As I see it (and I think many of us do), the "differences" between chemical
and digital darkrooms are largely the differences one should expect from one
medium to another. The biggest differences involve working methods. While
there are in fact differences in some of the outcome (e.g. prints), most
people *looking* at the pictures would be hard-pressed to see those
differences, certainly without a loupe. Whereas a photographic artist, who
is often concerned with every detail of his/her pictures, will of course be
more aware and more critical of even the subtle differences.
There is also considerably more lattitude for manipulation in a digital
darkroom. So much so that the days when photographic evidence is admitted
into court without *extremely reliable* documentation are probably numbered.
;-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "John C. Jernigan" <heritage-arts@att.net>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:55:49 -0500
>
>I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
>issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output can
>be
>obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems
>still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long
>as
>great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose
>the
>one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts?
>(I have been to Wilhelm's site -
>-
>but he seems to limit his studies to digital.)
>Thank,
>John J.
>
>Lynn Allen wrote:
>
> > I would defer to Tony. When I said "Different," I didn't mean to imply
>that
> > "Different" is either better or worse, because it's not. It is merely
>"Not
> > Exactly the Same." I have gotten far better pictures from scanning
> > underexposed Tri-X than I got in a conventional darkroom. By the same
>token,
> > I've gotten terrible scans from film that a Service had no problem with.
> > Most people learn to deal with these differences readily--but not
>without
> > some hard work.
> >
> > This list is a far better place to learn the information than the
>magazines,
> > I've found. We're doing it, and they're only writing about it. ;-)
> >
> > Best regards--LRA
> >
> > >From: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
> > >Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > >To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
> > >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:26 +0100 (BST)
> > >
> > >On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:46:03 +0800 youheng (youheng@public1.sz.js.cn)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Simply, will Digital output surpass the Conventional Chemical
> > > > Darkroom's?
> > >
> > >I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. It's
>just
> > >different, and different enough to be unable to say which is
>objectively
> > >better since what is at stake is your personal preference. All I would
>say
> > >is : be prepared for a long and steep learning curve, comparable with
> > >achieving the best from the chemical darkroom. Perfection by either
>route
> > >takes time and effort.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Tony Sleep
> > > - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
> > >info & comparisons
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
