mercredi 18 octobre 2006

Random Image Shadow self-portrait 2... I was in two minds, whilst writing yesterday's weblog, over which "Shadow Self-portrait" to upload as the main image from my camera's storage card. I liked the above one best but uploaded the "complete" scene, showing some details of the room I was in, because it said more about where I was at the time... and it was a very strange summer! However, I keep looking at the cropped shots and know that I prefer them... because it is how I would print an image if working with conventional black-and-white materials in the darkroom. This is what I now miss doing, and not having one, but there is no going back for the next year or so... by which time traditional materials - film, chemistry, paper (not to mention enlargers, now that Durst have withdrawn from that sector) - may be increasingly scarce in photo shops and eventually only available on-line from specialist sources. Currently my digital exploits are simply for viewing on-screen (I have a Canon i9950 A3 printer which I don't use)... and if others like the ones I find interesting enough to upload here, so much the better... but there is something I simply cannot accept from digital ink-jet monochrome prints, and that is putting me off exploring the possibilities of "lightroom" work. As it happens a few days ago I received a press-pack from the UK Permajet distributor with two photographs printed digitally on their new Fibre Base Gloss and Fibre Base Warmtone papers announced at Photokina 2006. These are 295gsm weight acid-free materials, the Gloss with a stated D-Max of 2.6 using Epson's 4800 K Series Photo Black inkset, and claimed to be identical to that of Agfa Record Rapid, for decades a superb fibre-based paper loved by many fine-printers throughout the world, but sadly no longer available. It's hard to describe something that doesn't feel quite right when you're not able to pinpoint it artistically or technically... it feels as if one is simply refusing to accept change - but against the light the paper's surface appeared to be marked (well, digital photographs are printed in sweeps across the surface and then spat out on rollers!). And then I noticed that lines, like the finest of grooves on a vinyl record, were visible on the image area, and the print borders were slightly mottled, almost as if the surface was slightly waxy and had not dried properly. And of course there was no sharp grain visible under a loupe... simply fuzzy continuous tone. Ah-ha... that is probably what I don't like about digital monochrome prints. At normal viewing distance the two samples, a portrait and a landscape, looked very good - the tonal range, from paper base white through to deep black was excellent... but they still felt like the proof prints I would make in the darkroom before pulling out all the stops, and printing with feeling, on the proper version destined for framing for an exhibition or a private sale. Also, they were perfect in appearance... by which I mean there were no crinkles, slightly wavy edges, thumbed or split corners where the liquid chemistry had permeated... they couldn't have been made by hand in a darkroom tray... they were machine made, they looked it, they felt it, and I didn't like them... so maybe my dislike of digital is the lack of tangibility! The Leica expert, Irwin Puts, alludes to this in a recent article "High Quality Photography" with statements including, "The transition from chemical (film-based) photography to digital imaging is a fact. We [refering to traditional photographers and printers] may deplore this phenomenon, but progress cannot be halted. The technical quality and impact of photographs is still superior to the results that can be generated from the digital process. But the margins are thin and are nullified by the convenience and real-time experiences of the digital way of making pictures." And further into the article, "The choice for film-based B&W photography is nowadays a deliberate choice for an enchanting medium, a certain style of work and a cultivated approach to picture taking. You go for analogue photography because you like the technique and the results. The endless and useless comparison to digital imagery should be evaded. It is a medium in itself and with a certain philosophy. 'Picture taking' has a very different connotation than 'image making' and these words indicate in a nutshell the difference in approach." Maybe I should shut-up and start "image making" with more enthusiasm... using the knowledge and skills I have acquired from many years of "picture taking," darkroom printing (and selling) to lift my images above the level of the ordinary. In the end it's all about how one "sees" and not what equipment one is using, or may eventually be forced to use. 11:26:56 AM    comment []