Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
In a message dated 5/30/2004 9:18:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At this point, I really don't see it as better, or worse than film. Different? Most definitely. Superior? Not a chance. William Robb --- Neither do I, see it as better than film. At least as regards the end result. But for me the process of TAKING pictures is better (or smoother or easier or something), because I can review what I have taken. Yes, that makes a difference for me. It aids my on-going learning process. And I don't have to worry about burning film "wasting shots," which means it allows me to play around more and try more, which also aids my on-going learning process. And the one good lab around here is not that close to me, so I also save on driving time and frustration over traffic. Process and results are different things, naturally. Marnie aka Doe Which doesn't cover the post processing stuff. That's another ball game in itself.
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > Okay, point taken. Often it sounds like on this list that people are saying > easy and making a value judgment when they say that. > > Of course, you aren't one of those. ;-) > Horsehockey. I am one of the worst for it. Here's a value judgement for you to ponder. If the message is the image, and the medium is the process used to create it, then the medium is all important. The medium, to a great extent, controls what the message will be. The medium both limits us, and empowers us. Some would have us believe that the traditional methods of getting an image on paper are somehow limiting, due to inherent difficulties and problems within the process, and that digital frees us from all of that, and they trot out all the tired metaphors, such as Shakespeare and word processors, and the like. Others would have us believe that the opposite is true, and trot out their own tired metaphors. I have found, for myself, that digital imaging has it's own set of advantages, but also disadvantages. At this point, I really don't see it as better, or worse than film. Different? Most definitely. Superior? Not a chance. William Robb
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
On 30 May 2004 at 12:01, William Robb wrote: > > > Or, I have worked with the alternatives long enough to know what is > > easy, and what isn't. > > Har, the large majority of us don't all have a calibrated mini-lab with an > operator we can trust at our disposal. Lets make sure the playing field is level. You wanna play digital darkroom, then you add a quality inkjet printer to your computer, calibrate the entire mess so that you have WYSIWYG results, and go play. Wanna do film photography in colour? Renovate a room in the basement, add an enlarger and a processor, and plumbing. Processing needs to be within a half degree, and you had better know some colour and chemical theory if you want repeatable results. Don't like what you get out of the processor? Toss that print in the garbage and try again. and again. and again. Even with the calibrated minilab to print on, I think digital is easier. I suppose some of this is because I am the one calibrating the minilab. Hear Hear. Calibrating a mini-lab, and keeping it running properly is no easy feat. I'm running an old Fuji SFA 250 with a FP360AL film processor all running Fuji Hunt chemistry (lousy chemistry IMHO) In order to keep the C-41 chemistry in control, with the LD safely above minimum control (R & G above 0 Blue hovering around 0 to -2) and the contrast in control I have to run the developer at 36.8°C and the bleach at 36°C (usually 38°C both) I also run the RA-4 developer (printer) a couple tenths of a degree lower for the same reason. Then there is the (at least) daily paper balance and about once a week I have to tweak the overall color balance of the master channel. Then I get to make color and density corrections based on an old 9" screen built into the printer. And I have to keep it that way with a staff making maybe $2-3 over minimum wage. (read apathetic) Digital is much easier. I adjust my monitor with Adobe Gamma, convert my files to Adobe 1998 in PS, print using paper profiles with my Epson 2200. The only thing I have to remember is to err slightly light and desaturated from the monitor. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian) If you use a minilab that consistently
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
In a message dated 5/30/2004 11:09:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasn't commenting on that. I was merely commenting that digital is pretty easy compared to the alternatives. If you want to make a value judgement, that's your perogative. William Robb -- Okay, point taken. Often it sounds like on this list that people are saying easy and making a value judgment when they say that. Of course, you aren't one of those. ;-) Marnie aka Doe
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > On 30 May 2004 at 12:01, William Robb wrote: > > > Or, I have worked with the alternatives long enough to know what is > > easy, and what isn't. > > Har, the large majority of us don't all have a calibrated mini-lab with an > operator we can trust at our disposal. Lets make sure the playing field is level. You wanna play digital darkroom, then you add a quality inkjet printer to your computer, calibrate the entire mess so that you have WYSIWYG results, and go play. Wanna do film photography in colour? Renovate a room in the basement, add an enlarger and a processor, and plumbing. Processing needs to be within a half degree, and you had better know some colour and chemical theory if you want repeatable results. Don't like what you get out of the processor? Toss that print in the garbage and try again. and again. and again. Even with the calibrated minilab to print on, I think digital is easier. I suppose some of this is because I am the one calibrating the minilab. William Robb
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
On 30 May 2004 at 12:01, William Robb wrote: > Or, I have worked with the alternatives long enough to know what is > easy, and what isn't. Har, the large majority of us don't all have a calibrated mini-lab with an operator we can trust at our disposal. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Event photography: morphed from: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
>> Oh I dream of being able to do weddings - we're *much much* worse >than >> that in news!!! >> >> ROTFL >> >> >We expect you lot to be pig headed degenerates. > >William Robb The shame of it! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > Perhaps it's because digital is easy. > > > -- > So, if it is, is this really a BAD thing? Do things have to be HARD or > REALLY, REALLY hard to be good or worthwhile? I wasn't commenting on that. I was merely commenting that digital is pretty easy compared to the alternatives. If you want to make a value judgement, that's your perogative. William Robb
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: "John Francis" Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > > If you think digital photography is easy, you aren't doing it right :-) > > Or, I have worked with the alternatives long enough to know what is easy, and what isn't. William Robb
