Today’s image was originally captured back in the fall of 2010. Originally taken on Ilford XP2+ film, I added the toning and the vignetting in Aperture using the Silver Efex Pro plug-in. I am quite happy with how the image turned out, but since I’ve been doing a lot of film recently, I still can’t help but have some mixed feelings, like I’m using artificial vs. natural flavours. Then there is the fact that using the plug-in is fairly quick; I spent about 20 minutes fiddling with the image, compared with what would have been required in the darkroom: two extra chemical steps, and likely multiple attempts to get the burn-in for the vignetting just right.
Am I cheating?
My Third Eye 
You are not cheating. Digital chemicals are safer. I love film but do not have a darkroom. I scan and use minimal digital editing. If you have the shot only limited editing is needed no difference
LikeLike
I think the chemicals for most processes are safe enough, if handled with respect. Having said that, I am not going to work with mercury vapour (for traditional daguerreotypes) any time soon!
LikeLike
I am not sure if I’d go as far as calling it cheating. But you are definitely losing the archival qualities of the toner on the silver this way.
LikeLike
Quite true, and I think as time goes on archival properties will be more of an issue for folks who only have digital images, with crummy non-archival inkjet prints at best.
What I am doing with a lot of images right now is creating cyanotype prints from a lot of images, and properly stored these are very archival.
LikeLike
Cheating? Well, let’s consider it from first principles: you’ve recorded an image that you perceived personally, on that spot, at that point in time, in order to preserve it for both your own recall and for sharing that experience with others who were not there with you at the time. I’d say right from the get-go that’s cheating (in the sense that, other than you, the observer of the reproduced image is not experiencing the reality of the scene), so any digital vs analogue manipulations beyond that are mere degrees of guilt added upon the original sin.
Shame on you! 😉
Seriously, though, it’s not a cheat – the object of photography (beyond merely recording a scene for future factual reference to a point in time and space) it to deliver a visual experience to the observer. The photographer is attempting to communicate something beyond the factual, tell a story or share an emotion, a sentiment, a mood.
Ultimately, it’s the pattern of light, dark or colours that falls on the observer’s retina and is processed into an image in their brain that’s significant, not how that exact set of photons was arrived at.
The blood, sweat and tears approach makes a good back-story, but if the two final images are indistinguishable then it’s a moot point since the observer won’t know that (except when you have the opportunity, like here, to tell the observer about “the man behind the curtain”).
I’m not denying the additional personal satisfaction of doing things in an artisanal fashion, but beyond fashioning artifacts with only your bare hands even that could be considered a cheat at some level.
Oh, and nice image, John! 🙂
It actually reminds me of the square in front of the City Hall in Lyon, France – La place des Terreaux: http://www.linternaute.com/sortir/escapade/dossier/un-week-end-a-lyon/la-tres-animee-place-des-terreaux.shtml
That shot doesn’t really do it justice, but it was the best I could turn up on Google that showed the water jets coming up through the pavement. It’s a gorgeous square, with a huge fountain by Bartholdi, the French-Alsatian sculptor who created the Statue of Liberty for NYC.
LikeLike
You make some good points Rob, which I will continue to chew over …
LikeLike
Oh! Perspective distortion from fixed lenses, how it can bother me. By placing the centre vertical line of the image about an inch in from the left, the weight in the image tilts heavily to the right. The water shoots up and falls at an angle. When I used a darkroom, I would tilt the easel to correct this since I like a sense of unity in an image. Now I correct things like this in Photoshop. For me, it’s the final image arrived at that is the real, original photograph. (Everything else worked on at stages before arriving at the stage of closure are the steps selected and used to arrive at THE IMAGE.) (Some photographers see a subject and select an angle or a time of day, shoot it with a certain composition and lighting, and let someone else print it. Some print it also and manipulate the light and chemistry for even simple effects such as texture. With digital, some do more. No matter how the photo is made, it is always a photo).
LikeLike