RE: benefit of digital camera

From: Jim Collum ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/13/04-05:13:56 PM Z
Message-id: <>

Well.. the 9 frames is only in extreme light. Most of my images are in
overcast/soft light, so 3 frames that are easily assembled is what I
typically do.


Well most of the idea on how something 'must' look is my own doing. Can
sometimes be a bit obsessive (otherwise, I'd probably be using a
disposable camera and walmart ) :^)





-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Greant []
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: benefit of digital camera


        , I have 9 separate frames that I need to work with (
tilt/shift's left/middle/right frames, then a shadow, midtone, highlight
exposure for each one). I'm finding that I'm enjoying a lot more freedom
with the digital camera, and it's resulted in many more keepers. But
even with all that work, I still find I spend less time with the digital
darkroom getting my final image, than I did in my chemical darkroom
(contrast/color masking was always a pain, and separation negatives even
more so)

It's pretty amazing to see the different methods that each person
chooses to work in.

I have images that I'm working on that I'm fairly sure will make a
complete circuit by the time I'm done with them.. film capture, scan,
photoshop, digital output, rephotograph then enlarge the neg for

Where do these crazy ideas on how something *must* look come from

Sometimes I too want to go back to just one camera, one printing method
and live life a little simpler.



Do we make value judgements on the quality or legitimacy of an image
based on the format or medium that it's made with? Rhetorical question.
Is an 8X10 original of a mundane or mediocre image inherently more legit
than a 35mm original of a really inspired image? If the process is
simple is it less artistic than an arcane and labor intensive one?

questions, questions, questions....
Received on Tue Apr 13 17:13:49 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/14/04-02:14:31 PM Z CST