Digital darkroom

In article , Stacey
wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:

In article , Stacey
wrote:

Isn't that true of everything today? Almost every field seems to be
bowing to convenience and speed over quality, even in people's hobbies!

I recently read almost exactly the same sentence in a book written in
the mid-1830s.

And it's been going on for at least that long.

Since before the Pharaohs, easily.

We were talking in another
forum about when was the last time anyone hand made furniture?

Today, surely. A friend of mine, recently retired, has been handmaking
fine furniture for a couple decades.

Now instead
of finely mortised joints (even machine cut ones), it's glue and a
pneumatic nail gun.

There's that, too; but the good stuff is still being made, as good as
any in the past. 'tain't cheap, but it never was.

Look at the houses built today vs houses 50-100 years
ago and you can see quality isn't important, it's just: if what's on the
surface is passable, without looking too closely, and it can be done
quickly and with little effort.

And yet, very high quality work is still being done. There are still
people willing and able to pay for it, if not many.

Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is dreck") applies to just about
every imaginable field.

The reason why it looks as if craftsmanship and attention to detail was
the order of the day a century ago is because the much more common
cheap-and-nasty has all crumbled away or otherwise been discarded.

The same is true in photography; whether practiced in the 1930s, 1950s,
1980s, or last week.

Steve Hix wrote:



The reason why it looks as if craftsmanship and attention to detail was
the order of the day a century ago is because the much more common
cheap-and-nasty has all crumbled away or otherwise been discarded.


True but the decline is in evidence IMHO. Even cheap houses 50 years ago
all had hardwood floors, now only the high end ones do. All bathrooms had
tile, now very few do. Anything like this that took time to do (and took
craftsmen) is gone in favor of fast and easy. My house is a cheap one from
the 50's and they did cut some corners here and there but for the most part
you won't find a house built like this today at it's "price point".

My point is today many people seem more willing to give up quality for
convinience no matter what field you're talking about but you are right
this is nothing new.
--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
And it's been going on for at least that long. We were talking in
another
forum about when was the last time anyone hand made furniture? Now
instead of finely mortised joints (even machine cut ones), it's glue
and
a pneumatic nail gun. Look at the houses built today vs houses 50-100
years ago and you can see quality isn't important, it's just: if what's
on the surface is passable, without looking too closely, and it can be
done quickly and with little effort.

Hurriedly made sloppy things -- whether furniture, photos, or anything
else -- lack a certain aesthetic appeal. Big deal; it's hardly the
profound observation you make it out to be.

Did I say it was profound?

Imagine if I wrote a whole paragraph on how wet water is. How profound would
you think I found it? :-)

It just seems people today are willing to accept
hurriedly made sloppy things and/or produce them themselves more so than
in
the past.

I don't want to argue this too stringently, as I agree at least a little
bit. It's too easy to stereotype and forget, though, that duct tape is a
product of a previous generation, and the phrase "jury-rig" predates every
one of us. Technology ever only increases and improves, never retrogrades,
contrary to the always fashionable whining hyperbole. "Making do" within the
limits of technology was always more confining in the past than it is in the
present. In other words, we are doing more things better and more easily
today than ever before in history. Including taking pictures and building
furniture. That some are unable or unwilling to exert a certain standard of
craftsmanship is a different matter. Even that, IMHO, is no different, no
better or worse, today than it was yesterday.

BTW isn't photography (especially as a hobby) supposed to be
about aesthetic appeal rather than how easily/fast I can produce something
of "acceptable" quality?

To get back on track, then... My experience is just the opposite of yours,
and it's the optical prints that are lacking. No matter who is making the
print, no matter how much they know, and how much time, material, and effort
they're willing to invest, they simply haven't the control I have over a
digital image. Try it sometime. Digital, I mean.

In article ,
"MikeWhy" wrote:

"Making do" within the
limits of technology was always more confining in the past than it is in the
present.