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Hi, > I wonder if painters complained when they could buy oil paint in tubes rather > than having to mix/make their own? nobody forced them to stop mixing their own - the option was still there. The film option seems to be disappearing quite quickly for photographers. I watched an interesting documentary a couple of years ago which coincided with an exhibition featuring Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2777355.stm. It included some very interesting footage about how Titian and others made their pigments. I can imagine there must have been some people who took at least as much pleasure in making the paints as in doing the painting, just as there are people who like printing more than they like taking photos. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
> > In a message dated 5/30/2004 8:51:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Perhaps it's because digital is easy. > > William Robb > -- > So, if it is, is this really a BAD thing? Do things have to be HARD or > REALLY, REALLY hard to be good or worthwhile? > > I wonder if painters complained when they could buy oil paint in tubes rather > than having to mix/make their own? > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) Sure they did. Else you were stuck with the choice of medium that the manufacturer picked. There are still artists who mix their own paints. I'm sure there are some that grind their own pigments, too, just as there are still some photographers who coat their own glass plates. Whether this makes any difference to the resulting work is another question. But that's the age-old argument as to whether the image stands by itself, or if you have to take into consideration all the intangibles.
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
> > > > > Personally, I think there is a little too much emphasis on digital > is easy by > > some people. > > Perhaps it's because digital is easy. > > William Robb If you think digital photography is easy, you aren't doing it right :-)
Re: Event photography: morphed from: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
>> I was at a wedding a while back where the photographer was using a >> digital. He shot a heck of a lot of pictures. So many, that he became >> part of the wedding. >> So many that the continuous flash bursts and noise was a nuisance. > >You guys don't have videographers there? Photographers are no problems >compared >to these pig headed spotlight wielding degenerates. Oh I dream of being able to do weddings - we're *much much* worse than that in news!!! ROTFL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Event photography: morphed from: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Pretty accurate disciption of things, Bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the engagement photo, and the formals were usually separate packages done in the studio. The engagement photo in fact was often a freeby done in the hopes that the Bride would buy the formals and wedding package from that studio later. These were shot with the big portrait cameras as you mentioned A wedding package was usually the 10-12 B&W 8x10's I mentioned of the wedding ceremony. Very seldom was there much coverage of the reception, at least at the economic level I was aware of back then, as soon as the cake cutting was done so was the photographer. These "candids" were usually done with a Speed Graphic and roll film back, or a Rollei. You had to have quite a reputation to get away with the Rollei, as most folks equated "professional" with "big black camera" as I have mentioned several time before here on the list. Mostly only advertising photographers had Blads back then. For those who think a Hasselblad is a modern camera, the 500C came out in 1957. -- William Robb wrote: What has happened over the past few decades is that the cost per exposure has decreased dramatically. This benefits the consumer, in that they can now get more bang for the buck. In Tom's example of the 1950s photographer, the film was most likely 8x10 sheets, with the prints being made via contact. I know my parents wedding pictures from the late 1940's were done on 8x10 and 5x7 sheets. Before roll film became widely used, the option of the full coverage wedding just didn't exist. Medium format supplanted sheet film when interchangable lens medium format cameras started to show up in the late 1950's with the Hasselblad. Up until that time, roll film cameras were primarily folders of indeterminate quality, and were eschewed by the professional. When roll film and portable electronic flash became a quality option, the amount of coverage possible increased, and photographers started to provide coverage at the ceremony, and would take more studio pictures than a half dozen or so. 35mm dropped the cost per exposure even further, and at about the same time, mass production in the printing end became viable, along with colour prints. As the cost per exposure dropped, photographers who adopted the new formats were able to give more for less in terms of volume, and those who didn't adapt either retired or went bust. Of course, every time an "improvement" has come along, picture quality has suffered, but that is not really germaine to this part of the discussion, Digital is just another brick in the road. Now, it costs the same, whether the photographer shoots 100 pictures or a thousand. Does this mean the consumer gets a better product? In some ways perhaps, in other ways perhaps not. I was at a wedding a while back where the photographer was using a digital. He shot a heck of a lot of pictures. So many, that he became part of the wedding. So many that the continuous flash bursts and noise was a nuisance. If this is what the consumer is getting when we say we are providing better coverage, then we are doing the customer a real disservice. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
If you feel you are giving your clients the best posible service for their money, why would my comments "touch a nerve"? My point was that when it was expensive and you may not get paid for it, you took no chances. You shot what you knew from experience the Bride would pay for. They did not often sell a "package" up front, it was a low price base package and hopefully extras. -- Bruce Dayton wrote: One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The photographer we had was more like your middle description. On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera editing or lazy. Sorry, you touched a nerve. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Event photography: morphed from: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
