An acquaintance who isn't into photography saw the bonfire photo (2nd one) I took and asked me what I meant by using PS to decrease the DOF. I explained the process to him and he mentioned that it almost seemed like "cheating" compared to what you do in a "real" darkroom. It wasn't a serious dig and I wasn't insulted (I actually never am for stuff like that anyway), but I took the opportunity to read to him a couple of paragraphs from one of the magazines I read. Thought you guys might find it interesting too. I read it to him as follows: "I asked Marcus if he could cite the most difficult printing challenge he'd had. 'Well, actually, it was one of my own photographs!' he replies. 'I took the picture at the Louvre in Paris with a compact camera - which was all I had with me at the time. It was very dark and I simply 'snapped' it.' The negative was dark and very flat so he did a basic print first and then rather than burn parts in, held parts back. He held back the window to make it look as though there is lighting coming through it, and held back the stairs and wall so it looks like there's light falling on them. None of the light is actually real." After hearing it, he said, "Exactly! With Photoshop, you guys can even create light in a photo where there isn't any!" I then let him know that the Marcus they are talking to is Marcus Doyle, a master photo printer from London and what those paragraphs described were all purely traditional darkroom techniques. Then I asked him to explain to me how PS is "cheating" and traditional techniques aren't. He couldn't. :) -=>Donald

Touche'........

Here here! I agree. The only thing I like about a traditional darkroom is the fun of it all. Quite frankly, the results are far more controlable and correctable in PS. For me, the issue is getting a print that doesn't look like something out of an inkjet.

Ansel Adams would have LOVED digital. A master technician, who would have used what ever tool he had at his disposal to create his pre-visualised image... You can do just about anything in the darkroom that you can do in Photoshop, it's just a serious pain in the azz.

I'm entering a local photo contest sponsored by the town I live in and the lab that develops my film. On the entry sheet it says......"Photos may not be computer enhanced"....I can't adjust levels? I can't fiddle with the curves? I can't run it thru unsharp mask?...which btw can also be done in a traditional dark room. The image must be 8X10 in size and matted.....and Oh! Lookee here you can get 10% off the price of enlargements from the lab who is sponsering it if you mention the contest.... Does anyone else smell a conspiracy here????

how PS is "cheating" and traditional techniques aren't Both are cheating. So what? >......"Photos may not be computer enhanced".... Does this lab offer prints from digital media, or do they strictly work with film? If the image has ever been digital, (including those scan it yourself printers at Jiffy-Mart), then it has been enhanced in some way. Best guess is the lab helped sponser the contest in order to promote appreciation of traditional craftsmanship, (and try to stay alive for a couple more years). All the enhancements mentioned can be done in a traditional darkroom, but that kind of speciality work is VERY expensive. Sounds like a good opportunity for someone familiar with photoshop enhancing to help this lab modernize.

Actually Misha, they do do digital work as well as the tradional stuff. I'm going there today to pick up my b&w negs, so I AM going to ask what they mean by "enhanced".

So I guess it's okay if you go into the darkroom and modify the heck out of a photo by compositing a half dozen negatives into one image while using all kinds of masks and dodgers. And then you bleach it and tone it and use some dyes or inks on it and that's all ok, but you better not set your black and white points on a digital image. Makes you want to wear a t-shirt that simly says "HUH?" across the front. :) -=>Donald

Well I asked "Does that mean no adjustments at all?" and I got a very curt reply "No, nothing at all." ......so there ya go... I may not be able to enter since most of my images, and they must be taken in the town of Richmond were taken on a digital camera. I have very little that is on film or slide since, I used heavily almost strictly digital for a solid year before my camera fell and the lens broke, and I started giving my SLR a good work out. The stuff that I do have on traditional media, I feel isn't up to par without a tweak here or there so....ughh...screw 'em. I'll have one of those t-shirts in a size small Donald.

Too bad, 'Chelle. It's their contest, so they can set the rules. I guess there is nothing wrong with the notion of limiting to traditional media. But in the long run they are really choking off their business. Without computer "enhancements" I would just be making occasional snapshots, and taking them to Jiffy-Mart, rather than taking my film to a pro lab, and buying prints from professional large format printers. I do have friends though that accuse me of not making photographs anymore because I spend so much time with the computer. I've stoped arguing with them. (Since we've been careful not to mention your lab by name) maybe someone should discretely pass them the URL to this thread... It would be interesting seeing some "before" and "after" enhancement examples here. Using either computer or wet darkroom. ...Actually, I've still been accused of just making snapshots... At least I've not been posting ducks... ;-)

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=917283