Nikon D2X: Dave Black's Indoor Sports Photography Workshop

Dag wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:33:25 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

Matt Clara wrote:

Fine. And so, a fine art digital image can be fine art photography period if
they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as its been
100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.


A digital image will probably not be fine art for a long time to come.
A print made from an image captured with a digital camera could probably
be fine art, but not the digital image itself. Much in the same way a
negative is rarely sold as fine art.

Yes. It is the print in the gallery that counts, not the camera, the
film or the CD-ROM.


I know it seem like a subtle distingtion, but it's one that most people
miss and one that annoys me. When people are talking digital vs. film
they are often really talking about inkjet printers vs darkrooms or
sensors vs scanners or something similar. Most people don't shoot
digital because they need data to fill their harddrives with much like
people don't shoot film simply because they want to fill a shoebox with
negatives.


Yep.

One current issue with digital workflow, is that current printing, using
normal inkjet type printers, cannot create the hard blacks that are
essential to some fine art B&W work. The prints don't have that high
contrast 'flavour' where it's needed. So the B&W print from the
darkroom is favoured.

This is both a valid point and a false flag.

It's valid only if the measure is "must resemble a darkroom B&W print."

It's a false flag from an art POV. Art uses a wide array of media to
express an idea, and can't do more or less than the media. A fine art
photographer who intends to print on an inkjet, should do his art
according the capabilities and limitations of the media in use. If he
really needs those hard blacks, then use film and the darkroom and the
right papers and so on. If he doesn't then he should be happy with digital.

As printers improve and come down in price, there will be more and more
B&W fine art digital origin prints that are not distinguishable from a
darkroom print except by very close examination.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article ,
says...
As printers improve and come down in price, there will be more and more
B&W fine art digital origin prints that are not distinguishable from a

Speaking of which, I keep forgetting to order some 8x10s from that place
that develops B&W resin-coated paper on the lightjet.

One of these days!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
As printers improve and come down in price, there will be more and more
B&W fine art digital origin prints that are not distinguishable from a

Speaking of which, I keep forgetting to order some 8x10s from that place
that develops B&W resin-coated paper on the lightjet.

One of these days!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:33:25 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Matt Clara wrote:

Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or just adding
some comments of your own.

I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting) that "fine
art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.]

It certainly is the current medium of choice, but with digital cameras getting
better, printers, papers and inks getting better and the software in between
getting better, I don't believe that the fine-art-photos-are-from-film argument
holds anymore.

I'm not Matt, but I don't think he said what you think he said. He
ridiculed the notion that having a D2x would allow the author of the
review to enter the fine art print gallery market with confidence.
It's a notion well worth ridiculing, not because one cannot produce
gallery-worthy images with the D2x (one probably can), but rather
because it's silly to think that such a machine is a necessary
prerequisite for entering that market.

I've seen images in galleries that were produced with fairly
inexpensive 35mm film cameras. For that matter, I've seen great
images produced with $15.00 Holgas. The D2x is undoubtedly a
wonderful camera, but it won't turn you into a great photographer,
whose work is worthy of being hung in a gallery. I mean, it's just
goofy to say "now I have a D2x; I feel confident entering the fine art
gallery market!" If his work wasn't good enough before, with whatever
camera he was using, it probably won't be good enough with his new
D2x. Maybe it's well worth purchasing, but if you cannot produce good
enough images with an N80, you probably can't produce good enough
images with a D2x.
--

Pete McCutchen