What has happened over the past few decades is that the cost per exposure has decreased dramatically. This benefits the consumer, in that they can now get more bang for the buck. In Tom's example of the 1950s photographer, the film was most likely 8x10 sheets, with the prints being made via contact. I know my parents wedding pictures from the late 1940's were done on 8x10 and 5x7 sheets. Before roll film became widely used, the option of the full coverage wedding just didn't exist. Medium format supplanted sheet film when interchangable lens medium format cameras started to show up in the late 1950's with the Hasselblad. Up until that time, roll film cameras were primarily folders of indeterminate quality, and were eschewed by the professional. When roll film and portable electronic flash became a quality option, the amount of coverage possible increased, and photographers started to provide coverage at the ceremony, and would take more studio pictures than a half dozen or so. 35mm dropped the cost per exposure even further, and at about the same time, mass production in the printing end became viable, along with colour prints. As the cost per exposure dropped, photographers who adopted the new formats were able to give more for less in terms of volume, and those who didn't adapt either retired or went bust. Of course, every time an "improvement" has come along, picture quality has suffered, but that is not really germaine to this part of the discussion, Digital is just another brick in the road. Now, it costs the same, whether the photographer shoots 100 pictures or a thousand. Does this mean the consumer gets a better product? In some ways perhaps, in other ways perhaps not. I was at a wedding a while back where the photographer was using a digital. He shot a heck of a lot of pictures. So many, that he became part of the wedding. So many that the continuous flash bursts and noise was a nuisance. If this is what the consumer is getting when we say we are providing better coverage, then we are doing the customer a real disservice. William Robb - Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier > photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an > affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the > affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along > with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a > thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back > on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The > photographer we had was more like your middle description. > > On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little > better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a > sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the > sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and > take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and > you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the > only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, > was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the > situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A > significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's > control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not > positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure > just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised > sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. > > When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my > shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of > changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting > digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. > When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. > > Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon > or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying > on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the > majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of > only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can > offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. > Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change > from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations > continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as > a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camer
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The photographer we had was more like your middle description. On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera editing or lazy. Sorry, you touched a nerve. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, May 29, 2004, 8:07:00 AM, you wrote: g> Interestingly enough, this goes hand in hand with something I was just thinking g> about the other night. g> Years ago (1950's - early 60's) a standard wedding package was 10-12 B&W 8x10 in g> an album. The photographer usually shot 1.5 to 2x that many negatives, but hoped g> some of those would sell as extras. In other words they shot pretty close to 1:1. g> Back in the late 80's early 90's a wedding photographer usually shot 3 rolls of g> 35mm (108 shots), or 5-6 rolls of 120 (50-72 shots). Gave the client the best g> 30-50 as proof to pick from. A ratio of about 3:1. g> Now the wedding guys on the list, are say they are shooting 600-800 shots per g> wedding. You give the customer (who most likely can not tell a decent shot from g> an awful one) hundreds of images to select from on a computer. If the photog g> dumped the junk there may be 100 actually sellable photos in the batch. 8:1. g> So what is my point? Well, first I think that they are still getting about 24 g> keepers. The difference is the early photograpers edited in the camera. A lot of g> current photographers (and I am talking about commerical photographers here) do g> not seem know how to edit their work at all. g> How does this connect to Bill's comments below. Simply put, it was not cheap to g> shoot, so that early photographer was carful to shoot only sellable photos. He g> edited out the others before tripping the shutter. g> -- g> William Robb wrote: >> - Original Message - >> From: "Mark Cassino" >> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners >> >> >> >>>I'd bet that same school teaches kids writing with pencils and >> >> paper. >> >>>That's a shame. Real writing is done with reeds on clay tablets. >> >> People may >> >>>try to write using pencils, paper, pens, typewriters, or even word >>>processors or computers. But do you really think that they could >> >> possibly >> >>>express the same thoughts that they could express with clay tablets >> >> and >> >>>reeds? Obviously not. If they real
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: "David Miers" Subject: RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > You have got to admit the lack > of worries in ambient lighting for color temp is great though! I don't admit that one can ignore the colour temperature of light with black and white. William Robb
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I found B & W to be very frustrating in college too, as I too am very color oriented. But towards the end of the course it started to rub off on me or something, because I started looking at images differently, even choosing B & W as the preferred medium for some images. You have got to admit the lack of worries in ambient lighting for color temp is great though! Dave -- Marnie aka Doe I did a semester of darkroom in college and didn't enjoy it that much. OTOH, I also shot in B&W for that class too and didn't like that much either (being very color oriented). So it's not a love affair for everyone. ;-)
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > > But I beg to differ that the digital darkroom approach provides INSTANT > gratification. Not if you really tweak stuff and are a perfectionist. That can take > hours and hours, in fact. > > All things are relative. The digital perfectionist who takes hours to tweak an image in Photoshop would as likely take many more hours (I have spent as long as 30 hours and several dozen sheets of paper) to maximize the quality from a negative. By that standard, digital is instant gratification no matter what level of work you are doing. William Robb
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
