Sites for Sore Eyes

close
more_vert
morfe lux M
morfe lux Sep 5, 2003 19:16:00
Replying to treaclechops

Sorry Treaclechops, as I mentioned above, I wasn't referring to you, just replying to the Hob's comment on 'art'.

I can't compare film and digital, but as far as I know I can get closer to my own true vision at present with digital, and the quality is controlled by myself all the way. With digital it takes ridiculous amounts of time to translate the zone system into post exposure editing and printing, not to mention the pitfalls of colour space and cross-platform colour management, but saying that, I do have 'nth' amount of control over tints and the printing process, whether duotone, quadtone or whatever.

I can never see the issue over 'this vs that', when surely it's the things we make from 'this' and 'that' which ultimately count? I agree that there is a 'sacred space' and smelly things in a darkroom, which adds to the magic of production process.

Keep on keeping on!

Morfe x

T treaclechops
treaclechops Sep 5, 2003 20:00:36
Replying to morfe lux

No worries morfe lux! I think there's space for both disciplines, too. A personal theory is the old fashioned way of doing it will be a sought-after art form in its own right, given the fullness of time. In fact, I know a photographer who's fascinated by all the old techniques and recipes for chemistry, and she's going off to pursue photography using those techniques. We need people like her to keep things alive.

Obviously, there are times when digital has the edge - like I wish I had a digital camera, so that I could get pictures of the places I've visited actually up on this website; I have hundreds of negs to go through and print up, yet not enough time/money/resources to do so, currently. It's a real frustration. The speed is a real asset!

Horses for courses, but it'll all even out in the end. ;o)

treaclechops xx