![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: I Still Find This Hard To Believe: posted by Vinylly on June 02, 2003 at 07:48:11:
It really depends upon what you're doing. Does your son make 30x40 inch prints on his Epson from his G3? Does your son shoot architectural photos with his EOS10D? Probably "No" to both of those questions.It's applying the appropriate tool to the job. If Sunset accepts digital files - that's great. The pubs I work with still want transparencies because they prefer to scan the work themselves as they screen it directly from the film as part of the scanning process - and for several other reasons.
For a lot of commercial work, the fine photographic print has, in fact, gone the way of dinosaurs. But, if you haven't seen a really big LightJet print from a medium or large format transparency - well, let's just say the 10D (nice camera) just doesn't match up (in my opinion).
I still use a darkroom for black and white work because I have more control over the final outcome with image "look" (combination of paper, developer, toning, etc.) than what I've seen available through digital manipulation and digital printer output.
![]()
Follow Ups:
When I was in highschool I took photography classes. I worked on the school's Annual as their sports photographer. We probably spent most of our time in the darkroom learning how to develop and enlarge our photographs (that is, when there was no hanky-pank). I enjoyed portrait photography as well. It gave me the oppertunity to ask all the pretty girls if they would like a free portrait of themselves. In those days they were black and white. I handpainted them. I think to this day that handpainted portraits are far more beautiful then color portraits.
Today, I am not a professional photographer, infact, I'm probably not even a serious amateuar. I use my cameras simply as tools to photograph my artwork for the printer, and for that I feel that I need the best I can afford.
My son-in-law calls himself a professional photographer and I bet he doesn't know one thing about developing his work, working with an enlarger or even being in a darkroom.
![]()
Interesting observation. My feeling is that digital work is just a difficult as working in a darkroom - but in a different way. Yes, you're doing things in software which is "easy" (?), but the amount knowledge you need to really make a good looking photo in Photoshop is as complex as making a really good photo in a darkroom.Yeah, digital makes it easier for the average person to turn out a photo, but that's really not much different than taking a photo on film and sending the negative to a lab to be printed. I know several professional photographers who couldn't turn on a safelight - but they make their living by taking photos. Send the film to a lab to be developed & proofed, send it to a lab for the final prints. They don't even own darkrooms.
Most wedding photogaphers (that I've known) have never been in a darkroom and don't know the basic technical aspects of photography. Ask them how film speed is calculated and you'd get a blank stare. Ask them what a characteristic curve is and their eyes go glassy.
But, they can sure tell you how to make a "Stained Glass Misty" bride / groom portrait (baaaaaarrrrfff).
So, I don't find your son-in-law to be outside the norm for a lot of photographers - either today or even 25 years ago. I worked as a professional for years and started out with a nationally known photo company. My boss didn't go near darkrooms (although I think he had been in one once). When it came to the really difficult photos, he always had me do them (we did some industrial work, most of our work was portraits). If it was color work it got sent out to a lab, if it was B&W I did the development and printing in my darkroom.
He was making about $250K / year in 1973 through his photo business!! Not bad for a guy who didn't have a darkroom...
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: