I've been thinking about some questions related to the digital grain thread
to which Shel and Juan have been contributing. In particular, I've been
working with some Photoshop techniques that yield results similar to Lith
printing. The techniques give shadow and dark areas a gritty, rich look and
maintain (rather than blow out) the highlights.
It is easy to criticize this work as "fake Lith" and say "get thee to a
darkroom and do it the hard way!" Rather than take that viewpoint, I prefer
to view it as a legitimate technique for obtaining a rich-looking print with
a certain dark-area grittiness and highlight tone. In fact, Lith printing
itself can be used to take a smooth negative and add a grainy look that
isn't present in a straight silver print. In this view, Lith printing and
Photoshop techniques provide two different ways to get a similar effect--one
through chemistry, one through computer power.
On another note, I've seen several articles in different places (e.g., on
the web, print magazines, etc.) that show how to place darkroom artifacts
(ragged borders, emulsion-like edges, etc.) into digital images. In one
article, the author scanned a Polaroid type-55 negative and used the edges
as a border for a different image. This, I would say, is "Fake" in the
sense that it misrepresents the origin of the image. It is also pretty easy
to make an image look as though it was contact printed on Platinum or
Palladium through clever addition of borders. I've decided (for now,
anyway) not to pursue this kind of effect even though it can yield
attractive results.
Anyway, I hope this provides a different perspective and maybe some food for
thought. If anyone is interested, I'll try to make a couple of my "digital
lith" images available on the web tonight.
--Mark
P.S. Regarding Rob's excellent image, I like it very much as it is. The
smooth tones and crispness give it more of a grainless "large-format" feel
to me. Adding grain would give it a different look that may or may not
work--I'd have to see it, I guess.
- Re: "Fake" vs "Real" effects Mark Erickson
- Re: "Fake" vs "Real" effects Patrick Genovese
- Re: "Fake" vs "Real" effects Rob Studdert
- RE: "Fake" vs "Real" effects Mark Erickson
- RE: "Fake" vs "Real" effects J. C. O'Connell
- Re: "Fake" vs "Real" effects William Robb