Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How sad!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Manny Bhuta - 19 Jun 2004 13:12 GMT
I just read this in New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/nyregion/19lab.html

Manny Bhuta
Randolph, NJ USA
Fil Ament - 19 Jun 2004 13:41 GMT
> I just read this in New York Times
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/nyregion/19lab.html
>
> Manny Bhuta
> Randolph, NJ USA

Can't read it without an account.
Signature

The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

James Robinson - 19 Jun 2004 15:19 GMT
> > I just read this in New York Times
> >
> Can't read it without an account.

Discusses the plight of traditional darkrooms with the growth of
digital.  Some quotes from the full article:

=====================================

In a Digital Era, the Darkroom Is Fading as a Photographic Hub

In the tradition of the Rolodex, the vacuum tube and the roll-film
camera, the communal darkroom - a Manhattan institution that has long
sustained a subculture of professional photographers and print-making
artists - is yielding to the digital imperative.

After 17 years, the Latent Image Workshop Inc., with its 23
rent-by-the-hour darkrooms, will close its doors by the end of the
month. Other rental workshops are losing business or scrambling to
upgrade their digital services to survive.

Patricia O'Brien, president of Photographics Unlimited Dial-A-Darkroom
Inc., said business "has really tanked this year." We'd been seeing the
competition from digital for a while," she said, "but at the first of
this year, digital caused a major downturn."

Another competitor, the Creative Darkroom, has already added six digital
workstations to its 17 conventional darkrooms.

[One owner] noted that digital photography was still more expensive than
conventional photography. "But when the digital quality goes up and the
price goes down," he said, "that might be the end of conventional
photography. We have five years left."

=====================================

Note also, that if you don't want to register at these types of
otherwise free sites, you can often get a password from
http://www.bugmenot.com
Pieter Litchfield - 19 Jun 2004 17:00 GMT
Here's a strange one.  In my area (near Albany NY), B&W darkrooms are in
demand.  My county arts council offers B&W film (not digital) courses -
compostion, camera use, developing and printing.  We built a 1 man darkroom
in their building - low rents for members of the arts council.  I know of 2
or 3 individuals who have built their own because they couldn't find
rentals.  If anything, the switch to digital has inspired some to try B&W
wet darkrooms as an alternative to the crappy big box photo labs and digital
printing alternatives.  I have yet to see anyone build a color darkroom, but
B&W is popular around me.

> > > I just read this in New York Times
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> otherwise free sites, you can often get a password from
> http://www.bugmenot.com
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios - 19 Jun 2004 23:53 GMT
No retreat, baby, no surrender! (Bruce Springsteen)

--
Dimitris Tzortzakakis,Iraklion Crete,Greece
Analogue technology rules-digital sucks
http://www.patriko-kreta.com
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr the return adress is corrupted
Warning:all offending emails will be deleted, and the offender/spammer
will be put on my personal "black list".
> Here's a strange one.  In my area (near Albany NY), B&W darkrooms are in
> demand.  My county arts council offers B&W film (not digital) courses -
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> > otherwise free sites, you can often get a password from
> > http://www.bugmenot.com
Jan T - 19 Jun 2004 22:50 GMT
Another example of how economics or fashion dictate decisions, rather than
taste and personal feelings. Just wondering why people keep making oil
paintings, liths, sculptures, ceramics, publish poetry in real books... so
why wouldn't we, silver image workers, survive!? Allthough in many domains
of photography professional people reap the benefits, to me half of the
digital world is kind of a craze (a commercial one).

Jan

> I just read this in New York Times
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/nyregion/19lab.html
>
> Manny Bhuta
> Randolph, NJ USA
Scott Schuckert - 20 Jun 2004 12:56 GMT
> Just wondering why people keep making oil
> paintings, liths, sculptures, ceramics, publish poetry in real books... so
> why wouldn't we, silver image workers, survive!?

The big problem is the availability of the necessary infrastructure -
you don't need a lot of technology to sculpt, but it's hard to pick up
a chunk of, say, printing paper in a quarry and carve something out of
it.

Chemical photography will never disappear entirely, but someday we'll
feel a kinship with 8-track tape aficionados.

And a little bit of craftsmanship and a larger slice of excellence go
out of our world, for the sake of convenience (and profit margin).
ChrisPlatt - 20 Jun 2004 15:06 GMT
Why not have both?

