Hybrid process - cheating?

[Ian Grant]

I may have allowed myself a little leeway. I forget the exact error. It may have been inexpert taxidermy. It goes to show that even before Photoshop, people liked to win. A world before Photoshop? It would be like a world without wheels, or even fire.

Incidentally, today is Worldwide Pinhole Day. There's still time for half the world to enter.

Reminds me back in the late 1970's I had a job requiring an image of an Aardvark in its native landscape, the only image available was of a stuffed one from London Zoo, I montaged it into its natural landscape - way before Photoshop.

Of course a birds wings are it's vestigial front legs, they are descended from dinosaurs

Ian

 

[David M]

Here we are, on a forum about large format film work and someone has used the word dinosaur.

Let's remember that the dinosaurs were millions of years more successful than humans. Unfortunately, none of their photographs have survived the supposed impact.

[If you are interested, Harry Harrison's West of Eden attempts to describe what an evolved dinosaur society might look like.]

 

[Stephan]

My two cents on this is that the result is what counts. When we look at Picasso's Guernica are we interested in what kind of brushes he used? Would our view be different if we knew he used camel hair brushes? Does it make a difference if Joyce write with a black or a blue pen?
We, photographers, tend to tell the whole story, camera, lens, film and even more, in a way, irrelevant information. As if we try to excuse ourself for a not so good image because of the material. It makes no sense.

On the other hand I believe a (photo) journalist in every sense of the word, does not have the right to change what he saw in any way. He or she must stay objective.

It goes without saying that telling this or that shot was pure luck while you spent hours in the darkroom fiddling with several negatives to get it right is a lie and thus not ok.

I shoot film, develop and scan it. Then it becomes a part of my digital workflow. That too is not "pure" film photography. I don't mind and this hybrid workflow suits me.

 

[KenS]

You Honour, I too have to plead "guilty" to making many of my 'hard copy" prints from digitized
scans of my 4x5 negatives..... but there are significant numbers that feel I 'need to print' from an 'upsized' negative image from a 4x5 negative to 'about' 8x10 inches onto Pictorico for the 'alternative print processes'. It would be 'nice' if I could afford to make all my 'original' film negative exposures on larger than 4x5 inch film formats, but I'm quite happy to 'use the equipment I have' to make larger format negatives to meet my alternative (or archaic) print process needs, but only 'when and if' the original image was made on a film negative.

My print exposure times will now be 'easier' and more accurate, (ie.less 'screw-ups) now that I have invested in a UV illumination meter with a sensor that fits under the glass of my printing frame under the 'bank' of UV emitting fluorescent 'tubes.

Ken