 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2007Darkroom Advantage
What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? My nephew is interested in photography as a hobby but digital is so dominant in the market that it is hard for me to persuade him to use film and a darkroom. On Jul 7, 10:35 pm, wish-upon-a-s...@webtv.net (wishful thinker) wrote: > What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? Lend him a camera and a roll of film. Invite him over to your darkroom and show him how to develop film and make prints. If he falls in love with the process, then that will be all the reason he needs. There may or may not be some things which are still are better done with film, but I'm not going to get into any argument of that sort. Such reasons are actually not likely to be a part of what he thinks is important either. Darkroom work is a different kind of fun from fiddling with pictures on a computer. Get him to try it and he may like it. I certainly do. > My nephew is interested in photography as a hobby but digital is so > dominant in the market that it is hard for me to persuade him to use > film and a darkroom. If you have a medium or large format camera, show him how to use it and lend it to him for long enough for him to get to enjoy it. He may not be more than dimly aware that such things exist. Best Wishes, Peter. -- pirwin@ktb.net > (wishful thinker) wrote: > > What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > > convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? > Lend him a camera and a roll of film. Invite him over to your darkroom > and show him how to develop film and make prints. My advice also. All you can do is expose him to it. If it takes, it takes. Film is now retro-cool. Lomos are out. It's brass, glass and chrome. Black camera bodies and zoom lenses need not apply. Give him an old camera - the bigger and shinier the better, though Cannonet 17's are catching on - and a brick of Tri-X and see what happens. Silver-gelatin printing is -- well, let's not get _too_ retro. The bad guys in movies are still closet perverts with hidden darkrooms and red lights. Sort of odd ... porn being a driving force in digital photography. I don't think any self-respecting bicycle seat sniffer has a darkroom anymore.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? None. It is highly unlikely the new photographer can appreciate a film-made to silver-made print. It is a fine line only appreciated by those who aren't into the contemporary glance-as-fact, reality. Let 'em go. Live your own life. > What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? > My nephew is interested in photography as a hobby but digital is so > dominant in the market that it is hard for me to persuade him to use > film and a darkroom. my two bits - Show him a good bw print next to a digital one. Point out to him the nuances of the bw print as versus those of the digital one. There is art, then there is ART.... > my two bits - > > Show him a good bw print next to a digital one. Point out to him the > nuances of the bw print as versus those of the digital one. There is art, > then there is ART.... Well, if produced by myself there would be a clear outcome - digital hands down. Utmost respect for anyone who can produce a decent chemical print - it seems to take a fair amount of skill and practice. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? > My nephew is interested in photography as a hobby but digital is so > dominant in the market that it is hard for me to persuade him to use > film and a darkroom. What the others have said. I gave my niece a Minolta Autocord for Christmas and I don't think she's yet put film in it. >> What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to >> convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What the others have said. I gave my niece a Minolta Autocord for > Christmas and I don't think she's yet put film in it. Does she even know where to get 120 film? I don't think Rite-Aid sells it any longer... Dana > Does she even know where to get 120 film? I don't think > Rite-Aid sells it any longer... She knows the url for B&H. Some of her acquaintences at school (she's an architecture major) shoot medium format. In article <macogoense-77BEF3.18291110072007@news.verizon.net>, Rebecca Ore macogoense@gmail.com says... > > Does she even know where to get 120 film? I don't think > > Rite-Aid sells it any longer... > > She knows the url for B&H. Some of her acquaintences at school (she's > an architecture major) shoot medium format. But getting a camera without any film as a Christmas gift is like getting a robot with no batteries. You could have loaded a roll, and thrown in an automatic flash so she could get some family snapshots without having to worry about what does what. > In article <macogoense-77BEF3.18291110072007@news.verizon.net>, Rebecca > Ore [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > thrown in an automatic flash so she could get some family snapshots > without having to worry about what does what. She shot some film while she was here and I developed and scanned it. http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/000bdyfr/g14 In article <macogoense-EBB831.22525610072007@news.verizon.net>, Rebecca Ore macogoense@gmail.com says... > She shot some film while she was here and I developed and scanned it. > > http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/000bdyfr/g14 You look like someone I used to know, but I can't remember who (I'm terrible with names and faces). I like the previous picture: "So ... this funny black box thing is a camera, and this massive book tells me how to use it?" :-) > In article <macogoense-EBB831.22525610072007@news.verizon.net>, Rebecca > Ore [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You look like someone I used to know, but I can't remember who (I'm > terrible with names and faces). I look like any number of generic older but not quite old women. > I like the previous picture: > "So ... this funny black box thing is a camera, and this massive book > tells me how to use it?" :-) Yeah, that one was pretty amusing. She was actually intrigued more with the Leica. The thing that was missing was a reliable light meter. Well, she has a shelf queen, at least. >What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to >convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? >My nephew is interested in photography as a hobby but digital is so >dominant in the market that it is hard for me to persuade him to use >film and a darkroom. Does he do B/W? Using a darkroom for color sounds like pure masochism to me. For B/W, if your wet prints are better than his inkjet prints, you may have a chance. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > >convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Traditional prints and equipement are far cheaper than digital, and a dish of dev hasn't much to go wrong with it except getting exhausted, nothing technical about mixing some fresh up. A good darkroom print beats a digi anytime lofty >> >What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to >> >convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > lofty It all depends on his peer pressure and school input if any. The wee ones are key board savvy with little knowledge of the pre mobile phone era. Only some are hands on and this would reveal itself by any hands on activity in earlier years, like modelling etc. An interest in historic human activity would also have revealed itself, along with the love of things old world, like vintage cars etc. Don't force it or you will be the one disappointed. Some times the less you say the more it grabs. Like a grandpa taking the little ones out fishing maybe an "adventurous boys only" photo outing could be considered. Whistling up dreams and (battery less) possibilities. = Otzi > Like a grandpa taking the little ones out fishing maybe an "adventurous boys > only" photo outing could be considered. When I was twelve grandfather put a milk crate in front of his car, stood me on it, lifted the hood and said, "So Johnnie, do you know what those are?" To me an engine was just one contiguous hunk of bumpy metal. Then he said, "Those are super-chargers, Johnnie!" 1957. (Turns out they were something like dual Paxtons on a V8 in a '56 Studebaker.) So my opportunity for simplicity in engines was perverted real early. :) > Whistling up dreams and (battery > less) possibilities. = Otzi BTW - I do have a batteryless flash gun. Uses bay and Edison base bulbs. Fires via a magneto built into the handle. > Traditional prints and equipement are far cheaper than digital, and a dish >of dev hasn't much to go wrong with it except >getting exhausted, nothing technical about mixing some fresh up. So all those failed prints are just a figment of my imagination? Good B/W printing is trivial and still AA managed to write a book about it? >A good darkroom print beats a digi anytime In that case, OP just has to show a couple of prints and the boy will be convinced. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >A good darkroom print beats a digi anytime > > In that case, OP just has to show a couple of prints and the boy will be > convinced. Probably a majority of all digital shots are shared electronically and never printed, so arguing from print quality only matters if someone is actually printing the digital files. I don't print what I develop -- I don't have money or room for a full darkroom, so it's changing bag, Diafine, fix, wash, dry, and scan. >> In that case, OP just has to show a couple of prints and the boy will be >> convinced. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I don't print what I develop -- I don't have money or room for a full >darkroom, so it's changing bag, Diafine, fix, wash, dry, and scan. IMHO, nothing beats a good print. But I guess that 'The Camera', 'The Negative', 'The Print' is a good idea. Certainly learning about the camera and coming up with a good frame should be the goal before trying printing as well. One other thing (I don't do B/W so I don't know). A digital color image can be seen as three different B/W shots with red, green and blue filters. This should make it much easier to experiment with different filter settings (in a channel mixer) than actually buying different colored filters and exposing B/W film. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to >>convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Does he do B/W? Using a darkroom for color sounds like pure masochism to >me. Color in the darkroom is time & temperature. Color balance isn't all that hard anymore. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Butting in with a couple of comments; I put together a really nice home B&W (only) darkroom a couple of years ago. It cost practically nothing beyond the cost of studding up and sheetrocking a couple of walls. Most of the equipment I had in storage or (and here's the point) I got for FREE from folks going to all digital processing. So I have an old Omega B-22 enlarger that I've used forever, but with a good digital timer and a cold light head. A 4 foot plastic sink with thermostatic water temp control. A mounting press I haven't even used yet. Film and print washers. Trays of all sizes. Mostly free! I love film and chemistry. I hate digital. There is much to be said for being able to see your picture immediately and try again as necessary. However, for me B&W is about expressing yourself withing the limits prescribed by the process. With digital anything is possible. You can make an image from scratch if you wish by just manipulating pixels. With B&W chemical photography, craft and vision is everyting. Frankly, if Ansel Adams had done all those magnificent images in digital, I would likely react to them with some degree of cynicism - were those crosses really lit like that or did he just fake it in photoshop? Ironically, the image could be identical to the "real" chemically produced one, but my perception of the artist's craft and passion would be different. And that's why I do B&W by chemistry. >>>What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to >>>convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Web Site: www.destarr.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >Color in the darkroom is time & temperature. Color balance isn't all that hard >anymore. "isn't all that hard anymore." And then you are going to compete with people who can make contrast changes and selective color balance changes, who can increase saturation, etc. in Photoshop and then output to carefully controlled output stations at various labs? In the end, you can't see the difference between a digital RA-4 print and an analog one (unless you study the print with a loupe) SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > In the end, you can't see the difference between a digital RA-4 print and > an analog one (unless you study the print with a loupe) People do that, and, really, end up missing the forest for the trees. I found myself in the habit of peering closely whenever I saw photograph on display, and realized I wasn't seeing the images, I was searching for technical details. What an insult to the photographer that created the image! Dana >I found myself in the habit of peering closely whenever I saw >photograph on display, and realized I wasn't seeing the images, >I was searching for technical details. What an insult to the >photographer that created the image! > >Dana July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, Well, maybe not necessarily an insult. I love to get very close to a work of art and examine the little details closely, with my eyeglasses off. When the huge exhibit of van Gogh's paintings came to town, I loved being able to look at individual brush strokes made by his hands. It's not because I'm such an expert or looking for nothing but technique; I just love to look at the work, and I find both distant and close viewing very rewarding. I think a big part of my life-long development is the fact that I'm much more comfortable minus sight correction, hence my tendency to get close. Of course, I feel the same way about photographs. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- >>Color in the darkroom is time & temperature. Color balance isn't all that hard >>anymore. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >In the end, you can't see the difference between a digital RA-4 print and >an analog one (unless you study the print with a loupe) I'm not interested in competing. I enjoy my wet darkroom & have no desire to change. I don't find RA-4 printing all that difficult. I shoot the film, I process it & print it myself. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >I enjoy my wet darkroom & have no desire to >change. That certainly is a key difference: I have no desire to sit in a darkroom if I don't have to. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>I enjoy my wet darkroom & have no desire to >>change. >That certainly is a key difference: I have no desire to sit in a darkroom >if I don't have to. July 11, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, That certainly is a key difference: I have no desire to sit in front of a computer if I don't have to. regards, --le >That certainly is a key difference: I have no >desire to sit in front of a computer if I >don't have to. IMHO, digital processing of color images provides the opportunity for better prints. So the "don't have to" part is valid only if you desire unmodified prints from negatives. (Or do you optimize contrast, dodge and burn, retouch, and sharpen 35mm frames? And then there is slide film as well) SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? What are the reasons that you choose conventional darkroom procedures? > My nephew is interested in photography as a hobby but digital is so > dominant in the market that it is hard for me to persuade him to use > film and a darkroom. Why do you want to persuade him? What are your reasons for this? Speaking personally, I stopped wet-printing, but I still very much appeciate B&W photography. So I capture on film, scan at high-res/range (Nikon LS-9000), adjust digitally, and output on an Epson R2400. Once I calibrated my monitors and spent a little time experimenting printer settings and paper choice, I quickly got to where the quality of the print is not the limiting factor for me. I miss the quiet relaxation of the darkroom sometimes, but that's all. Shooting on B&W film retains the heart of what makes a B&W print special for me. Perhaps that would be true for your nephew, as well. Dana > What reasons can I give to someone just starting out in photography to > convince them to choose conventional darkroom procedures over digital? > My nephew is interested in photography as a hobby but digital is so > dominant in the market that it is hard for me to persuade him to use > film and a darkroom. Don't waste your time trying to impress him. Go out on a shoot together, him with his digital camera and you with your film camera. If when he sees your results, he is not impressed, give up, he's not ready. If he is interested, offer to show him how you did it. Be prepared to spend a lot of money to do it. Darkrooms are expensive animals to build and feed. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus: > Be prepared to spend a lot of money to do it. Darkrooms are > expensive animals to build and feed. That seems to vary widely by location. I assume you're speaking of a darkroom in Israel; here in the U.S., one can be put together relatively cheaply. SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > That seems to vary widely by location. I assume you're speaking of a > darkroom in Israel; here in the U.S., one can be put together relatively > cheaply. Well that depends. Although I've made darkrooms out of closets and developed prints with a small enlarger balanced on a toilet in a windowless bathroom, I doubt that anyone who is "just visting" would be interested in it. In fact, I built my first enlarger out of a roll film camera, a bulb socket and two coffee cans. My trays were the lids from tubs that commerical salads came in. Roll film was easy to tray develop, 35mm film needed a tank, as my arms were not long enough. :-) By the time you take a room, lightproof it, add some plumbing and safelights, work table etc, even a free enlarger and trays becomes expensive. BTW, David you are correct about buying used darkroom equipment here. While no one wants it, people bought it when the taxes on photographic equipment was 160% (which more than trippled the price after retail markup) and no one wants to part with it at a "rediculous price". Four years ago I was lucky to get an Beslar 23c mark II with a decent, but not good lens, 35mm carrier and a bunch of stuff from a photographer who had not used her darkroom in 10 years. She kept the easel, timer, saflights, etc probably because she was insulted by the price I paid for it. Someone sold me a used easal cheaply and I was still able to get safelights (altough red, not the color I really wanted) and a paterson tank. Recently I've cleaned out the HC-110 and Rodinal from two camera stores. One of the HC-110 bottles was bad, and the Rodinal was made by Agfa. A few weeks ago I asked on the Jerusalem Photography Yahoo list if anyone besides me developed a roll of film or made a silver based print in the last year. One person said yes, and she had done it in a class. She works in 100% digital. :-( Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Geoffrey S. Mendelson spake thus: > A few weeks ago I asked on the Jerusalem Photography Yahoo list if anyone > besides me developed a roll of film or made a silver based print in the last > year. One person said yes, and she had done it in a class. She works in > 100% digital. :-( We're dinosaurs. SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > We're dinosaurs. I'm afraid we are perceived as dodos. