the field. I almost walked away from a shot a while
  > ago and then suddenly thought, "Wait a minute! I can take out those
  > power lines in the corner with Photoshop!" Seems so obvious but old
  > habits die hard.
  > 
  > Martin


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

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

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Brian,

> I, like others, have always been interested in what photoshop can do. I'm an
> engineer and programmer by trade and as a result, I tend to move towards the
> tech side of things. I used to keep my photography "pure" - only 4x5 or 8x10
> work and lots of straight neg printing to keep the scene "pure". The fact is,
> there is little difference between dodging and burning, bleaching and other
> techniques and that which is afforded to us with photoshop. It is funny - I

Thanks for your view... I have been entrenched in Photoshop since 4, wish it
had been sooner... Yes, photoshop offers the traditional techniques with
amazing simplicity and accuracy. I consider "pure" to me anything untouched
in a non-traditional sense. But I guess that would be hard to define because
one can montage without Photoshop.. ;-)
 
> did some commercial work during my highly active period of photography (I had
> a darkroom equipment manufacturing company) and had no problems at all using
> scitex machines to get the images I wanted. I guess that as the tools are
> afforded to us we take advantage of them. I am still not a big fan of
> dramatically altered images but for some reason appreciate Jerry U's work. Go
> figure?!

Commercial work is a different animal indeed, you can be as creative/strange
as you want and you are not as passionately disected.  We *should* take
advantage of the tools afforded us, I just don't understand why there is so
much debate. There are so many visions, so many tools (computer being one of
them)... If someone likes it (if only yourself) then it is worth the
investment, in my opinion.

I enjoyed your earlier post regarding "the beauty of digital imaging in my
mind..." I adore Jerry U's work... on a more illustrative platform (non-B&W
also) I'm very taken with Diane Fenster's work in Photoshop.

Thanks for your time.
Carolyn