Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,910   Posts: 1,584,671   Online: 860
      
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 152
  1. #71
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    George.

    While I appreciate morse code, (learned it when I was about 11 and promptly forgot it), I don't appreciate how you plan to make acceptable 35mm hand coated film. I would be happy to give you free access to my lab for a full week for you to demonstrate it to me. I will, in return, show you why you are wrong.

    The bottom line is that hand coated 35mm with any degree of quality, with a home darkroom is virtually impossible.

    Best of luck.

    PE
    Huh?

    Have you read anything here I wrote that would even begin to suggest I am interested in coating 35mm film?

    I have zero, zip, nada interest in doing so.

    And if that is what would be required to still shoot film then I would go digi! The reality is that I have an investment in good quality Nikkor glass - and I will use it. Preferably with film, but I will use it!

    I think that is the clear point I have been making.

    You and your "home coaters" seem to want to dump the rest of us film users. Fine. But that doesn't mean we will stop shooting!

    If 35mm film dies - then very few MF and LF shooters will stay in the game too, since it will also die. No commercial manufacturer is going to survive making just MF and LF film.

    I seriously doubt there are many more than a tiny minority of folk here on APUG who are willing and capable of "coating their own"!

  2. #72
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    What you all forget is that China is getting into the game of film making now and they don’t get into something if there is no future as they are all about turning profits. As I read these thread I tell you to be honest, it seems that they are designed to make every scared that film is dead to force people to buy hand coating devices.

    I think this is really the wrong mentality. America is not the only place in the world that offers products. China is up and coming and with a population of 2,000,000,000 people they will make a mint selling film based products to their own countrymen not to mention to the rest of the world that wants to continue to use it. Look at the sales coming from China in the LF sector, Do some research and you will see that their NEW MIDDLE class is thriving and rapidly getting into FILM based photography not DIGITAL.

    What about EFKE paper and film? As far as I know they are doing well and producing, what about the new Russian paper? FOMA Film? Ilford Film? Etc.. Instead of sitting here moaning and complaining get off your backside and buy the products and use them to makes sure you help secure the future of the craft you say you love. Talk is cheap people. Either step up to the plate or deal with the after effects.

    I do not know why certain people in this thread want everyone to think film and paper is dead and that we must hurry and buy self coating devices. If you do this YOU WILL BE THE REASON for the demise of the craft as we know it.

    You want photography to be around for our generation and the next then buy what is available and use it. Stop chatting and start using the materials.

    It is that simple.

    Sorry but I am really getting sick of this type of propaganda. I realize that with Forte gone is took a massive hit, but at the same time companies out there are still producing and new companies are appearing replacing what is being lost.

    If you think APUG represent all the user of film photographer you are dead wrong. The market is bigger than most want you to believe. There are a lot more people using film that will never touch an internet forum or a computer for that matter. Not everyone is rich like the western world that can afford the digital toys and computers. Many still use film but most Americans cannot see outside their own borders.

    The bottom line is ,if you do not use and buy what is on the market they you deserve to see it gone.
    Once again, as night follows day, we see this post. This is the ever reliable "Chinese solution" argument!

    FWIW:

    Two years ago my wife had a biz trip to Shanghai. She asked to take my digiP&S rather than a film camera because she didn't want the "hassle" of carrying film in a lead bag and having to change rolls etc. for what was a quick trip.

    While walking around with that aging digi-camera an innumerable number of street vendors approached her offering to sell her another CF card for it!

    That was two years ago!

    Hey guess where they make those CF cards?

    Yesterday, the Chinese demonstrated the capability to destroy space satellites. They make most of the digicameras we buy, they make the iPod your listen to, they built the DVD player you just turned off and have you checked out where your cellphone was manufactured.?

    For crying out loud, do you really think the Chinese are just chomping on the bit to buy a film camera because that's what you did 30 years ago?

    Emerging ecomonies are not "required" to go through all the "technological stages" that older developed ones went through. For example, that's why wireless telecommunications is more reliable than wired versions in these nations.

    The Chinese do not have to first go through a film photography stage before embracing digitals. Oh, and remember, it was a Chinese company that bought IBM's PC division!

  3. #73
    timbo10ca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    543
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    I think we are lazy when we argue like this. The fact of the matter is that the growth of digital photography is a direct result of the universality of PCs. Once a society crosses the threshhold and PC's become prevelant it is only a matter of course that more and more uses will become "digitized" to take advantage of that infrastructure.

    In fact, to master Photoshop requires a hell of a lot of effort. Effort you and I may not want to undertake - but someone who does so is certainly not "lazy".

    I actually took a course in PS last year taught by someone who works in the NYC advertising biz. She dazzled me with her ability to zoom into pics and adjust individual pixels and then zoom out and work of various areas of an image rapidly employing a vast array of tools available to her.

    She was a frenzy of knowledgable activity and certainly not LAZY!

    I prefer film photography over digital. But I think it is cavalierly out-of-touch to argue that an accomplished digital photographer/processor is LAZY!

    It's one thing to favor our "art" over theirs - but to denegrate accomplished people because they have a different approach is unnecessary.
    Haaang onaminut. I'm not "denegrating" the accomplished. I'm pointing out the fact that most people these days looking at a start in photography have this point of view. This is the struggle film faces. Cudos to those that have embraced and mastered the realm of Photoshop (I'll be the first to say it's an extremely complex tool), but do you think that these masters of the digital realm can be lured back to film? They've made the move forward as they see it. More and more people are going in that direction because it is perceived as easier. How many people do you know actually "master" Photoshop? I would bet that the majority of weekend warriors muck around and come up with something they can be proud of. If you read my posts, you and I seem to be arguing the same side of this discussion- no need to get hostile .
    If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso

    http://www.timbowlesphotography.com

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    As usual George you are missing the point. The point is that they would not make anything if they did not see a return on investment. And the fact that companies like Ilford and Fuji are coming out with new film based products, not to mention the Chinese is fact, plain and simple.