I am no friend of businessmen and have no interest in digital.

But any good businessman running such an operation would be a fool
not to devote an ever-increasing portion of the square footage to digital...

Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-
Michael A. Covington - 20 Jun 2004 15:19 GMT
> > Just wondering why people keep making oil
> > paintings, liths, sculptures, ceramics, publish poetry in real books... so
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Chemical photography will never disappear entirely, but someday we'll
> feel a kinship with 8-track tape aficionados.

I think chemical photography, at least in black-and-white, will stay around
for a long time because there will still be industrial processes using very
similar chemistry (e.g., the making of printing plates).

And given the long shelf life of the materials, a manufacturing run every 10
years, with freezer storage, could keep us supplied.

Color photography will die out much sooner.  There will be plenty of people
who look back on our attempts to get *three* layers of film to synchronize
perfectly, onto *three* layers of paper, with amusement.

There's a reason why most serious darkroom craftsmanship is done in
black-and-white.
RWatson767 - 22 Jun 2004 06:53 GMT
Michael
> How sad!

(e.g., the making of printing plates).

The schools her are now using laser printers with secial plates. I am sure
printing plants do also.

Bob  AZ
Michael A. Covington - 22 Jun 2004 14:51 GMT
> Michael
> > How sad!
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The schools her are now using laser printers with secial plates. I am sure
> printing plants do also.

Probably not for all printing processes.

Anyhow, the manufacture of semiconductors still uses photographic masks,
doesn't it?
Nicholas O. Lindan - 22 Jun 2004 15:31 GMT
"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address> wrote

> Anyhow, the manufacture of semiconductors still uses photographic masks,
> doesn't it?

"It's photography Jim, but not as we know it..."

Chromium on glass using photoresist and etching.

Signature

Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Phil Glaser - 29 Jun 2004 23:43 GMT
> I think chemical photography, at least in black-and-white, will stay around
> for a long time because there will still be industrial processes using very
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> There's a reason why most serious darkroom craftsmanship is done in
> black-and-white.

Michael, you have piqued my curiosity. I have heard people say that
the quality advantage of digital color over traditional color is
greater than the advantage of digital black and white over traditional
black and white. I have heard this both with respect to capture (e.g.,
film has greater latitude than a ccd) as well as printing. The idea
seems to be, in other words, that the technical advantages of
traditional photography really shine through in B&W.

How true is this, really?

Might it be that those of us who use traditional black and white
materials do so primarily because we like the process rather than
because the end result is superior? I sit in front of a computer all
day and so am loathe to do so again for my recreation. And I really do
like the concreteness of working in the darkroom, of "sculpting with
light."

But with my time being limited, and my artistic aspirations being
grandiose, I am beginning to wonder if I'm doing the right thing. I
hear people raving about how much time they save doing digital and I
have to ask myself -- am I missing out on artistic opportunity as time
slips through my fingers? (Sorry to be whining, but I am about to turn
41, and, God bless it, I seem to be having a bona fide mid-life
crisis.)

So, if someone could tell me that there are strong aesthetic grounds
for doing black and white the old fashioned way rather than digitally,
it might quiet these questions rumbling inside me. I would know that
the extra time it takes to do traditional darkroom work is worth the
effort beyond the fact that I like the process more than sitting in
front of a computer.

Of course, the comparisons with 8-track tapes aren't helping my
optimism about this issue . . .

--Phil
Gregory W Blank - 30 Jun 2004 01:19 GMT
> > I think chemical photography, at least in black-and-white, will stay around
> > for a long time because there will still be industrial processes using very
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> How true is this, really?

Very true, the silver based papers used for printing upon if processed & washed correctly will out last
any RC Color dye based image available from typical labs or banish the term inkjet.....printers.  
if stored side by side in identical conditions.

> So, if someone could tell me that there are strong aesthetic grounds
> for doing black and white the old fashioned way rather than digitally,
> it might quiet these questions rumbling inside me. I would know that
> the extra time it takes to do traditional darkroom work is worth the
> effort beyond the fact that I like the process more than sitting in
> front of a computer.

