Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2004
How sad!
|
|
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.
|
|
|