In a message dated 5/28/2004 11:59:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, some folks spend a long time on their photo work, but I'll bet that, had they used a darkroom previously, they spent a long time there, too, in order to get a print just right. And regardless of what work one does with editing software, the pic can be viewed on the screen and printed in less than five minutes from the time the exposure is made. And that includes boot up time Shel Belinkoff --- Okay, operating from that premise... And what's wrong with that? LOL. Marnie aka Doe I did a semester of darkroom in college and didn't enjoy it that much. OTOH, I also shot in B&W for that class too and didn't like that much either (being very color oriented). So it's not a love affair for everyone. ;-)
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Marnie & Shel, > Digital photography can provide instant gratification. One > of the most often heard comments here and in other places is > that people like the idea of seeing their photos immediately. Sure. Taking pictures of books or whatever for eBay or pictures which may be far from technical wonders, but capture the moment to be sent to relatives or whoever by e-mail for immediate reaction. > They can edit on the LCD display immediately after the photo > is taken. Moving to the "darkroom" side of the equation, a > great many people do little or no editing of their photos, > small tweaks at most, such as cropping, a little color > correction, and that's about it. Instant! More advanced > folks use more features in their editing software, but still > don't go very far into it. And a skilled PS user can get a > good result in less time than it'll take to set up the > darkroom for a printing session and make some prints. This is the artist coming out in you, Shel. People who will go this far have digital SLRs. The huge bulk of sales to P & S digital cameras, who will take the same crappy pictures with their fingers over the lens as they did with film. They will just get the results quicker. Those who do try PS without the camera skills in place will produce enhanced crap. > Yeah, some folks spend a long time on their photo work, but > I'll bet that, had they used a darkroom previously, they > spent a long time there, too, in order to get a print just > right. And regardless of what work one does with editing > software, the pic can be viewed on the screen and printed in > less than five minutes from the time the exposure is made. > And that includes boot up time On the skill of folk on PDML, yes - they are great photographers and will go that extra mile. Everybody else sees film as hassle and digital as the new Polaroid. Malcolm
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Digital photography can provide instant gratification. One of the most often heard comments here and in other places is that people like the idea of seeing their photos immediately. They can edit on the LCD display immediately after the photo is taken. Moving to the "darkroom" side of the equation, a great many people do little or no editing of their photos, small tweaks at most, such as cropping, a little color correction, and that's about it. Instant! More advanced folks use more features in their editing software, but still don't go very far into it. And a skilled PS user can get a good result in less time than it'll take to set up the darkroom for a printing session and make some prints. Yeah, some folks spend a long time on their photo work, but I'll bet that, had they used a darkroom previously, they spent a long time there, too, in order to get a print just right. And regardless of what work one does with editing software, the pic can be viewed on the screen and printed in less than five minutes from the time the exposure is made. And that includes boot up time Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/28/2004 11:47:11 PM > Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > In a message dated 5/26/2004 10:13:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > We live in a society fuelled by instant gratification and disposable > everything. We need children today who will want to know how things work. > Our throw away culture is nothing to be proud of. > > I'm not having a 'go' Cotty, it really is for everyone's benefit, especially > today's youngsters :-) > > Malcolm > --- > Well, I am late posting to this thread. > > And I have no views either way about whether to darkroom or not to darkroom. > > But I beg to differ that the digital darkroom approach provides INSTANT > gratification. Not if you really tweak stuff and are a perfectionist. That can take > hours and hours, in fact. > > Marnie aka Doe
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
In a message dated 5/26/2004 10:13:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We live in a society fuelled by instant gratification and disposable everything. We need children today who will want to know how things work. Our throw away culture is nothing to be proud of. I'm not having a 'go' Cotty, it really is for everyone's benefit, especially today's youngsters :-) Malcolm --- Well, I am late posting to this thread. And I have no views either way about whether to darkroom or not to darkroom. But I beg to differ that the digital darkroom approach provides INSTANT gratification. Not if you really tweak stuff and are a perfectionist. That can take hours and hours, in fact. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I thought this was at the elementary school or Junior High level. I do not think the question would have even been asked at the college level. And many HS have darkroom facilities nowadays, and the students would be expected to understand normal care with darkroom chemicals, I mean they work with much more dangerous stuff in chemistry class, so that would not be a problem. -- Peter J. Alling wrote: If someone is taking a formal photo course I would presume that they have already moved beyond P&S and disposables. Anyone who is just looking for some pointers to make their snapshots better doesn't need a full blown course, and if they do they are probably hopeless in any case. (Damned I'm feeling nasty this morning). graywolf wrote: I would think a basic course could be taught with machine processing at the local minilab, letting the kids use whatever camera is available to them including disposables. There is enough to learn about the basics of lighting and composition that it would easily take up a one semester class. One could easily explain to them how shutter speed and f-stop affected the DOF and motion blur even if they had no direct control over it. Though it would be nice if a decent manual camera was available for the kids to try out their learning on, if even only under supervision, and have some experience in case they decide they wished to pursue photography farther. I actually feel that darkroom or computer graphics work should be held back for a more advanced course. We tend to forget that you do not need all those advanced features to learn the basics. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I don't remember from the original post how old the students are, nor the economic strata the community or town is in. Also, what is the goal of the class? A class to foster photography as a creative outlet for kids will have different needs compared to one geared to photojournalism, or classic portraiture. I got started in photography when my next door neighbor showed his son and me how to develop and print B&W negs. Once learned, I was hooked. However, I think the reality is that most of those kids will never own a serious film camera. So my vote goes to emphasizing the digital darkroom. If they have the money to also set up a wet darkroom, so much the better, but not at the expense of the digital one. If they are looking to build a photography curriculum then classes in B&W and classic portraiture would be helped by a wet darkroom. I do agree that unless the class is strictly a "let's develop your eye" class, they need to have a camera that can be run in a mode other then program. Fully manual would be best, although you can accomplish the same thing with a camera that allows AV and/or TV modes. My experience as a photofinisher makes me believe that the majority of people taking pictures have absolutely no clue what is going on and are lost if they don't have a program mode. To learn photography you need to have a basic understanding of what the various functions do in regards to the final image and how changing those functions will change the image. This, IMHO, requires an adjustable camera. So my suggestion for setting it up. A decent film scanner, 6(+) color printer, SLR's shooting slide film, Adobe Photoshop. I'm suggesting slide film because it will show good or bad exposure better and it makes it easier to decide which ones to scan and print. If there is an E-6 lab in town, see if they will give a student discount for class members. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Earlier Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked if there was a compelling argument that would sway his child's principle to teach photography using a darkroom. Kevin - Regardless of our many opinions and experiences with in the darkroom, I think you are wasting your time, and missing a chance to teach children about photography by pursuing the darkroom issue. From the standpoint of the school administration, film and darkroom supplies are one more drain on shrinking a shrinking school budget, a possible danger to the children (real or imagined) and one more thing that will eat up possibly eat up the administrations time if something goes wrong. If you're really trying to teach children the basics of photography, you sure don't need a darkroom. The short feedback loop of digital will increase the speed of learning for the kids. Frankly, I think it would be much easier to teach photography without all of the silly mechanics of the darkroom getting in the way. While the smell of the chemicals brings back happy memories for you, I and many of the members of the list, It's something that is part of our generation's learning experience, not that of the kids. I remember a transition period where "they" said we had to learn how to use a slide rule before we learned to use a calculator. This is pretty much nonsense. Although the slide rule is a pretty neat way to demonstrate logarithmic relationships. I remember when Computer Aided Design was young, "they" said people needed to learn manual drafting skills before getting on the computer. Again, nonsense. Even though those manual skills are useful, they are not a pre-requisite. There is just no compelling reason. We learned to do many electronic editing techniques as analogs of our darkroom methods because we were building on what we knew. That doesn't make it necessary for someone else to learn that way. In fact, it may make it much more difficult. If you've been following this list, you've watched several of us travel up the digital learning curve. When Michael Reichman reviewed the *istD and said that the histogram should be added to the quick preview, and asked that the ISO setting be always displayed somewhere many of the list members discounted these ideas. That's because we weren't used to thinking of histograms and didn't think of resetting the ISO speed for every photo. After many of us have gained experience with the camera, several have changed their opinions and now desire these features. At this point, I can't imagine teaching anyone about exposures without incorporating the concept of histograms. And as far as the exposure is concerned, ISO is a much more important part of the decision than it was in the past. That being said. If these are young children I'd be tempted to use very simple auto-exposure point & shoot cameras and concentrate on composition for a long time before even talking about expousre. Now, if you want to teach it as a skill in and of itself, like oil painting or basket weaving, that's just fine. But don't our generations experience with the darkroom as something necessary for the "proper" photographic learning experience. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Darkroom or Digital for beginners Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My childrens school is to be offering photography as a subject. I have talked to the principle about this and he is very keen about an all digital photo lab type set up. He stated that with a darkroom there was could be problems with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) with the use of chemicals and children with asthma. Also as the world was going digital this would be a real world solution. The school is well equipped with computers, so there would be no need to build another (dark)room for processing. Added to this there is no cost of film. He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love to hear them and pass them on. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia --
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
change a couple of words and that is what painters said about photography. Herb - Original Message - From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > Quote (not precisely his words, just the best I can remember) from David > Hockney, last week: > "With the advent of digital imaging and computer manipulation, most > output has been reduced to the level of badly drawn photographs" > > mike > >
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
On 26/5/04, DAVID MIERS, discombobulated, offered: >Kevin > >It would be better to have a photography class in digital then no >photography class, but I would agree with the comments that it is better to >learn in a chemical darkroom. I too just finished a photography class in >college and since I started the wrong way had to relearn the right way how >to take photographs. I found that I was way to dependant on the color to >make my images interesting. Limiting myself to B & W that had to be >developed in a darkroom taught me how to see things differently in the >camera viewer. It is a time tested method that properly teaches the student >how to properly compose an image with proper lighting. I started with a >digital camera and worked my way back to film cameras. I found digital very >easy as I'm sort of a natural with anything computer related for the most >part. Contrary to another comment on this thread, it was the chemical >darkroom that challenged me and really made me work hard, reach down deep >inside myself to create a good image. I found myself having a deeper >understanding of Photoshop especially with regard to the dodge and burn >brushes. However to this day I cannot recreate the dodge and burn effects >in Photoshop that I can now do in a chemical dark room. Working with an >enlarger vs. a scanner taught me much more about film grain as well. Grain >is part of the art form of Photography and while it can be inserted in a >computer, never looks right to me. All the noise and dust that is part of >digital photography is not attractive. > >Taking the picture, developing the film, printing it on an enlarger, and >developing in in chemical trays, all by hand, made me feel much more like an >artist and gave me much the same satisfaction that I suspect a painter feels >upon finishing their painting. I never felt that with