BS thread...

mysteryscribe · Jun 8, 2007

Speaking of black and white vs color , there's an argument you dont hear much any more, I love when people talk about saving their image by making it black and white. I find that hilarious that black and white is only useful after you have exhausted every other possibility and they have failed. Now that is a whole new level of irritation for me.

JC1220 · Jun 8, 2007

Everything I do related to my photography work would be considered obsolete and behind the times. Doesn’t bother me a bit, the proof is in the pudding as they say.

I am not ignorant on the advances of digital one should always be aware of what is happening in our field, but for what I do, it is digital that lacks. Show me a digital print that rivals, or for that matter comes close, to an 8x10 or 12x20 contact print on silver chloride paper and I would be happy to explore digital. And, don’t even get me started on archival permanence!

mysteryscribe · Jun 8, 2007

Well I certainly know what you are saying. I even agree and am jealous. I can't work in a darkroom even if I had room for it.

Printing digital is a fact of life for most people these days. It's either shoot digital, shoot film and scan your negs, take them out where they will most likely be scanned anyway, or print your own.

What I would like to see is more people shooting film, then going digital. That would sure help the outlook of film in general. The shame is that there are so many great cameras out there dirt cheap and it's only going to continue to be that way. A mid grade slr with lens is no more expensive than a vintage camera that will wind up on the shelf somewhere.

Long as they keep making film, I personally do not plan to worry about it at all. Just a shame most new photographers can't wait to get their hands on a dslr. Then it's too bad they feel the need to justify that huge purchase price by bad mouthing film users. It isn't about the camera anyway, it's about the man standing behind it and how he uses what he has in his hands.

Kids come on here and say I have 200 bucks and want a good camera what should I buy. Say film and their attitude is why the hell would I want that. I find that humorous. If for nothing else it won't be obsolute in a year. For another there is very little digital software you cant use after you make that scan.

mysteryscribe · Jun 8, 2007

Well I certainly know what you are saying. I even agree and am jealous. I can't work in a darkroom even if I had room for it.

Printing digital is a fact of life for most people these days. It's either shoot digital, shoot film and scan your negs, take them out where they will most likely be scanned anyway, or print your own.

What I would like to see is more people shooting film, then going digital. That would sure help the outlook of film in general. The shame is that there are so many great cameras out there dirt cheap and it's only going to continue to be that way. A mid grade slr with lens is no more expensive than a vintage camera that will wind up on the shelf somewhere.

Long as they keep making film, I personally do not plan to worry about it at all. Just a shame most new photographers can't wait to get their hands on a dslr. Then it's too bad they feel the need to justify that huge purchase price by bad mouthing film users. It isn't about the camera anyway, it's about the man standing behind it and how he uses what he has in his hands.

Kids come on here and say I have 200 bucks and want a good camera what should I buy. Say film and their attitude is why the hell would I want that. I find that humorous. If for nothing else it won't be obsolute in a year. For another there is very little digital software you cant use after you make that scan. Oh well

jstuedle · Jun 21, 2007

I went totally digital about 8 years ago when the first D1 came out. But, I still think like I'm old school (in my mind anyway) I like to shoot MF glass, bellows with T&S, manual multiple flash, well you get the idea. I agree that it's the photographer and not the equipment that matters. And there are a dozen if not a million ways to reach the same end in most cases. This thread reminds me of something I learned in school over 4 decades ago, a camera is nothing more than a box that traps light. From Holga to F6 or D2X it's the same principal. Digital has thrown a couple of monkey wrenches into the mix with in camera processing and Photoshop, etc. But we all do things in our own way. This gives each of us a unique style, that is what makes this thing we call photography so captivating. Just my .02 worth.

Chronicle · Jul 2, 2007

This is an interesting thread. I think the problem lies with the education. High schools cannot afford a full darkroom setup anymore. When I was in school I had access to a fully equiped darkroom, with a large format graphics camera, plate burner, lithographic press, hand crank letterpress and all the paper and film I could ruin. I was taught how to make a silkscreened print, how to make a print from an acid etched plate, how to make multiple exposure prints and why positives were important. It didn't matter if I wasn't good at alot of the techniques, I had a firm understandings of the fundamentals and the history. Kids now get short changed. Its alot easier and cost effective to put the kids on a computer and teach them digitally. All that equipment was replaced by a computer and inkjet printer. The tactile processes were never experienced by this generation. The mistakes meant less, they didn't lose a whole week of work by not paying attention. Recopy the file if there is a problem, takes seconds.

I don't know that I have the time or money for a darkroom, I sold all my equipment years ago as it was too bulky to keep moving with me. I only owned the equipment for several years but spent twice that amount of time using it. I have digital prints from negatives and fully digital prints. They are all mixed together.

