• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Is digital photography a left-brain pursuit? – Conclusion

Is digital photography a left-brain pursuit? – Conclusion

November 18, 2011 JimK 2 Comments

The biggest differences between chemical and digital photography occur after the image is captured.

I found it instructive to go through the exhaustive – and exhausting – details of the chemical and digital photographic processes in the previous posts.  Going through the exercise of writing and reviewing the descriptions leads me to the following conclusions:

  • Chemical darkroom work is more of a physical, kinesthetic activity than the analogous operations in digital photography. This provides opportunity for right brain dominated actions that approach dance in character when performing traditional photography. There are a few activities where grace and dance-like movements make sense, such as dodging and burning, and where they’re just silly, like inserting the paper into the printer. There are many more opportunities for the former in chemical photography.
  • Chemical photography requires more (left brain) analysis and planning, because the results of actions are not immediately apparent, and complex sequences of actions need to be performed precisely in order for the desired result to occur.
  • Digital photography encourages a (right brain) sense of play and experimentation, because it is so easy to try things (it’s no accident that photographers referred to individual operations in Photoshop as “moves”), see the result instantaneously, then try something else.
  • The complexity of complicated operations such as contrast reduction masking, making and using sharpening masks, creating masks that provide local control of paper grade, correcting for color casts introduced by dodging a burning in type C printing serve to keep the large majority of chemical photographers from using these operations. The analogous operations in digital photography are easier to perform, and their effects are immediately observable, which leads to widespread use.
  • The fact that it takes half an hour or more of uncreative, repetitive work to get back to where you were with a negative in a previous darkroom session provides a disincentive to making small changes in printing that you realize are desirable only after having the work on your wall for a while. Digital photography encourages small changes, since they feel more like play than work; this can be a problem for some people, who have a hard time declaring that a work is actually completed.
  • The fact that it takes so much work to get a print of a particular negative where you want it encourages the production of many identical copies of the print. Once those copies are in your flat file, their presence serves as a disincentive to going back in the darkroom and making a print with some small changes, since that means you’re going to have to throw away all the work you’ve already created. With digital photography, producing identical prints months or years apart is routine and easy (subject to the continued availability of the old inks and paper).
  • The isolation of darkroom photography provides, for some people, an opportunity to enter a meditative state in which left brain activity can be somewhat suppressed. Some digital photographers work in dark rooms (as opposed to darkrooms) with the door closed and web and e-mail clients minimzed; that provides equivalent isolation. While isolation for the digital photographer is optional, the isolation of the darkroom is enforced; the only practical way to partially break it is to have a radio or music player running in the background.

Overall, both digital and chemical photography provide different opportunities for right and left brain activity. I can’t see that either method of practicing photography favors either way of thinking.

 

The Last Word

← Is digital photography a left-brain pursuit? — part 7 The times they are a-changing →

Comments

  1. Chuck Kimmerle says

    November 28, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    The only reasonable outcome.

    Reply
  2. Jim says

    November 28, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Well, I have to admit that it was the outcome that I expected. However, I didn’t set up this straw man just so I could tear it apart. There really are people who believe that it uses different parts of your brain to do digital and chemical photography. As far as I know, none of these people are digital practitioners.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.