the digital format, >be it directly from a digital camera or a film based scanner. My experience >with analog B & W has greatly helped me to create a better B & W image on >the computer as well since I now at least know how it "should look". > >If the school decides to pursue the digital class they really need to find >cameras that have at least 5 or 6 available apertures on them as well as >several available shutter speeds all with manual options. From my own >experience that is one of biggest problems with digital P&S that they have >only a couple of options here. It needs to have a B & W option as well as >the ability to turn the flash completely off. If your going to use a flash, >my instructor literally pounded this into our heads, the last place you ever >want to use it is on the camera itself! Thus you need to have a camera with >wireless flash option or has a flash PC terminal or limit the students to >not use flash at all which for the most part is better anyways. > >I now look upon the idea of film vanishing with great sadness. Photography >is classified as a Fine Art, but I don't think I ever really understood why, >until taking this class. I question whether or not Photography's status as >a Fine Art will continue into the digital world. I would have to say my >instructor did his job well. And he gave me an "A" too!!! Yayyy... 8) > >Dave You nearly (but not quite) made me cry, Dave. That's a bloody good reason. I've changed my mind - there's a good reason for pursuing a chemical darkroom! I've got some film somewhere.. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I forgot to say one thing. I believe it's important to make sure a course is not only educating consumers. I have been a music teacher once. Most of the students would end up as "educated consumers only" - that is music listeners. Some would become activly playing music practitioners. And a few sould become professional musicians. I guess it's just about the same for photography. I believe it's crucial not to just educate consumers (point and shooters with a labtop). All the best Jens There is many reason why children, who wants to learn about photography, should learn about film/darkrooms. This does not mean ALL the work should be in a darkroom or lab. I believe, that photography today is about taking photographs as well as processing photographic material in a lab as well as on the computer processing: These element should be reoresented in a course: Taking photographs (from idea/assignement to pressing the realease bitton) Processing photographic material (from photographic raw material (exposed film, files) to producing readdy to print or publish raw matrerial (neg, slide or file) Printing and publishing photographs - marketing, delivering, exibit, publish. Here is a few reasons for spending time in a darkroom or lab: Health. It's not very healthy to sit many hours by the computer. The damages to the body may very well be as serious as the posible damages from handeling chemicals etc. Understanding tools and theory: Many tools as well as theories used in current photography software are more or less derived from the work and processes in a darkroom or lab. To understand these properly it is necasary to have a sertain amount of darkroom experience. Ecposure: Learning about metering and exposure is best done by exposing, delveloping and looking at film, where no automatic sharpening or tonal or contrast control is possible. Most digital shooters blame the camera, when white snow looks like gray cement in a photograph. They have NO IDEA about exposing or how a lighmeter works. Shooting and developing a black and white film will (hopefully) teach them well. All the best Jens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 23:21 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Darkroom or Digital for beginners My childrens school is to be offering photography as a subject. I have talked to the principle about this and he is very keen about an all digital photo lab type set up. He stated that with a darkroom there was could be problems with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) with the use of chemicals and children with asthma. Also as the world was going digital this would be a real world solution. The school is well equipped with computers, so there would be no need to build another (dark)room for processing. Added to this there is no cost of film. He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love to hear them and pass them on. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
There is many reason why children, who wants to learn about photography, should learn about film/darkrooms. This does not mean ALL the work should be in a darkroom or lab. I believe, that photography today is about taking photographs as well as processing photographic material in a lab as well as on the computer processing: These element should be reoresented in a course: Taking photographs (from idea/assignement to pressing the realease bitton) Processing photographic material (from photographic raw material (exposed film, files) to producing readdy to print or publish raw matrerial (neg, slide or file) Printing and publishing photographs - marketing, delivering, exibit, publish. Here is a few reasons for spending time in a darkroom or lab: Health. It's not very healthy to sit many hours by the computer. The damages to the body may very well be as serious as the posible damages from handeling chemicals etc. Understanding tools and theory: Many tools as well as theories used in current photography software are more or less derived from the work and processes in a darkroom or lab. To understand these properly it is necasary to have a sertain amount of darkroom experience. Ecposure: Learning about metering and exposure is best done by exposing, delveloping and looking at film, where no automatic sharpening or tonal or contrast control is possible. Most digital shooters blame the camera, when white snow looks like gray cement in a photograph. They have NO IDEA about exposing or how a lighmeter works. Shooting and developing a black and white film will (hopefully) teach them well. All the best Jens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 23:21 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Darkroom or Digital for beginners My childrens school is to be offering photography as a subject. I have talked to the principle about this and he is very keen about an all digital photo lab type set up. He stated that with a darkroom there was could be problems with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) with the use of chemicals and children with asthma. Also as the world was going digital this would be a real world solution. The school is well equipped with computers, so there would be no need to build another (dark)room for processing. Added to this there is no cost of film. He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love to hear them and pass them on. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Hi, David Miers wrote: I now look upon the idea of film vanishing with great sadness. Photography is classified as a Fine Art, but I don't think I ever really understood why, until taking this class. I question whether or not Photography's status as a Fine Art will continue into the digital world. I would have to say my instructor did his job well. And he gave me an "A" too!!! Yayyy... 8) Quote (not precisely his words, just the best I can remember) from David Hockney, last week: "With the advent of digital imaging and computer manipulation, most output has been reduced to the level of badly drawn photographs" mike