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> We're dinosaurs. > > I'm afraid we are perceived as dodos. > > Geoff. Listen you two - if and when you get a chance, go visit an exhibit of bw silver based prints. The particular photographer is not really important - just make sure that it is an exhibit of properly processed prints...you can be sure the "name" exhibits have such prints. Take a close look at the prints. Dodos and dinosaurs we may be...but that look/feel/presence is something I for one have yet to see in a digital. Yes, a digital is fast, quick, and instant gratifying as compared to that silver gelatine print. But all the hype notwithstanding, time will be the real test of digital's archivalness. The really fun experience is to go to the Ansel Adams Gallery at Yosemite Village to purchase one of the two dozen or so images which Adams in his will left with instructions that photographic prints be made available to the general public at reasonable cost. (That reasonable cost these days, btw, is $175.) The advice is to go when there is not a whole lot of folks around (early, early, early in the day) so you can get some undivided attention. After selecting the image you want, ask to see minimum three prints of that image and study them. There will be differences because these are handmade, not machine created. Pick the one you like best...I go for the one with the most detail in the shadows and in the hightlights. If I have to give up one, I give up the highlights. I have never failed to get a comment from the clerk to the effect that all the prints are the same - then I point out to him/her the key differences among the prints before us of that same image. Now go to the display of machine prints ($20 each the last time I checked) and do the same comparison/comparison. Lo and behold - no difference amongst the lot! And the look and feel of these are not at all the same as those silver gelatine prints. >>> We're dinosaurs. >> I'm afraid we are perceived as dodos. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > prints. Dodos and dinosaurs we may be...but that look/feel/presence is > something I for one have yet to see in a digital. Have you seen high-end inkjet prints? I've certainly seem them in galleries, and buyers are snapping them up as fast as silver-gelatin prints. The prints I'm thinking of are all captured on film, scanned at high resolution and range, and printed on high-end media with pigmented inks. I'm not talking about a quickie on an HP printer and glossy "photo paper". For example, Silvershotz, Volume 4 Edition 1, page 77, Andy Cross draws a comparison of the same image on silver- gelatin to the same image on inkjet. The editors conclude "The gap is closing and only the trained eye can now see the difference". Photography has evolved yet again, and it's up to us to either evolve with it or find peace as anachronisms. The difference between an image captured on B&W film and an image captured on a digital sensor remains obvious and will likely never go away, and this is exactly where the character and soul of a B&W print come from - even if the print is made digitally. > Yes, a digital is fast, quick, and instant gratifying as compared to that > silver gelatine print. But all the hype notwithstanding, time will be the > real test of digital's archivalness. Is there even a question any longer? Even in the last couple of years there has been substantial progress in the longevity of inksets and paper and the big money investment continues. Dana > For example, Silvershotz, Volume 4 Edition 1, page 77, > Andy Cross draws a comparison of the same image on silver- > gelatin to the same image on inkjet. The editors conclude > "The gap is closing and only the trained eye can now see > the difference". But "trained eyes that can see the difference" describes most of the members of this group. The untrained eye, given a 5x magnifying glass or a bad case of myopia, has no trouble either. The untrained eye also thinks disposables make 'perfectly good pictures'. > Is there even a question any longer? No, there is no question. Ink Jet != Silver Gelatine != Platinum != Gum Bichromate != Bromoil transfer .... and never will. So what? *** Ob Comp Illit: "!=" is "doesn't equal" in geek SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> For example, Silvershotz, Volume 4 Edition 1, page 77, >> Andy Cross draws a comparison of the same image on silver- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > myopia, has no trouble either. The untrained eye also thinks > disposables make 'perfectly good pictures'. This seems like a pretty specious argument; somehow, just because a trained observer can determine, upon close examination, that a print is inkjet versus traditional, inkjet prints fall into the class of snap-shots from single use printers? That's just fallacious, which is the point the editors of Silvershotz were making. The gap is closing. Photography is evolving. No need to debate it. >> Is there even a question any longer? > > No, there is no question. Ink Jet != Silver Gelatine != Platinum > != Gum Bichromate != Bromoil transfer .... and never will. > > So what? I've become accustomed to more objectivity on your part than this exhibits :-). The specific "question" here was one of material longevity, not one of similarity. Of course these different processes are... um.. different. My point is that, just as commercial pressures led to traditional photographic processes becoming increasingly archival, the same thing is happening - at a very rapid rate - to inkjet inks and media. That's what. Dana >> The untrained eye, given a 5x magnifying glass or a bad case of >> myopia, has no trouble either. The untrained eye also thinks [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > print is inkjet versus traditional, inkjet prints fall into the > class of snap-shots from single use printers? ^^^^^^^^ Err, of course I meant "cameras". Dana > But "trained eyes that can see the difference" describes most > of the members of this group. This is true but irrelevant. The question is will the original poster's nephew see it and if he does care? So far to me the question has not been really answered, how do you interest someone brought up on video, computer graphics and digital photography in silver based photography? Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > So far to me the question has not been really answered, how do > you interest someone brought up on video, computer graphics and > digital photography in silver based photography? The same way you interest a hamburger and hot-dog habituated American in Japanese cuisine. Who wants to bother? > The same way you interest a hamburger and hot-dog habituated American in > Japanese cuisine. Who wants to bother? Speaking as a father of two boys (12 and 9) who eat Sushi, I do. But there is a difference between teaching them new things, versus teaching them old ways to do the things they like. My 12 year old is not interested in black and white in any form. He simply won't look at it or watch it on TV. As for chemical processing, it takes too long. He'll gladly use a film camera (push the button) and looks at the prints, but how they got from button push to paper is of no interest. My 9 year old shows even less interest, but he wonders how things work, so there is hope for him yet. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> The same way you interest a hamburger and hot-dog habituated American in >> Japanese cuisine. Who wants to bother? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My 9 year old shows even less interest, but he wonders how things work, so there > is hope for him yet. If that might give you some more hope, I started photography quite a few years later than 12 (and 9) when my father bought me a second hand minolta -- there was no digital consumer market back then (a "back then" which for most of you surely barely means something :-) ). It was enough for me to want to know more. IMHO it is more important to start making pictures and learn from them, whether the camera uses sensors or film, than using your own enlarger from the beginning. If photography grabs you by the throat and doesn't let you go, you will always be willing to learn more. If not, it is still some small piece of knowledge and experience that you have and might ameliorate your quality of life by a tiny amount. :-) Thierry > IMHO it is more important to start making pictures and learn from them, whether > the camera uses sensors or film, than using your own enlarger from the > beginning. If photography grabs you by the throat and doesn't let you go, you > will always be willing to learn more. Bravo! Dana >The same way you interest a hamburger and hot-dog habituated American in > Japanese cuisine. Who wants to bother? July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, Wait! This could be the very reason to bother. I was raised on overcooked, even burnt food. Liver prepared under the broiler. My education in fish showed me it came from a frozen box bearing the label Stix. My grand mother did make gefilte fish, but I was unable to appreciate it during her lifetime, I'm sad to say. But even that was ground fish... Now that I'm a geezer I can enjoy raw fish and rare beef and even the odd bit of liver done properly. Plus the foods of foreign cultures. For some young people, the unusual way of doing something is more attractive. Computer output won't necessarily appeal to everyone. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > Have you seen high-end inkjet prints? I've certainly seem > them in galleries, and buyers are snapping them up as fast > as silver-gelatin prints. Popularity has nothing to do with quality; it is only a measure of the mean, and nothing else. > > Have you seen high-end inkjet prints? I've certainly seem > > them in galleries, and buyers are snapping them up as fast > > as silver-gelatin prints. > > Popularity has nothing to do with quality; it is only a measure of the > mean, and nothing else. ITYM 'mode'. > In article <1395p04dv5j39f6@news.supernews.com>, John Boy >> Popularity has nothing to do with quality; it is only a measure of the >> mean, and nothing else. >> > ITYM 'mode'. We have no figures, so I don't know how you would know what the mode is, or even if it's significant. Dana Myers wrote: Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: > "Dana Myers" <dana.my...@gmail.com> wrote > > > silver-gelatin ... inkjet. "The gap is closing and only the trained > > > eye can now see the difference". > But "trained eyes that can see the difference" describes most of the > members of this group. The untrained eye, given a 5x magnifying glass or a > bad case of myopia, has no trouble either. The untrained eye also thinks > disposables make 'perfectly good pictures'. > This seems like a pretty specious argument; somehow, just because a > trained observer can determine, upon close examination, that a print is > inkjet versus traditional, Read again: o One can see the difference o Anyone can see the difference o Anyone isn't good at seeing differences There isn't any argument, just a series of observations. > inkjet prints fall into the class of snap-shots from single use printers? Who said that? Oh, yes ... > That's just fallacious, Phrase comes to my mind also. > which is the point the editors of Silvershotz were making. The gap is > closing. Photography is evolving. If the gap is closing then photography is regressing, logical? > No need to debate it. Who's debating? It's a one-man debate and I am not in it. > > Is there even a question any longer? > No, there is no question. Ink Jet != Silver Gelatine != Platinum != Gum > Bichromate != Bromoil transfer .... and never will. > I've become accustomed to more objectivity on your part than this exhibits Whaaaa....? > The specific "question" here was one of material longevity, not one of > similarity. It was? It is? Where? > Of course these different processes are... um.. different. My point is > that My point is just that also. We agree. Why is it, when it is mentioned ink-jet doesn't look like silver-gelatine there is this massive jerking of knees? A better question is why does ink-jet/digital even _want to_ look like silver gelatine. The only thing inferior about digital is it's complex. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >The only thing inferior about digital is it's complex. July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, It's inferiority complex, you mean? (I'm sorry, couldn't resist, probably too late to be first with this obvious one ...) regards, --le > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote: > >The only thing inferior about digital is it's complex. > It's inferiority complex, you mean? Er, that was the meaning. I see I used the wrong "it's" - it's "its". SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote: >> >The only thing inferior about digital is it's complex. >> It's inferiority complex, you mean? > >Er, that was the meaning. I see I used the wrong "it's" - >it's "its". July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, I see I used the apostrophe incorrectly, too! It's its indeed. I've never had occasion to try to teach use of the apostrophe to someone whose first language was not English. The few times I've tried with native English speakers I've regretted it, too. regards, --le > I've never had occasion to try to teach use > of the apostrophe to someone whose first > language was not English. The few times I've > tried with native English speakers I've > regretted it, too. http://orwell.ru/library/others/style/e/estyle_1.htm From the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style#I._Elementary_rules_of_usage With commentary: http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/putting_the_str SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > The difference between an image captured on B&W film and an > image captured on a digital sensor remains obvious and will > likely never go away, and this is exactly where the character > and soul of a B&W print come from - even if the print is made > digitally. Although I wish it was not true, unfortunately, I can't agree with you. Digital sensors exist today which can produce better monochrome images (and color ones) than film and have existed for many years. For example, how many people have seen any satellite photograph on a poster? Satellite images have all been digital since the early 1960's. Please don't tell me that you saw an image on Google Earth and it was not up to the quality of silver. Google Earth pictures are the low end of satellite digital images. It's not a question of technology, it's a question of market. If 1 person is willing to pay for such a sensor in a camera, it won't be made. If 10,000 are it might be. If a million are, someone might make it. If 99% of the market is happy with 8mp 24 bit (8 bits per color) cameras with Bayer sensors, that's what will be sold. The same thing happened to the film market. Look at the films that were available 20 years ago, and what is available now. Most people were happy with color negative film with wide exposure latitude, "rich" (as in exagurated) color and relatively large grain and low accutance. (pardon the spelling mistakes). Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >If 99% of the market is happy with 8mp 24 bit (8 bits per color) >cameras with Bayer sensors, that's what will be sold. dSLRs tend to be 12-bit, moving to 14-bit. >The same thing happened to the film market. Look at the films >that were available 20 years ago, and what is available now. >Most people were happy with color negative film with wide >exposure latitude, "rich" (as in exagurated) color and >relatively large grain and low accutance. (pardon the spelling >mistakes). Fuji makes plenty of high quality films. At the moment I really like 160S and Astia 100F. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > For example, how many people have seen any satellite photograph > on a poster? Satellite images have all been digital since the > early 1960's. I truly wonder if that is correct. Even back then they were dropping film in canisters back into the atmosphere to be picked up by dragging nets behind aircraft. If you could provide a credible source for that information, I would appreciate it. > Please don't tell me that you saw an image on Google Earth and > it was not up to the quality of silver. Google Earth pictures > are the low end of satellite digital images. Who can tell by looking at a monitor? I swear, so many people use it for the standard and don't know what a real print is. > It's not a question of technology, it's a question of market. > If 1 person is willing to pay for such a sensor in a camera, it > won't be made. If 10,000 are it might be. If a million are, > someone might make it. Hasselblad is trying very hard to bring their 16mpx back to the market. Too bad it's still a physically small thing. > If 99% of the market is happy with 8mp 24 bit (8 bits per color) > cameras with Bayer sensors, that's what will be sold. :) Cell Phone cameras suffice for most! > I truly wonder if that is correct. Even back then they were dropping > film in canisters back into the atmosphere to be picked up by dragging > nets behind aircraft. If you could provide a credible source for that > information, I would appreciate it. I'm not sure of the exact date, I'll see if I could find it. It was a great scoop on the Russians. The first digital satellite (thought it may have used analog tape) was designed to drop dummy films for a few weeks. The Russians kept track of it and when it stopped they assumed it ran out of film and ignored it. It took lots of good pictures of things that were normally hidden when a satellite passed overhead. > Who can tell by looking at a monitor? I swear, so many people use it for > the standard and don't know what a real print is. I know, that sucks, doesn't it. But then how many people watched VHS video tape and thought it was good. :-) > Hasselblad is trying very hard to bring their 16mpx back to the market. > Too bad it's still a physically small thing. I wonder how sucessfull they really will be. Canon seems to be the only company doing well in the full frame (24x36mm) sensor market for consumer (non scientific or military) cameras. Considering you can buy for very little money in comparison a 4/3 size sensor with 12mp, the difference is not that much. In a few years the 4/3 sensors will be obsolete. The trend is to make them as small as possible as it reduces manufacturing costs for everything besides the sensor. >:) Cell Phone cameras suffice for most! True, but 100 years ago contact prints from fixed focus, fixed exposure Kodak cameras sufficed for most. Once a certain minimum quality has been achived the market stabilizes for a while. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> :) Cell Phone cameras suffice for most! > > True, but 100 years ago contact prints from fixed focus, fixed exposure > Kodak cameras sufficed for most. Once a certain minimum quality has been > achived the market stabilizes for a while. An excellent observation; we have a tendency to compare a very mature technology (silver-halide film, paper and processes) to a relatively new and still rapidly-evolving techology (digital photography). Dana >> The difference between an image captured on B&W film and an >> image captured on a digital sensor remains obvious and will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > monochrome images (and color ones) than film and have existed > for many years. We're speaking about different things here. You say that "digital sensors exist ... which can produce better monochrome images". You're absolutely right, no disagreement. But - this depends on the definition of "better". I'm not talking about technical superiority when I refer to the "character and soul" of a B&W print - I'm talking about the look that comes from capturing on silver-halide film. Dana > We're speaking about different things here. You say that > "digital sensors exist ... which can produce better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > soul" of a B&W print - I'm talking about the look that comes > from capturing on silver-halide film. In another I should have patented it moment, I suggested on a newsgroup or photography list that somebody should write a photoshop plugin that converts a digital image to the spectral response and to use a digital term, dynamic range of film. You could use a Tri-X filter, or a T-Max filter, or whatever. I don't have a URL, but I recently read about such a product in a photo magazine. :-( Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> We're speaking about different things here. You say that >> "digital sensors exist ... which can produce better [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I don't have a URL, but I recently read about such a product > in a photo magazine. :-( There's at least two of these plug-ins that I'm personally aware of. After a little experimentation with them, I found they do a pretty credible job of tweaking the spectral response of an image. But I have yet to see a grain/accutance filter that even comes close. This reminds of the folks striving to achieve classic vacuum-tube sound in solid-state sound devices (particularly guitar amplifiers and effects). They're getting really, *really* close, but it's just not quite the same. Perhaps not ironically, one of the most successful techniques is to use a