|
While I agree that digital solutions can be a near-par substitute for most traditional darkroom techniques, I have a significantly different view when it comes to some of the more advanced methods...
Certainly if all images are scanned and displayed on a computer screen, they will be on a level playing field, but if you have ever seen a selenium toned print on fibre based paper by Ansel Adams for instance, you will see what I mean.
I suppose, in equivalent terms, you could liken the difference to viewing a DaVinci painting in real life vs. an imitation, or reproduction, digital or not... the life of the image is truly lost... the brush strokes, the subtly of texture from the layers of paint, the rough hewn properties of the canvas, and so on..
The same can be said from great prints from darkroom masters... much is lost in the translation to digital media... unfortunately for most of us... we seldom see these great works and begin to accept the much less impressive digital results as an advancement or improvement, likely because it is all we know.
Although Ansel Adams is not the most outstanding photographer in my mind, he was by far the greatest darkroom master... A status I am sure will remain unchallenged in light of our rapid transition into digital imaging. It will become a lost art...
For those who truly enjoy black and white photography, you owe it to yourself to see at least one exhibit of a great photographers work (non-digital of course)... then decide if you think digital is a replacement for the darkroom, or an alternative method that sacrifices true quality for efficiency.
Don't get me wrong, I am not down on digital because I know that for the majority of practical purposes it is more than adequate and should readily be accepted as an art form all to itself... I just have a great love and a humble regard for the work done by master photographers in darkrooms long since dismantled.
Sorry... my 2cents.
Mike.
|