The Way We Were
Posted by: prn
The Way We Were
Hurrah for digital!
Advance Notes: The room is small, silent, damp and without light. The interior air is heavy and laden with chemicals, some of which could cause early death. The person inside receives no visitors. It is isolation.
Have I described a 19th century prison cell or a 21st century photographer’s darkroom?
Those of us who have spent many hours in the agonizing yet captivating atmosphere of a photographic darkroom recognize the scene. We are compelled to witness --and direct-- the birth pangs of each of our graphic creations. Yet all of us know it is contrary to human nature to confine oneself to such isolation and environmental danger. Such is the allure of the muse.
This is serious stuff. We wonder how many present-day darkroom photographers are short-cutting their longevity by continuing to engage in this archaic working method. Are we subjecting ourselves to Alice-in-Wonderland dangers similar to those faced by the Mad Hatter? (A reflection of the hat makers of a couple of centuries ago, who used arsenic in the fashioning of their beaver skin hats and frequently were gradually poisoned as a result.)*
But patterns of habit, customs, and institutions fall hard.
To put this in perspective, if digital photography had been discovered first, and then film photography, would any of us have opted for the latter?
Today’s digital photography offers the promise of safe imaging.
Digital photography gives to all of us the luxurious shooting style of Henri Cartier-Bresson, the renowned French photographer of the mid-century. He never stepped into a darkroom. “No, I have never done my own printing,” he told Charlie Rose in an interview. “Why should I spend my time in a darkroom when I could be out shooting?”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“Have I described a 19th century prison cell
or a 21st century photographer’s darkroom?”
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most film photographers, because of the high cost of film and the processing delay, were conservative regards the number of pictures they shot. However, as Cartier-Bresson is famous for saying, “I want to capture the precise moment.” Such moments escaped the average photographer who was stingy with film.
Not so with digital photography. One shoots with a freedom to not only capture the “precise” moment, but to also self-educate and experiment. Digital “film” is cheap. We can examine the results immediately, and, if the situation allows, try again.
The world of digital photography is easy to enter. Medium-quality images, ease of processing , enhancing, and transmitting, are now available to the average photographer. Digital results are readily acceptable if your work is web-based, or for buyers who only expect to use the image quarter-page size. The cost for serviceable digital is well within the budget of most.
Yes, there’s a certain reverence we attach to analog pictures. In fact those black-and-white artifacts** are now becoming high-priced commodities at art auctions. So don’t dump those boxes of your grandfather’s pictures in the attic. His labor in the darkroom may result in some surprising monetary compensation.
- - - - - - - - - -
Rohn Engh, veteran stock photographer and publisher of “PhotoRESEARCHER Newsletter,” has provided on-line targeted information for photobuyers, photo researchers and editors for two decades. No other newsletter brings photobuyers such up-to-the minute information on how to find stock photos. For more info: 800 223-3860.
*A good reference book on the hazards in working with darkroom materials is “Artist Beware,” Michael McCann, PhD; Lyons & Burford Publishers; ISBN 1-55821-175-6.
**If you have, or are in touch with retired photographers who have, boxes of original B&W’s from the last century (not the negatives but the actual prints), give us a call and we will help find a collector or organization who may be interested in purchasing them. -RE
Hurrah for digital!
Advance Notes: The room is small, silent, damp and without light. The interior air is heavy and laden with chemicals, some of which could cause early death. The person inside receives no visitors. It is isolation.
Have I described a 19th century prison cell or a 21st century photographer’s darkroom?
Those of us who have spent many hours in the agonizing yet captivating atmosphere of a photographic darkroom recognize the scene. We are compelled to witness --and direct-- the birth pangs of each of our graphic creations. Yet all of us know it is contrary to human nature to confine oneself to such isolation and environmental danger. Such is the allure of the muse.
This is serious stuff. We wonder how many present-day darkroom photographers are short-cutting their longevity by continuing to engage in this archaic working method. Are we subjecting ourselves to Alice-in-Wonderland dangers similar to those faced by the Mad Hatter? (A reflection of the hat makers of a couple of centuries ago, who used arsenic in the fashioning of their beaver skin hats and frequently were gradually poisoned as a result.)*
But patterns of habit, customs, and institutions fall hard.
To put this in perspective, if digital photography had been discovered first, and then film photography, would any of us have opted for the latter?
Today’s digital photography offers the promise of safe imaging.
Digital photography gives to all of us the luxurious shooting style of Henri Cartier-Bresson, the renowned French photographer of the mid-century. He never stepped into a darkroom. “No, I have never done my own printing,” he told Charlie Rose in an interview. “Why should I spend my time in a darkroom when I could be out shooting?”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“Have I described a 19th century prison cell
or a 21st century photographer’s darkroom?”
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most film photographers, because of the high cost of film and the processing delay, were conservative regards the number of pictures they shot. However, as Cartier-Bresson is famous for saying, “I want to capture the precise moment.” Such moments escaped the average photographer who was stingy with film.
Not so with digital photography. One shoots with a freedom to not only capture the “precise” moment, but to also self-educate and experiment. Digital “film” is cheap. We can examine the results immediately, and, if the situation allows, try again.
The world of digital photography is easy to enter. Medium-quality images, ease of processing , enhancing, and transmitting, are now available to the average photographer. Digital results are readily acceptable if your work is web-based, or for buyers who only expect to use the image quarter-page size. The cost for serviceable digital is well within the budget of most.
Yes, there’s a certain reverence we attach to analog pictures. In fact those black-and-white artifacts** are now becoming high-priced commodities at art auctions. So don’t dump those boxes of your grandfather’s pictures in the attic. His labor in the darkroom may result in some surprising monetary compensation.
- - - - - - - - - -
Rohn Engh, veteran stock photographer and publisher of “PhotoRESEARCHER Newsletter,” has provided on-line targeted information for photobuyers, photo researchers and editors for two decades. No other newsletter brings photobuyers such up-to-the minute information on how to find stock photos. For more info: 800 223-3860.
*A good reference book on the hazards in working with darkroom materials is “Artist Beware,” Michael McCann, PhD; Lyons & Burford Publishers; ISBN 1-55821-175-6.
**If you have, or are in touch with retired photographers who have, boxes of original B&W’s from the last century (not the negatives but the actual prints), give us a call and we will help find a collector or organization who may be interested in purchasing them. -RE