vacuum-tube in a low-level stage to 'color' the audio, followed by a solid-state amplifier chain designed for very low distortion. Dana > There's at least two of these plug-ins that I'm personally > aware of. After a little experimentation with them, I found they > do a pretty credible job of tweaking the spectral response of an > image. But I have yet to see a grain/accutance filter that even > comes close. It's a new field and it's software. Someone will come up with an improvment and that will be improved and so on. > This reminds of the folks striving to achieve classic vacuum-tube > sound in solid-state sound devices (particularly guitar amplifiers > and effects). They're getting really, *really* close, but it's just > not quite the same. However they have two things working for them. One is as it get's closer, less people will be able to tell, and the ones that really do know the difference will die off. You also have to understand that the "record sound" and "tube sound" was caused by distortion added by the equipment. I spent a 11 years working at a folk music club and hearing live music every Sunday night. I know what live music is supposed to sound like, and I don't miss LP's nor tubes. I also don't miss the grain effects of movie film and the exagerated colors of Technicolor or Ektachrome type movie film. I'm perfectly happy watching (high quality) direct to digital video over 16mm film. > Perhaps not ironically, one of the most successful techniques is > to use a vacuum-tube in a low-level stage to 'color' the audio, > followed by a solid-state amplifier chain designed for very > low distortion. Somebody (I think it was Ausus) had a motherboard with on board Audio that included a vaccum tube preamp. I'd love to have one on my office wall, but not actually in a computer. :-) Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> There's at least two of these plug-ins that I'm personally >> aware of. After a little experimentation with them, I found they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It's a new field and it's software. Someone will come up with an >improvment and that will be improved and so on. 'Soon', the general public will have forgotten what images captured on B/W film look like and you be able get a away with horrible, cheesy effects. And some time after that people will believe that B/W looked just like the cheesy effects. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > 'Soon', the general public will have forgotten what images captured on > B/W film look like and you be able get a away with horrible, cheesy > effects. Silver-Gelatine prints - the few the museum has - will be hanging with its sole surviving Daguerreotype. Visitors will be astounded: "Look Marge, a photograph can't get inside and walk around in." SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus: >>'Soon', the general public will have forgotten what images captured on >>B/W film look like and you be able get a away with horrible, cheesy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Visitors will be astounded: "Look Marge, a photograph > can't get inside and walk around in." Maybe the pointy-headed museum-curator types will come up with a new 50-cent designation for such curiousities: "Static planographic print", or some such. SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Maybe the pointy-headed museum-curator types will come up with a new > 50-cent designation for such curiousities: "Static planographic print", > or some such. It's just something "everything must be new" people will have to get over. While nothing within site of my home is over 100 years old, a few miles away are city streets that were old 2,000 years ago. I've never been to Las Vegas, but I wonder what it's like to live in a city where almost everything was built less than 60 years ago. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> There's at least two of these plug-ins that I'm personally >> aware of. After a little experimentation with them, I found they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's a new field and it's software. Someone will come up with an > improvment and that will be improved and so on. As long as there's interest in the concept. Perhaps the niche is best served by capturing on silver film in the first place. >> This reminds of the folks striving to achieve classic vacuum-tube >> sound in solid-state sound devices (particularly guitar amplifiers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > closer, less people will be able to tell, and the ones that really > do know the difference will die off. LOL. > You also have to understand that the "record sound" and "tube sound" > was caused by distortion added by the equipment. I spent a 11 years > working at a folk music club and hearing live music every Sunday night. Of course. It's no different than "film look" - we've become accustomed to the characteristics of the reproduction technology, to the point that it is, for some, an essential part of the experience. [...] > Somebody (I think it was Ausus) had a motherboard with on board > Audio that included a vaccum tube preamp. I'd love to have one on > my office wall, but not actually in a computer. :-) Here's a link to a review of one of Aopen's motherboards with a vacuum tube (they made several): http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/aopenax4btube/ I do not believe they still make any motherboards with vacuum tubes. Dana Dnia Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:38:31 -0700, Dana Myers napisał(a): > The difference between an image captured on B&W film and an > image captured on a digital sensor remains obvious and will > likely never go away... Captured image is only source for good print. So image from B&W film is good source for scanning and digital print. Of course if somebody prefers to look through magnifying glass then B&W print from englarer has higher resolutions. But I'm from the people which just prefer to make bigger prints. I have darkroom and make from time to time some englarements, but only for fun - my albums are filled with digital prints. So don't focus on effect, because advantage of darkroom is not in prints but in work to create them. Greetings Henry >Dodos and dinosaurs we may be...but that look/feel/presence is >something I for one have yet to see in a digital. July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, I certainly agree with you (well, I would, wouldn't I?). But right away we're faced with the challenge to look at a bunch of prints and see if we can tell the difference. The other day I was in a camera shop (Natalie wanted a pair of low power binoculars for the opera, so there I was). I couldn't help looking over the display of digital cameras, and goggled at the huge Canon rig wearing the $8700 tag. I chatted with the sales guy, who baldly said digital is "better" than film. It would never occur to him that a darkroom print could be as good or better than a computer output print. Thoughts like look and feel don't apply... We're dinosaurs, all right, and we're being replaced by the mice. regards, --le > We're dinosaurs, all right, and we're being > replaced by the mice. I've had this theory that the dinosaurs were done in by rats. At the time Dino died the Ur-Mammal was a small possum like insect eater. When this insect eater developed rodent teeth the age of mammals began. I imagine a plague of egg-eating rats did the dinosaurs in. If explained to the creationists that man was descended from the rat I imagine that they could raise little argument. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >If explained to the creationists that man was descended >from the rat I imagine that they could raise little argument. July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, They sometimes express the belief that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. In that case, humans could have been the direct cause of the extinction of dinosaurs. Yummy lizard eggs... regards, --le On Jul 10, 7:35?am, I chatted with the sales guy, who > baldly said digital is "better" than film. >> > regards, > --le As you know sales folks will say anything to sell anything. Product knowledge is their short suit. In this case the sales guy probably did not know digital from silver. Or even spell the words. I went 99% digital about 2? years ago. Today I am taking better pictures under the usually disasterous condtions in which I work. Horrible lighting is routine. But the ability of the digital computer, digital camera and digital printer to make a very nice print is far easier and better then silver camera, silver darkroom and silver chemistry. And all at home in my office where I have everything to work with. Bob AZ On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:04:02 +0000 (UTC), gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: >A few weeks ago I asked on the Jerusalem Photography Yahoo list if anyone >besides me developed a roll of film or made a silver based print in the last >year. One person said yes, and she had done it in a class. She works in >100% digital. :-( > >Geoff. July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, Your work will be pretty close to unique in the near to distant future! Pretty soon you may be making the only silver based prints in Jerusalem -- that should please the curators... in 2075. But my guess is there are others, maybe plenty of them, but they don't bother looking or listening to others, they just get on with what they're doing. Me, I've succumbed to the heat (and what a wimp, it's only Toronto heat!) and I'm sitting under my little air conditioner tapping away here at my keyboard. My safelights need new bulbs, and that seems a big chore right now. Pure laziness. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > you may be making the only silver based prints ... > But my guess is there are others, maybe > plenty of them, If sales of darkroom timers are anything to go by 75% of traditional printers don't have anything to do with the internet. And the average age is 72. These numbers are probably skewed as I am most likely getting the 'high-tech' end of the spectrum. *** Interestingly, the internet leads are the ones most leery of doing anything new. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >75% of traditional printers don't have anything to do >with the internet. > >And the average age is 72. July 10, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, Yes, I can certainly see how this would be the case. I'm sure we all have examples of such people. A good friend of mine (younger than I am, so the model does not hold perfectly) had no interest in the Internet for many years. He always had the strength of mind to eliminate anything and everything that was unproductive in his opinion. So if one suggested, for example, getting into the government arts grant game, his response was "just print!" He'd say that to nearly any suggestion. He sends and receives email today... regards, --le In article <slrnf945ia.4jk.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>, Geoffrey S. Mendelson gsm@mendelson.com says... > Be prepared to spend a lot of money to do it. Darkrooms are > expensive animals to build and feed. You can put a darkroom together for next to nothing these days if you watch eBay and Freecycle for a few weeks. Feeding it is only expensive if you shoot as if you were using digital, or experiment/screw up a lot when printing. Reasonable[1] cameras can also be had for peanuts. [1] If you're not a brand snob and you're not looking for perfection - mid-level consumer cameras and better from the 1920s through 1980s are "classic collectables" that can still produce good results, while cardboard boxes and bakelite Brownies are more 'real' than a modern Lomo, and cheaper too. :-) I recently went to an end-of-year exhibition at a local college where the best (IMHO) shots were from a totally home-made pinhole camera - all the others I was thinking either "I could have done that" or "I wouldn't have bothered doing that", and I've only recently reacquired the bug after a long break (I was never that good anyway, I just like fiddling with stuff). > You can put a darkroom together for next to nothing these days if you > watch eBay and Freecycle for a few weeks. Feeding it is only expensive [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cardboard boxes and bakelite Brownies are more 'real' than a modern > Lomo, and cheaper too. :-) If you think so, you are welcome to take anything that you find or get off of these lists, stick it in a USPS four-pounds-or-less flat rate air mail envelope and send it to me. :-) All I've seen here are "complete darkrooms" which means an old enlarger which has sat for many years, a negative carrier, lens and one or two trays, for over $1000. I'd love to have any medium format (even cheap folders) cameras, lenses and accessories for a 23c II, safelights, roll film, darkroom accessories (dodging and burning sticks, masks, multigrade filters), developing tanks, bulk loaders, reloadable 35mm casettes, etc. Chemicals have to come surface mail and should be unopened packages or bottles of powder (no liquids). Thanks, Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > All I've seen here are "complete darkrooms" which means an old > enlarger which has sat for many years, a negative carrier, > lens and one or two trays, for over $1000. If I recall properly, you are in Israel. True? Perhaps we can get some hardware together and ship to you. I recently bought an unused 23C with two lenses, trays, easel, power regulator, measures, tanks for $100. I donated it to a school after I could not give it away to the local colleges. Are there duties or other penalties for shipping to you from the USA? > |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message