Accept now all raw materials, peoples billable time etc is drastically more
expensive,.....in many cases severly overpriced for the quality one receives.
That in and of its self is a limiting factor for us common folk, despite how
many great things there are in the world we have to do without.

Even that, IMHO, is no different, no
better or worse, today than it was yesterday.

Falling behind is the danger as everything else gains speed and eventually
just getting back to where one is becomes a much bigger problem.

BTW isn't photography (especially as a hobby) supposed to be
about aesthetic appeal rather than how easily/fast I can produce something
of "acceptable" quality?

To get back on track, then... My experience is just the opposite of yours,
and it's the optical prints that are lacking. No matter who is making the
print, no matter how much they know, and how much time, material, and effort
they're willing to invest, they simply haven't the control I have over a
digital image. Try it sometime. Digital, I mean.

In some ways digital prints afford more control and perhaps artistic choices
beyond simple printing, which is a true statement.
However in many ways they lack, by comparision to optical "handmade prints"
The last statement is found to be true especially when looking at B&W work.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

Recently, MikeWhy posted:

To get back on track, then... My experience is just the opposite of
yours, and it's the optical prints that are lacking. No matter who is
making the print, no matter how much they know, and how much time,
material, and effort they're willing to invest, they simply haven't
the control I have over a digital image. Try it sometime. Digital, I
mean.

We seem to be going in circles, and leaving out the critical element of
*the image*. OF COURSE *some* images will be enhanced by using digital
print technology -- especially Lightjet -type -- but this is due to both
the characteristics of that technology and the qualities of the image.
Other images will suffer from the high-contrast and lower tonality of
digital technology.

I've mentioned gradations of color (that others have called "tonality").
That has gotten mis-translated by the nay-sayers as dynamic range. For
images having subtle gradations, it's not the dMax (or the white-to-black
range), but the ability to represent a subtle gradation of a single color
that differentiates analog vs. digital print technologies. All one has to
do is A/B a print with these qualities using both technologies to see the
difference. Of course, if one uses high-contrast print media, then the
differences will be less obvious. Horses for courses... choose the medium
that best suits the image and application.

Neil

Steve Hix wrote:


The reason why it looks as if craftsmanship and attention to detail was
the order of the day a century ago is because the much more common
cheap-and-nasty has all crumbled away or otherwise been discarded.


Sure crap was made in the past. The difference is 100 years ago even crap
had to be made to last. People just couldn't replace stuff every six months
no matter how cheap. OTOH unless people want to bring back child labour and
everything else that the past represented I just can't see how anything will
change.

Nick

Steve Hix wrote:


The reason why it looks as if craftsmanship and attention to detail was
the order of the day a century ago is because the much more common
cheap-and-nasty has all crumbled away or otherwise been discarded.


Sure crap was made in the past. The difference is 100 years ago even crap
had to be made to last. People just couldn't replace stuff every six months
no matter how cheap. OTOH unless people want to bring back child labour and
everything else that the past represented I just can't see how anything will
change.

Nick

In article ,
Nick Zentena wrote:

OTOH unless people want to bring back child labour and
everything else that the past represented I just can't see how anything will
change.
Nick

That's a very strange equation, you have made child labor = quality merchandise.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

"Stacey" wrote:

My point is today many people seem more willing to give up quality for
convinience no matter what field you're talking about but you are right
this is nothing new.

Indeed, most crafts have within their discourse an escalating nuance which
has qualities less available to the consciousness of the uninformed, the
inexperienced, or the unconcerned. It is nature's way.

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
news
Fil Ament wrote:
[...]
No cheap quality merchandise. Who do you think did most of the grunt
work
that machines do now? It sure wasn't the master woodworker. It was some
kid.
The next time you look at an antique and wonder why they don't make it
like
that anymore. Think of the kid that dimensioned the rough lumber. The kid
in
the mine that dug up the metal for the hardware. Or the kid working in the
shop that made that hardware.

Or think of the kids who still do it in China, and third-world countries
today.