Digital BW, The Print

John,

I am not sure I can agree that we have no scientist/philosopher/artists with
us today. Eliot Porter leaps to mind as a modern scientist/artist. However,
I think you have largely hit the nail on the head regarding this thread.

I personally believe that it is theoretically possible to scan a piece of
color film, positive or negative, and manipulate the scan so that tonally
and texturally it would be taken for a shot made with Tri-X developed in
some specific manner. The science and technology is there if someone wants
to do it. Intuitively my response is why bother. If you like the Tri-X look,
then shoot Tri-X and scan it.

I realize that there is a time value to shooting slides or color film and
having them commercially processed but if you really want a certain look
that can be obtained directly, then my feeling is that you should pursue
that route. If you are not strongly wedded to that look, then by all means
experiment and try different workflows to find what satisfies you.

Clayton's question is pertinent in trying to decide on whether to jump to
digital capture or not. I think the same reasoning applies. If you really
like the look of a certain film and process, it would seem better to stick
with what you know and do best. Look at digital in this case as an expansion
of your tools not necessarily a replacement.

So for me the whole long thread over whether you can or you can't do the
conversion, doesn't seem of great practical importance to the issue of
making a fine "Tri-X" print.

Sometimes it is of value to look at the science or detailed technology and
theory of what is going on to improve our understanding of the process. I am
not sure that is the case here.

Overall the "old pros" need to be tolerant of the new comers' questions and
concerns even if they have heard it a thousand times before and the new
comers' need to be tolerant of the more experienced members' need to discuss
things at length and in technical detail.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John/Julie Gittins" <jgittins2@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons


> donbga wrote (snip):
> "Who cares what the physical properties of these materials
> are from a practical point of view".
>
> and  Peter Nelson replied  (snip) :
> "I (am)struck by a lack of deep-down technical curiosity
> about the underlying chemical and physical processes involved
> in inkjet printing (among inkjet printers)".
>
> In simpler times, some (like DaVinci) wore both the 'major artist'
> and the 'major scientist' coats, but it hasn't been done in modern
> times (since Goethe). Artists today make images, not scientific
> explanations; (the converse limitation is true for scientists).
> An image-maker's goal is to produce the deepest and richest image
> he/she can, and to do this he/she uses whatever means are at hand
> and deemed suitable. As Don (dongba) says, "from a practical point
> of view, who cares".
>
> Peter, your analysis/contention here seems superficial. Show me
> a major photographer who understands his/her physical materials
> in the same way a chemist or physicist does -- you can't.
> A number of the best (chemical process) printers (e.g. P. Strand,
> P. Caponigro, A. Stieglitz), who had/have a deep intuitive grasp
> of how to use their materials, have made clear that they
> do not employ a truly scientific understanding of the stuff they
> work with -- and source material on this point is available, and you
> could check it out. Further, painters and sculptors are just like
photographers: they use what's at hand and what they consider
> suitable, just like Don says; they care about how their image works,
> and they don't rely on formal scientific understanding to do this.
>
> Curiosity takes more shapes than you are allowing for. You need
> to escape from your personal presumptions and look at what the major
> practioners actually do.
>
> And from my standpoint, I'll join the others who've said "Enough
> already" to the extended discussion of the physics of 'digital,
> film, and scanning'. It's not really germane to making deep and
> rich printed images.
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Peter Nelson
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:19 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons
>
>
>   --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "donbga"
>
>   > Who cares what the physical properties of these materials
>   > are from a practical point of view.
>
>   I had a practical need for that information a few months ago here,
>   when I wanted to know more about the chemical and physical
>   properties of inkjet paper and inks so I could formulate an inkjet
>   receptive surface on true artist's canvas. (you can't paint
>   on "inkjet canvas 'paper'")
>
>   My comment was about the cultural difference between the two
>   groups.  I was struck by a lack of deep-down technical curiosity
>   about the underlying chemical and physical processes involved in
>   inkjet printing.   Granted the majority  of darkroom printers don't
>   have it eaither, but a significant minority do.  Any active darkroom
>   forum will have a few people who can asnwer questions about
>   developer chemistry, for instance, but inkjet forums seldom have
>   anyone who knows anything about inkjet chemistry.
>
>
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>   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
>
>   If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
>   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]
>
>
>
> 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>