Digital in context

 

The Road to Mount Melville

I thought I’d show the first print that got me thinking I should maybe stick with digital. It’s a country scene a mile or so from my home in St Andrews taken on the D700. Normally I’m hopeless with titles but I called this one The Road to Mount Melville and quite like that, Mount Melville being a well-to-do little hamlet half a mile along the road.


Had I shot this on film then I’d have been starting with a very low contrast neg that would have required grade 4 or 5 for a bit of oomph. I like photographing in the mist but I’m not keen on literal interpretations that reproduce those same low contrast misty conditions in the print.


It wasn’t difficult to boost the contrast to an appropriate degree in Photoshop and then carry out a number of other wee tweaks to bring a bit of life to what was a fairly bleak scene.


Of course, getting an image to look one way on a computer screen and the same way in an inkjet print is the tricky bit. It’s what put me off digital the first time around. Back then, it was harder getting nice, neutral black and white prints unless you really knew your onions and I lacked the necessary knowledge and skills.

The Road to Mount Melville showed me that it was possible to get convincing and satisfying prints from my old Epson 1400 set-up and at a cheaper cost than the film/darkroom route. In fact, it was working out cheap enough that the first three "proper" prints I made were done on A3 or A3+ paper.


This is a stitch of two Rolleiflex shots I took of Brouwersgracht, Amsterdam, when I was about 20. I couldn’t get both sides of the canal in the shot so I took this approach with a view to sticking two physical prints together. The Photoshop way was a lot easier.


Unlikely as it may seem, given the title of this blog, I was never a traditionalist when it came to digital. In fact, I was scanning negs back in the ‘90s and have been a Photoshop user since version 5 in 1998. I saw the potential straightaway although good digital cameras weren’t really affordable back then, hence the scanning.


My first digital camera was the Minolta A2 - which was highly recommended by the late Michael Reichmann - in 2004/05. I still have it and it’s a great wee camera. A Pentax K10D - another fine camera - followed in 2006 and the D700 another couple of years later. So, although I love film, my digital background probably extends back further than most current digital shooters.


What persuaded me to give up digital and go back to film was mainly to do with printing frustrations. I went through four or five inkjet printers searching for a good, neutral black and white print - and couldn’t find it on a consistent basis although I got a handful of nice prints at that time and a couple I really love.


The closest I came was using only the black ink to print grayscale images rather than the printer’s preference for attempting to make black and white by mixing all the colour inks together. The “black only” prints had a slight grittiness to them that looked a bit like 35mm Tri X printed in the darkroom, which was fine by me except that it didn’t suit every subject.


At the start of the year I thought I’d pick up a cheap secondhand Epson printer and have a go at something I’d long fancied - printing using two or more black cartridges for greyscale images. Two blacks, each with their own, different dither patterns, produce smoother prints than a single black doing all the work.


As it turns out, I’m using black, light magenta and yellow cartridges to produce prints that are not only neutral but have a sepia tone in the highlights which I can switch on and off at will. The light magenta neutralises the print and the sepia adds a little warmth to the lighter tones for a look that is a bit like Bill Schwab and Michael Kenna prints.



Old barn interior, Carnoustie. This was the third A3 print I made with the Epson.


To cut a long story short, I now feel that this is the first time in more than 40 years of taking photographs that I can visualise a picture at the taking stage and deliver the finished print that matches that vision. But I doubt I’ll be giving up film and darkroom work completely. I still have a lot of 35mm negatives that scanning doesn't do justice to so I’ll be making darkroom prints from them when I get the chance.


I've been wary of going on too much about the inkjet prints I'm getting to Phil of Fogblog infamy in case he ends up flying too close to the event horizon of the digital black hole and can't find his way back but he assures me that there's no danger of that, even though his Sony digital camera makes mine look antediluvian.


8 comments:

  1. First, I really want to thank you for blogging again… I checked almost daily and when there was nothing for months, it was very worrying that you had dropped the blog. Your words always make sense, and your photography is exceptional.

    50 years ago I started trying to make “serious” photography using my new Nikon F2s, purchased with my last paycheck out of the USAF. By 2004, I got the nickname label of “old school geezer”. A friend introduced me to digital and I got rolling. What a trip!

    Although I still own that F2, and an N90s, I am thoroughly digital and don’t plan to go back to film… except for the occasional nostalgic trip. Pictures are pictures, and ultimately film or digital, what matters is the end result. I think about how Stieglitz may have reacted if offered a technology improvement over his view camera. Something says to me that he was agnostic about tech of his day, as were the other “dead greats”… willing to experiment and try something new.

    Thanks again so much for sharing your ideas and work again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, thank you for the compliment, Anon. I think I'm going to end up just like you: mainly digital but with the odd roll of film. You're right that the greats probably weren't too hung up on gear - they used film because it was basically all they had. I've been as guilty as anyone else of romanticising about film and the darkroom but, at the end of the day, it's all just good, clean fun.

      Delete
  2. Good post Bruce. The Amsterdam photograph is my favourite. It’s got bags of atmosphere. I would be interested to hear how you manage to print so cheaply on an inkjet because that’s one of the things that has put me off going down the digital path. Please keep posting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks James. I could maybe go into more detail about printing in a post. I’m not sure how relevant it would be given that today’s printers produce excellent quality more or less out of the box - albeit at a high ink cost. My system was state-of-the-art a decade ago! But it does cost pennies to make prints so it might be of value to some people.

      Delete
  3. "But it does cost pennies to make prints so it might be of value to some people"
    please more detail in a future post, I think you have a new lease of life!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK. I’ll see what I can do. 😄

      Delete
  4. Bill Schwab and Michael Kenna, my two favourite photographers and printers.
    They make me wonder if I'd stuck to the same camera and process as I used through the 1970's and 80's to this day whether artistically (never mind financially) I might have been better off. It worked for them.
    I still have my original Nikon F and Rolleiflex, maybe I should ditch the rest...
    Your prints have a lovely look to them, perhaps you could post a bit more as to how you arrived at this look, both artistically and technically.
    Really nice to have you back, Mark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that, Mark. I tend to agree that, beyond a certain level, gear gets in the way. Finding a camera that works for you and sticking with it would have benefitted my photography as well. Don’t know if you’ve seen them but I enjoy Bill’s YouTube videos on his North Light Photographic Workshops channel. He now uses a Nikon D850 to produce digital negatives for alternative processes. Happy New Year to you, btw.

      Delete