RE: [Leica] Re: The quintessence of Leica photography?

["M.E.Berube - GoodPhotos" <meb@goodphotos.com>]

It was written:
> > It is not simple. It is not "point and shoot." It requires 
> visualization and thought. It requires a
> > thorough knowledge of the processes involved. It requires work, which 
> is where many people give up.
>
>Just because one uses a scanner, PS and an inkjet does not mean one just
>"points and shoots".
>Everything else you said about 'visualizing', 'knowledge', 'learning',
>'technique' bla bla bla. all apply to any form of visual communication, and
>certainly to the post processing of film images, whether it be wet darkroom
>or scanning, PhotoShop and inkjet printing.

Gentlemen,

Digital Darkroom is to the "Craft of Photography" what CAD is to the "Craft 
of Illustration."
They are simply two different Crafts which tend to overlap in some 
characteristics.
They have different applications and each has it's own pros and cons.
Quality results are not possible (other than by chance) by anyone not 
dedicated to learning the skills that each discipline requires.

Personally, I want to see chemical darkroom work (and manually set 
photography in general) become rare. The prints from a chemical darkroom 
have a different look than those of a digital darkroom IMHO. As more and 
more folks move to solely digital media, the 'craft of traditional 
photography' (ala Adam's "The Negative, The Camera and The Print") becomes 
something that only those who have taken the time to learn the old darkroom 
ways will practice. There will always be some dedicated craftspersons even 
to the new digital processes such as you pioneer digital/chemical hybrid 
photographers who already exist here on LUG (the bastion of manual 
simplicity.) This dedication (to chemical or digital processes) will 
continue to be marketable as the average 'digitographer' resorts to total 
automation of their image making process. Total automation equals an 
averaging of all possible variables and therefore the average 
digitographers work will look like every other digitographers work. (Even 
more so than now. The theory here being people are lazy and will take the 
path to least resistance and effort. They will allow their digicams and 
printers to do the work to the status quo paradigms to get 'good' emailable 
snapshots.)

Comment overheard 2005 CE:
"Well did you hear the Jones' had their family portraits made by a 
photographer who actually used film and processed the prints in chemicals 
in her own darkroom! Of course it cost her twice as much to have them done 
on film and using chemicals, but it is such a quaint retro-procedure that 
it was worth every penny."

Keep your (Dektol) powder dry.
Michael E. Berube