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Go with at least some darkroom work. Kids need to work with their hands. Also, as has been pointed out, the cheaper digital cameras are far too automatic to do basic exposure stuff. Most kids will like the magic of the picture appearing. Then do all of the color issues using PS. Showing the pictures decomposed by color channel teaches them about light as well. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Advantages & tradeoffs (was Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners)
from Cotty: >In this day and age, I can't think of one good reason, except >for historical interest. The darkroom aspect of photography is now a craft-art akin to oil painting. There's some professionalism left, but it's quickly fading from prominence. Bummer. Darkroom work will continue to show computer users a versatility not available in data just the same as painters showed film people a new level of versatility in years past. Increased automation seems to lead to a loss of general versatility but at the same time adds new features. In the film vs. oils war, film added detail that couldn't be captured by oils, but oils could be put down in a way that would bring out the character of something, much like words can a mental image. In the digital vs. film war, negatives contain so much information that can be burned in and worked with that (I've discussed this with a couple of them who have done LF color & b&w, who have since gone modern) digital people envy, but the precise crop/dodge/modify facility of digital is something to envy as well. Collin --- 'Tautology is' Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
> > We live in a society fuelled by instant gratification and disposable > everything. We need children today who will want to know how things work. There, in brief, is the nub of it. You can't teach anybody who doesn't want to learn. Trying to teach photography to a room full of children by taking them away from the familiar environment of their computer is about as good an idea as teaching swimming by throwing kids into the deep end of the pool. Start off by showing how to improve the images they are familiar with. Composition and timing can be taught even using a cellphone camera. If you can get them interested, then discussing further techniques (which could include at least a field trip to a conventional darkroom) lets you pace the material to the interest level of the students. Teaching techniques that would be suitable for an elective course at a fine arts college aren't necessarly the best at high school. The course should be of interest (and value) to everybody in the classroom, not just to one or two students.
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Cotty posted and ran: > In this day and age, I can't think of one good reason, except > for historical interest. > > Look at your answer to another posting - get the jewellers screwdrivers out and get stuck in: if we don't have children 'doing' things, such as dismantling lenses/whatever or learning hands on jobs, such as film development, we will very shortly have a new generation that neither has the confidence to tackle jobs, nor the ability or drive to perform skills beyond a screen and keyboard. We live in a society fuelled by instant gratification and disposable everything. We need children today who will want to know how things work. Our throw away culture is nothing to be proud of. I'm not having a 'go' Cotty, it really is for everyone's benefit, especially today's youngsters :-) Malcolm
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
>He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling >arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why >children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love >to hear them and pass them on. Kevin, how old are the children? In this day and age, I can't think of one good reason, except for historical interest. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Kevin Waterson" > Subject: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > > If you have any reasons why > > children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love > > to hear them and pass them on. > >> > Wheatfield replies: > It teaches them that there is life beyond the computer screen, which > many kids don't seem to realize. > > I think darkroom work is a lot closer to the art and craft of > photography than computer manipulation. > This is just my opinion, feel free to disagree, not that I care what > anyone thinks. > > B&W darkroom work does not involve handling any especially dangerous > chemistry. > > William Robb annsan adds... And if you use vinegar in water for a stop bath it is even less so :)
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Bill, I agree with you, in part because of your comment about life beyond the computer, but more for being able to understand what makes a good photograph. I've said this before: too many people using cameras these days have never seen, much less made, a good, high-quality photograph. How the hell can we expect them to know how to produce one for the computer if they don't know what one is. Not only will darkroom work be helpful (with a good teacher) but visiting a few exhibitions showing excellent prints would be in order as well. As an example, I'd like to mention that someone on this list (who, for the moment, shall remain nameless) saw a B&W I made by converting a color scan in PS using just the greyscal converter. She thought it was quite good ... until she saw the same photo given a more complete treatment, adjusting greys to better reflect their original colors, adjusting contrast, and so forth. Her comment was that she thought the simple greyscale conversion was quite good until she saw the second one. It's clear that she'd never seen a decent B&W silver print before, yet she was trying to do B&W work for her clients. Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/26/2004 6:13:30 AM > Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > > - Original Message - > From: "Kevin Waterson" > Subject: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > > > > > If you have any reasons why > > children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love > > to hear them and pass them on. > > > > > It teaches them that there is life beyond the computer screen, which > many kids don't seem to realize. > > I think darkroom work is a lot closer to the art and craft of > photography than computer manipulation. > This is just my opinion, feel free to disagree, not that I care what > anyone thinks. > > B&W darkroom work does not involve handling any especially dangerous > chemistry. > > William Robb >
RE: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Kevin Waterson" > > > If you have any reasons why > > children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love > > to hear them and pass them on. > > > > > It teaches them that there is life beyond the computer screen, which > many kids don't seem to realize. True. The younger folk should be doing things or out and about. A very useful skill that would make them appreciate what happens after the picture is taken and have fun learning. Ideal for the short Winter evenings when they can't go out in the forest or garden too. Malcolm I like computers and televisions; we get the forest all to ourselves, while every one else is sat in front of a screen.