The strange thing is that I find myself making prints through photoshop and questioning their authenticity. I wonder if they can be produced in a darkroom. I know curves in photoshop corresponds to underexposing and pushing film, or overexposing and using filters. I know many of photoshops filters are derived from darkroom techniques, but wonder if filters like solarization are nearly as unpredictable as they would be in a darkroom. Plus the combining of filters has me wondering if a shot would be doable in a darkroom. I know I could just keep making positives after each round and just do the final effect on the paper, but I know in a darkroom this would take weeks, and undoubtably cost alot of money in film and paper. I just slide a button, click save and throw it in a folder with the twenty or so other prints I made in the last hour that would have taken me months of trial and tribulation in a darkroom. I don't know if the feeling of success I get from these prints is nearly as great as the feeling I got from the darkroom. I wonder if that is why I don't trust them as much. I do know the pain and suffering I went through in my darkroom are nowhere to be found in my digital experience. Its over in seconds, far too fast for any disappointment, I never even have to walk away frustrated, the process simply moves along too fast for those feelings to arise. I ended up losing all those photos anyway, so really I have to ask myself, why go through that again? Just some thoughts.

thebeginning · Jul 2, 2007

mysteryscribe said:
So I guess I'm asking where is the sin in a hybred system. I just don't see how starting with film is all that much different. Unless you just have to have a digital camera for cost effective issues. I don't, but my son in law does and I was the one who sent him that direction three years ago.

I'm not just venting, I hope I'm providing another view of how to use the technology. By the way I am pretty far behind the times, but sometimes the olds ways still work equally well with a little tune up. Modern methods and models are springing up all the time. In my opinion it's like clothes you buy what suits you, not what your friend next door likes.

this seems to sum up your post (IMO...correct me if I'm wrong of course).

I don't see it as a 'sin' at all...did someone tell you that? I'm kind of confused as to why this post is even here, actually. If someone tried to put down your method of doing things I could see why you said what you did. Otherwise, it might seem like you posted this just because you feel wary of trying something new so you're attempting to justify what you feel comfortable with (which is fine).

i hope that made sense, i'm tired

mysteryscribe · Jul 2, 2007

Mostly in reference to film is dead and you might as well buy a digital camera and get over it. I think that is the gist of what I was reacting to. Terri would agree that it did not belong here but alas it is my opinion that film will soon be an alternate process.

Just don't see that it had any real drawbacks to prevent anyone from doing acceptable work. There is no reason that film and digital can't coexist like like wingtips and sneakers in the same closet. So that was the point. And the reaction is not to anythiing said to me personally I have a tendancy to say things I think need saying no matter who or where they are. You will note that several people had opinions pro and con so, in my opinion, it needed to be discussed. That's all there was to it.

thebeginning · Jul 3, 2007

ah, got it.

"Just don't see that it had any real drawbacks to prevent anyone from doing acceptable work. There is no reason that film and digital can't coexist like like wingtips and sneakers in the same closet."

i agree!

nealjpage · Jul 3, 2007

And it's for Chronicle's reasons that I haven't moved over to digi. But I still buy new LPs and my stereo is amplified with tubes....

Chronicle · Jul 3, 2007

mysteryscribe said:
Mostly in reference to film is dead and you might as well buy a digital camera and get over it. I think that is the gist of what I was reacting to. Terri would agree that it did not belong here but alas it is my opinion that film will soon be an alternate process.

Just don't see that it had any real drawbacks to prevent anyone from doing acceptable work. There is no reason that film and digital can't coexist like like wingtips and sneakers in the same closet. So that was the point. And the reaction is not to anythiing said to me personally I have a tendancy to say things I think need saying no matter who or where they are. You will note that several people had opinions pro and con so, in my opinion, it needed to be discussed. That's all there was to it.

I am glad this thread was left here. It needed to be said because it is the truth. I think film is on the way to being an alternative process. I have worked in the graphic arts industry for over twenty years and I see more of it every year. Its not just film, it is all graphic arts. Computers make people stupid. I am sorry but it is true. Film can coexist with digital as long as there is enough of a demand for film to make it economical to produce. Its why I can't run down the store for some glass plates to expose. ( as a side note, did anyone see that scarecrow in the wheat field? that was the most beautiful thing I had seen that entire week.)

People are losing an understanding of whats involved. It is as if they are adrift in the future with no thread of collective wisdom connecting them with the past. The old processes have been replaced by computerized approximation. I actually asked the manager of a multimillion dollar lithographic printing facility what type of fountain solution he was running and was given the name of a company. Thinking he misunderstood me I stated I meant what ph (in lithography there are acidic, neutral and alkaline based fountain solutions, each affecting how the lithographic plate needs to be fixed, and the amount of dot gain, plate life and how well water beads on the exposed portion) fountain solution and he immediately brightened and said, " automatic, its all automatic, he then explained to me that the tap water is automatically mixed with the concentrated fountain solution to keep it at a specific numerical level. He mentioned proudly that the workers had a testing device to ensure enough concentrate was added.

I would imagine its the same all over. Computers take up more of the factual processing and people adaptively respond to the output of the computer which is really the interpretive output created by the computer programer. I didn't want to get back into film photography, some programmer tricked me into it. Light leaks are organic and beautiful.

jstuedle · Jul 3, 2007

I am glad it's here as well. I have been missing the "sent" of D-76 in the morning myself. I lean more and more toward dipping back into it. (pun intended) P.S. Thanks Terri