Go to a few museums look at the fine prints of Weston, Adams,
Strand or a slue of other silver printers and decide. If you can't see
a true difference between the prints and computer made ones and
you don't see the silver prints as far better, you probably should give up
photography "just IMOP". You will unless your blind.
Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Michael Scarpitti - 30 Jun 2004 03:58 GMT
> > I think chemical photography, at least in black-and-white, will stay around
> > for a long time because there will still be industrial processes using very
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> But with my time being limited, and my artistic aspirations being
> grandiose, I am beginning to wonder if I'm doing the right thing.

You're wasting time that you could be using in the darkroom.

> I
> hear people raving about how much time they save doing digital and I
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> --Phil
Mike Schuler - 30 Jun 2004 07:18 GMT
I wonder how much the tool-oriented nature of both photography and
computers biases our discussion of digital photography.  (Don't most
of Usenet's photo discussion groups - or at least the lively ones -
focus on technique and equipment rather than photo content?)

If one is going to argue about resolution, ease of use, print size,
etc., it is pretty much a given that digital imaging will eventually
"win." It is going to eclipse photography in these areas because that
is how "progress" works. And eventually something else will eclipse
digital.

I was in architecture school in the late 1980's when the emphasis was
on manual drafting / hand rendering and I was one of the first people
at my school to use CAD for design studio projects.  As you might
imagine, there were many faculty who didn't like it and many who
didn't understand it.  And I'm sure that many of them were biased by
their experience with process and their preconceptions of what a
proper product should look like.

I think that both process and product can be reasons to pursue
photography. And I'm not sure that the arguments that often go around
here will get anywhere useful until they get out of the realm of lpmm
and archival quality and into the realm of the strengths and
weaknesses of digital vs. chemical on a process and product level.

That is:  What really differentiates digital from chemical
photography?  I'd say, for example, that digital expands photography's
potential for manipulation of reality and reproducibility.  So how can
photography go the other way - be more about reality and the unique
object?

Digital is inherently top-down; you'll likely never build your own
digital camera or software. But photography is eminently experimental
- you could make your own lenses, camera, paper, developer, use
alternative processes, do photograms, etc.

Also, how is the digital process, with its (relatively) unlimited
manipulation capabilities different from the photographic printing
process?  How is using a large format film camera different than using
a digital SLR? What do you get out of one process (deliberateness,
etc.) vs. the other (speed, etc.)?

"It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on
the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory." Bruce Lee -
Enter The Dragon (1974)
Any Moose Poster - 30 Jun 2004 12:32 GMT
> That is:  What really differentiates digital from chemical
> photography?  I'd say, for example, that digital expands photography's
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> a digital SLR? What do you get out of one process (deliberateness,
> etc.) vs. the other (speed, etc.)?

Forgive me for asking , but are you the original poster? If not why have you
elected to:

Snip all other posts of valid context and insert only your own thoughts
without quoting a frame of your response.

To me your statements seem like idle chatter without a reason for them being there.
If your not the original poster and wish to start a new thread
that is always appreciated. If you are the OP informing us of such and the reason
for the snip is also appreciated,..within such a snip.
Signature

Duzz that A moose you ?

Mr King - 30 Jun 2004 14:36 GMT
That bluish colour cast some colour prints have is one reason I wish I
had bought a colour enlarger instead of a black and white. That is one
effect I would like to experiment with!

> There will be plenty of people
> who look back on our attempts to get *three* layers of film to synchronize
> perfectly, onto *three* layers of paper, with amusement.
otzi - 04 Jul 2004 16:02 GMT
I wonder if this holds true for any one else but for me the dominating
difference between digital and conventional is the cost. Once one has
suitable conventional equipment it will last for years. Generations even.

Sorry folks but digital apart for needing top end equipment and at humongous
cost just to equal carefully done conventional work the stuff seems only
good enough till the latest devise is dangled in front of you. Further, to
date there has not been a terribly good history of backwards compatibility.

Signature

Otzi

> That bluish colour cast some colour prints have is one reason I wish I
> had bought a colour enlarger instead of a black and white. That is one
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > who look back on our attempts to get *three* layers of film to synchronize
> > perfectly, onto *three* layers of paper, with amusement.
Donald Qualls - 04 Jul 2004 21:49 GMT
> I wonder if this holds true for any one else but for me the dominating
> difference between digital and conventional is the cost. Once one has
> suitable conventional equipment it will last for years. Generations even.