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
It depends on what experience you want to provide. List the benefits of each and you will find good reasons for both. Collin --- 'Tautology is' Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" Subject: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > If you have any reasons why > children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love > to hear them and pass them on. > > It teaches them that there is life beyond the computer screen, which many kids don't seem to realize. I think darkroom work is a lot closer to the art and craft of photography than computer manipulation. This is just my opinion, feel free to disagree, not that I care what anyone thinks. B&W darkroom work does not involve handling any especially dangerous chemistry. William Robb
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I think there really is no need to make children familiar with computers any longer... In general, they spend too much time in front of a screen already. In that sense EVERYTHING that offers a hands-on experience rather than a virtual one is positive. So if it is possible to explain a subject *without* using a computer I would always vote for that. The children *I* know will transfer and use the knowledge they have gained to computers anyway. Also, there is the thing with *understanding* a subject rather than knowing how to use a tool. With some effort in teaching optics and chemics you can come close to give a 14 year old a good understanding of *why* there is an image developing on that paper in that soup... I doubt the same level of understanding is possible with a computer or a bubble jet printer. They may be very skilled in using these and still don't have a clue... Sven ... > > > On May 25, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: > > > My childrens school is to be offering photography as > > a subject. I have talked to the principle about this > > and he is very keen about an all digital photo lab > > type set up. > > > > He stated that with a darkroom there was could be problems > > with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) with the use of > > chemicals and children with asthma. Also as the world was > > going digital this would be a real world solution. The > > school is well equipped with computers, so there would be > > no need to build another (dark)room for processing. Added > > to this there is no cost of film. > > > > He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling > > arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why > > children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love > > to hear them and pass them on. > > > > Kind regards > > Kevin > > > > -- > > __ > > (_ \ > > _) ) > > | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) > > | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / > > |_| \) \_||_| \) \) > > Kevin Waterson > > Port Macquarie, Australia > > > >
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
The real advantage to a traditional photography education lies in learning about light and exposure. This of course is best accomplished with a manual camera. Darkroom education helps extend the learning process by showing how technique leads to results. Of course the principal is correct in his belief that these skills will soon be useless in the real world for anyone who wants to take photography beyond the hobby stage. Of course digital photography involves the same rules of light and exposure, but I'm sure the students will be using point and shoot digital cameras. I don't know how much control these cameras offer. Perhaps some of the most important knowledge can still be communicated by implementing exercises that call for varied depth of field, backlighting, etc. The ideal solution would be to equip them all with *istDs and K series lenses. That would be like giving them the K1000 of the digital world. As far as digital darkroom skills are concerned, I'm sure this can be a great learning experience. But they should take things beyond the computer screen and make some inkjet prints. I think I'd have to vote for digital in a close call. Paul On May 25, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: My childrens school is to be offering photography as a subject. I have talked to the principle about this and he is very keen about an all digital photo lab type set up. He stated that with a darkroom there was could be problems with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) with the use of chemicals and children with asthma. Also as the world was going digital this would be a real world solution. The school is well equipped with computers, so there would be no need to build another (dark)room for processing. Added to this there is no cost of film. He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love to hear them and pass them on. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
Hi Kevin.I'll throw my 2c in here. Here in my area of Canada,Grade 9 high school students have the opportunity to take photography,using manual cameras,B&W film and conventional darkroom techniques.However digital is also offered at a later stage. I think its a good idea to take something like this.I myself resently did 3 darkroom classes to get back to basics and expand my knowledge.Students should be aware of the older more traditional ways which i think can be utilized in digital,having studied light,exposures contrast etc in the darkroom. You need to learn how to skate before you can play hockey,sort of thing(sorry,we relate just about everything to hockey here.lol) Also i tend to find the digital darkroom frustrating at times,were as i have better luck and less stress in the darkroom.Its more fun i think. I can understand the health and insurance problems,but i'm to old to worry about that now. If funds are available,i think it should be offered side by each with digital. Good luck Dave Brooks > > He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling > arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why > children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love > to hear them and pass them on. > > Kind regards > Kevin
