From   Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:13:53 -0800 remote from
fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:13:53 -0800
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 157399984; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:13:51 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.62 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003040222155262589 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Thu, 03 Apr 2003 03:15:52 GMT
Received: (qmail 3492 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 03:12:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.74.36)
  by queue.atgi.net with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 03:12:54 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:13:42 -0800
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re: Advantages
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=====================_4671901==_.ALT"

--=====================_4671901==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I hope this message looks Ok. Your email messages, Bob, are coming in with 
real big letters and no quote marks or anything to divide the quotes from 
your original words --

At 08:09 PM 4/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Oh, about 35 cents? ! :)
>
>Cheap at half the price.

You bet, that's a lotta dough!

>
>You might talk about the computers ability vs the old darkroom chores.
>Already have, and we concluded that it worked out to six of one half dozen 
>of the other.  Each takes a lot of developed skill (pun alert). The same 
>type of person that would find the digital darkroom a snap would also have 
>no problems learning  the wet darkroom if he/she desired.
>
>I hope you don't take offense, but I don't agree here.

What's there to offend? I was talking about a mindset. I guess it's a level 
of enthusiasm, geared with a natural desire to learn the skill, and yes, 
there are other factors. I know that no matter how much I would love to 
have been a broadcasting engineer, my low math skills prevented me from 
ever getting beyond the basic license. I have no concept of numbers, and 
despite a couple of tutors and a remedial class, still cannot do fractions 
or decimals. I am incapable of understanding those things.

Despite that, I worked as a bank bookeeper for two years (adding machines) 
and my older son is a math wiz.

Photoshop, like a traditional darkroom, only requires that the user learn 
to the level it takes to complete the job at hand, in a manner satisfactory 
to the person. I'm sure there are very few people who can do everything 
that can be done in a darkroom, and it has been said that there is probably 
no one that can do everything Photoshop is capable of.

I can teach a person with basic computer skills the basics of Photoshop in 
an hour. In the darkroom,  can  teach someone how to develop a roll of 
black and white film, make a contact sheet and a basic print with minimal 
burning and dodging in about an hour. But as we all know, while photography 
is a skill that can be learned in an hour, it takes a lifetime to master it.

And all that is the easy part. You still have to have to fill the frame 
with something interesting!

>As far as ability of the two technologies, in most cases, whatever can be 
>done in Photoshop (for example) can be done i the darkroom. It just might 
>take longer and be more costly in terms of materials, etc. However, the 
>level of satisfaction of a job well done will be equal, (if not higher in 
>the case of the darkroom worker),  because their mind set is geared 
>towards the older, more expensive and time consuming process. The more 
>sweat, the more satisfaction.

>ESPecially here.  One sweats with software too...only without the 
>stink.  I've spent some time in the darkroom.  I've been happy with it, 
>and I've been disgusted with it.

Same here. I have had session after session in the darkroom, maybe a few 
hours each time, and come out with a stack of -- garbage! Same with the 
digital darkroom. Work until I am the poster boy fro carpal tunnel, make a 
print, look at it, toss it, and stare out the window for a while. Or go for 
a walk. Or go for a drive. Or go for a cappuccino (this is the Northwest 
after all :)


>I do love many of the older photographic processes that simply cannot be 
>duplicated (with any depth) by the computer.
>Such as.

Well, beyond (at this point), black and white prints,  the old processes 
too, tintypes, ambrotypes, daguerreotypes and so on. I would love to set up 
a wet plate darkroom and travel with a horse pulled wagon shooting old 
timers in the out back of America. Lot's of depth, lots of soul.

I have made digital images that every bit as good, if not better in many 
ways then those I would have made traditionally, but they really lack that 
intangible thing, the whatever it is that gives them voice. They were made 
with clean hands.

Not to say the entire digital world is without soul or ??? Check the book, 
The Architect's Brother , by Robert Parke Harrison (said to be a pseudonym 
for a husband/wife team). The work is absolutely mind blowing. How did they 
do it? What is the paper they print on? Look for it at  Border's. Barnes & 
Noble might have it, but I have noticed they have cut back on their 
photography inventory.

>A student put his love of darkroom over digital this way; "It's like vinyl 
>vs. CD, tubes vs. transistors.
>I can argue that too.  I'm a ham operator.  I have vinyl that hisses too. :)

He was speaking of the perceived superiority of vinyl over the digital 
CD's. No warmth. Dead.

>For myself, I dearly love the darkroom, and have produced many prints I am 
>happy with, but with digital, I have been able to so much more -- things I 
>do not have the darkroom skills, nor the spare time to learn to produce. 
>My darkroom skills are pretty basic, cropping, burning and dodging, and 
>knowing how to work contrast to achieve a goal. Even in Photoshop, I tend 
>to avoid many special effects, as for the most part, they don't enhance my 
>own vision, but  I admire those who have the imagination and talent to 
>rise above the cliche's and produce truly creative works. I embrace both 
>for what they can do - and for their limitations.


>Finally.  I was starting to worry about your software! :)  Even after a 
>few years, I'm Way too much of a beginner.  And Larry still won't tell me 
>how to get the darn grey background!

Offer him 35 cents!


>We don't know where technology will be in 10 years. Tonight, we watched 
>the Oliver Stone movie, Wall Street. There is a scene with Michael Douglas 
>talking into a 1987 cell phone. Remember how high tech those things were? 
>The phone weighed about 4-5 pounds, and was the size of a brick.  State of 
>the art! I recently saw one at a garage sale for a buck.
>
>Heh.  It is, on one hand, scary but on the other hand...so very exciting 
>and I probably won't be around to get to experience it.