Absolutely.  I'm just in process of restoring (to working condition, not
to appear pristine) an Ica Ideal 225 9x12 cm plate that was certainly
made before 1926 (since that's when Ica merged into Zeiss Ikon, who
continued to make this model as the Ideal 250/7).  After almost eighty
years, all it's required so far was a shutter and lens cleaning, and
some attention to the bellows to cover pinholes and other light leaks.
Generations, indeed, and it'll most likely still be functional after I'm
gone, if only one can get film for it.  Worst case, for about $80 I can
get a replacement bellows, in leather, that will easily give another
eighty years of service.

> Sorry folks but digital apart for needing top end equipment and at humongous
> cost just to equal carefully done conventional work the stuff seems only
> good enough till the latest devise is dangled in front of you. Further, to
> date there has not been a terribly good history of backwards compatibility.

The other advantage of digital is instant access to the results (even if
the instant view is of less quality than a Polaroid test print).  OTOH,
I question whether the ability to shoot a hundred frames and see them
all immediately is of any utility outside fashion, sports, and
photojournalism -- for art photography, a single good sheet and one for
insurance is worth more than a hundred digital files, each with 1/10 the
resolution of a large negative or chrome.  IMO, of course...

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
                                                    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages  http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages     http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls - 20 Jun 2004 16:41 GMT
>>Just wondering why people keep making oil
>>paintings, liths, sculptures, ceramics, publish poetry in real books... so
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> And a little bit of craftsmanship and a larger slice of excellence go
> out of our world, for the sake of convenience (and profit margin).

Well, the analogy with 8-track might be more apt than intended --
they're completely dependent on magnetic tape still existing, in some
form, if they want to be able to (for instance) replace the tape in an
existing cartridge shell.  Doing so isn't difficult if you have a good
one, open, to look at for threading; the only major trick is that the
original tape was dry lubricated so that the constant rubbing action as
tape wound on the outside of the spool and fed from the inside,
tightening as it is drawn inward, doesn't get erased in 4-5 playings,
and that can be simulated pretty easily by spraying the coated side of
the tape with a silicone coating before winding the spool.  But when
magnetic tape with suitable coating for music recording ceases
manufacture (in widths wider than the, IIRC, 3/8" size used in 8-track,
so it can be cut down), those guys go from users to collectors.

We have the same problem with film -- a very few of us might pick up
collodion processes, both the wet plate and the collodion dry plates
that were replaced by gelatin dry plates almost before the process
started to be well known, or relearn how to sub glass to take an even
gelatin coating (though for single users, wet plates are far simpler
than trying to get a good, even coating of sensitized gelatin on glass,
because you can coat the collodion in the light and don't have to ripen
etc. before you coat) -- but practically every camera still in use will
be strictly a collector's item when there ceases to be a supply of some
kind of film that can be cut to fit.

I have a few 828 Bantam cameras -- and I can still get film for them,
for so long as Kodak continues to produce unperforated 35 mm in Portra
160 NC emulsion, which they do for the commercial portrait market, only;
I can use a couple of them without backing paper (because they have
frame stops) and accept the image overlaying the edge printing and
sprocket holes on regular 35 mm, but when 35 mm film is gone, they'll
have to be dusted and I'll sell them to a collector.  My Minolta 16
cameras can use any 16 mm or double-8 movie film, as well as
unperforated microfilm and strips slit from 35 mm or 120, or even from
very large aerial film, but when there's no more film to slit, they'll
be curiosities.

OTOH, my 1926 Ica Idea was originally made to hold glass plates, and
will work as well in 2026 with collodion dry plates as it did in 1926
with gelatin dry plates.  So, it seems the first shall be last --
Daguerreotypy might well outlast more modern silver halide; plain silver
and basic halogens aren't likely to go anywhere, and the process has
never been anything but hand worked; it can probably be greatly
simplified by sensitizing a silver coating on glass instead of working
with silver coated copper plates, and use of a fresh coating (which,
with modern methods, can be applied to ultra-clean glass in a matter of
minutes) would also eliminate the need to burnish the plates the same
day they're to be exposed; plus, the handmade character and exquisite
quality of a Daguerreotype will make them much better candidates for the
high prices that would be necessary to support environmentally- and
worker-safe methods of developing with mercury vapor.  I can even
envision a reflective method of enlarging from Daguerreotype, though it
would require a very strong UV light source to use with a process like
Kallitype or salted paper...

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
                                                    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages  http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages     http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.