Oh I hope you will be, but you are right. It is very exciting.

e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com
--=====================_4671901==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


I hope this message looks Ok. Your email messages, Bob, are coming in
with real big letters and no quote marks or anything to divide the quotes
from your original words --
At 08:09 PM 4/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
 
Oh, about 35 cents? ! :)
Cheap at half the price.
You bet, that's a lotta dough!
 
You might talk about the computers ability vs the old darkroom
chores.
Already have, and we concluded that it worked out to six of one half
dozen of the other.  Each takes a lot of developed skill (pun
alert). The same type of person that would find the digital darkroom a
snap would also have no problems learning  the wet darkroom if
he/she desired.
 
I hope you don't take offense, but I don't agree here. 

What's there to offend? I was talking about a mindset. I guess it's a
level of enthusiasm, geared with a natural desire to learn the skill, and
yes, there are other factors. I know that no matter how much I would love
to have been a broadcasting engineer, my low math skills prevented me
from ever getting beyond the basic license. I have no concept of numbers,
and despite a couple of tutors and a remedial class, still cannot do
fractions or decimals. I am incapable of understanding those things.

Despite that, I worked as a bank bookeeper for two years (adding
machines) and my older son is a math wiz. 
Photoshop, like a traditional darkroom, only requires that the user learn
to the level it takes to complete the job at hand, in a manner
satisfactory to the person. I'm sure there are very few people who can do
everything that can be done in a darkroom, and it has been said
that there is probably no one that can do everything Photoshop is capable
of. 
I can teach a person with basic computer skills the basics of Photoshop
in an hour. In the darkroom,  can  teach someone how to develop
a roll of black and white film, make a contact sheet and a basic print
with minimal burning and dodging in about an hour. But as we all know,
while photography is a skill that can be learned in an hour, it takes a
lifetime to master it.
And all that is the easy part. You still have to have to fill the frame
with something interesting! 
As far as ability of the two
technologies, in most cases, whatever can be done in Photoshop (for
example) can be done i the darkroom. It just might take longer and be
more costly in terms of materials, etc. However, the level of
satisfaction of a job well done will be equal, (if not higher in the case
of the darkroom worker),  because their mind set is geared towards
the older, more expensive and time consuming process. The more sweat, the
more satisfaction.
ESPecially here.  One sweats
with software too...only without the stink.  I've spent some time in
the darkroom.  I've been happy with it, and I've been disgusted with
it.
Same here. I have had session after session in the darkroom, maybe a few
hours each time, and come out with a stack of -- garbage! Same with the
digital darkroom. Work until I am the poster boy fro carpal tunnel, make
a print, look at it, toss it, and stare out the window for a while. Or go
for a walk. Or go for a drive. Or go for a cappuccino (this is the
Northwest after all :) 

I do love many of the older
photographic processes that simply cannot be duplicated (with any depth)
by the computer.   
Such as.
Well, beyond (at this point), black and white prints,  the old
processes too, tintypes, ambrotypes, daguerreotypes and so on. I would
love to set up a wet plate darkroom and travel with a horse pulled wagon
shooting old timers in the out back of America. Lot's of depth, lots of
soul.
I have made digital images that every bit as good, if not better in many
ways then those I would have made traditionally, but they really lack
that intangible thing, the whatever it is that gives them voice. They
were made with clean hands. 
Not to say the entire digital world is without soul or ??? Check the
book, The Architect's Brother , by Robert Parke Harrison (said to be a
pseudonym for a husband/wife team). The work is absolutely mind blowing.
How did they do it? What is the paper they print on? Look for it at 
Border's. Barnes & Noble might have it, but I have noticed they have
cut back on their photography inventory. 
A student put his love of darkroom
over digital this way; "It's like vinyl vs. CD, tubes vs.
transistors.
I can argue that too.  I'm a ham operator.  I have vinyl that
hisses too. :)
He was speaking of the perceived superiority of vinyl over the digital
CD's. No warmth. Dead.
For myself, I dearly love the
darkroom, and have produced many prints I am happy with, but with
digital, I have been able to so much more -- things I do not have the
darkroom skills, nor the spare time to learn to produce. My darkroom
skills are pretty basic, cropping, burning and dodging, and knowing how
to work contrast to achieve a goal. Even in Photoshop, I tend to avoid
many special effects, as for the most part, they don't enhance my own
vision, but  I admire those who have the imagination and talent to
rise above the cliche's and produce truly creative works. I embrace both
for what they can do - and for their limitations.

Finally.  I was starting to
worry about your software! :)  Even after a few years, I'm Way too
much of a beginner.  And Larry still won't tell me how to get the
darn grey background!
Offer him 35 cents! 

We don't know where technology will
be in 10 years. Tonight, we watched the Oliver Stone movie, Wall Street.
There is a scene with Michael Douglas talking into a 1987 cell phone.
Remember how high tech those things were? The phone weighed about 4-5
pounds, and was the size of a brick.  State of the art! I recently
saw one at a garage sale for a buck. 
Heh.  It is, on one hand, scary but on the other hand...so very
exciting and I probably won't be around to get to experience
it.
Oh I hope you will be, but you are right. It is very exciting. 


e-mail: clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com/"
eudora="autourl">http://www.clcookphoto.com;

--=====================_4671901==_.ALT--

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5