    Speak and talk all you want but fact is fact and there is noting changing that. When I see Ilford, Fuji, Efke, Foma, Kentmere and the others pull out then I will get worried until then I will work and BUY the materials and I suggest you do the same, unless of course you jstu liek to trol the forums to preach doom and gloom. It gets rather boring and your point as far as I am concerned is pointless as usual. Look for a solution not a demise. And the solution is to get off the keyboard and use products, prints and take images so they will be around for future generation.
    Last edited by kjsphoto; 01-20-2007 at 02:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    For crying out loud, do you really think the Chinese are just chomping on the bit to buy a film camera because that's what you did 30 years ago?
    Go do some research and see who is buying all the LF glass, specifically dagors. It isn't Americans or the Europeans...

  6. #76
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by timbo10ca View Post
    Haaang onaminut. I'm not "denegrating" the accomplished. I'm pointing out the fact that most people these days looking at a start in photography have this point of view. This is the struggle film faces. Cudos to those that have embraced and mastered the realm of Photoshop (I'll be the first to say it's an extremely complex tool), but do you think that these masters of the digital realm can be lured back to film? They've made the move forward as they see it. More and more people are going in that direction because it is perceived as easier. How many people do you know actually "master" Photoshop? I would bet that the majority of weekend warriors muck around and come up with something they can be proud of. If you read my posts, you and I seem to be arguing the same side of this discussion- no need to get hostile .
    Where we disagree is in the generalization that people are lazier now than in the past. I think that is just plain wrong.

    The vast majority of today's "lazy digiusers" are shooting P&S's. These folk were just as lazy when they were dropping cannisters into film P&S's!

    As to how many folk do I know who master PS? Simply put, how many film shooters ever master (or even enter) a darkroom! I never have.

    Processing, be it analog or digital, has always been a "minority" interest within the overall world of photography. In fact, I'd be more likely to use PS than learn wet DR at this stage in life. I still have to work every day - so just finding time to shoot is hard enough.

    I prefer film over digital by many magnitudes - but I think it is wrong to characterize those who are of an opposite mind as being lazy. And I also think that if you really believe that the solution to saving film photography is to get kids into the darkroom - then film really is dead. Even at the height of usage only a very few people processed their own - why would they want to do so now?

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    Huh?

    Have you read anything here I wrote that would even begin to suggest I am interested in coating 35mm film?

    I have zero, zip, nada interest in doing so.

    And if that is what would be required to still shoot film then I would go digi! The reality is that I have an investment in good quality Nikkor glass - and I will use it. Preferably with film, but I will use it!

    I think that is the clear point I have been making.
    Then you're not contributing any useful ideas and thoughts to this thread to find a solution! Dude, you don't really count...

    Anyway I feel that to preserve the art of film for the future generations is to start gathering all the abandoned pieces of equipment (35mm and MF film cameras) and have them back in a fair use. As I said before I think a small non-profit type of business (like the windmill eco-energy thing) could work to suppy for the 35mm users if the current market dies completely.

    Okay, so if 35mm roll film cannot be made in someone's darkroom, we go after the industrial machine with an operator or a bunch of operators, I don't know. What's the minimum size of a factory space that we will need? How big of an investment are we really looking at? What about the MF(120 and 220) film production? Please throw ideas in.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861

    Motion Picture Films in Still Cameras?

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Gentlemen;

    . . . . . . .

    I DO NOT WANT TO RELEGATE ANYONE TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. However, it may take place in spite of me. Believe me, you will not like anything I coat in 35mm nor will you come up with much better.

    I want better than digital for the future. But all of us have limitations. We may need an emulsion preservation conference, but notes to fellow emulsion makers (not Kodak - they respond with indifference) are either unanswered or answered with vituperation. What is wrong with people? Why are the best emulsion makers here unwilling to respond in a civil manner?

    PE
    Just going back in history, 35mm still cameras came about using motion picture film. I can see a far longer life for motion picture films (world-wide, not just EU and North America) than any still camera films. So that leaves a question of what difficulties we might encounter using current motion picture films in still cameras. If Oskar Barnack could do it, why can't we?

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    I found this poem to be essential for encouraging those who know the situation well but don't move their half-frozen asses:

    It goes on one at a time,
    it starts when you care
    to act, it starts when you do
    it again after they said no,
    it starts when you say We
    and know who you mean, and each
    day you mean one more.

    From The Moon Is Always Female, by Marge Piercy
    Copyright (c) 1980 by Marge Piercy


    This was part of the speech by Bill Moyers from the media conference, but agenda there is quite similar (I think) to what we are feeling about the current state of film photography.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0118-20.htm

    So, what do we really need to do about the film we use? Let's not split up the discussion because we have different tastes for differen formats, etc. We are all connected in one way, and we have to bring this to the FUTURE GENERATIONS, not just to us for god's sake.

  10. #80
    Martin Reed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    North London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Making a paint or buying canvas and stretching it for an oil painting is far easier than making an emulsion and coating it in the darkroom. But you don't have to be an engineer to do either.

    The big difference is that there are a lot of sources for learning how to make the paints and stretching the canvas, but few on making and coating gelatin. In fact, Silver Gelatin is out of print and it was the only relatively current book on the subject that I know about. That delineates the current level of interest to some extent here.

    PE
    As the author of the tome, can I put in a few pennorth. There are some members here trying to convey the situation of current emulsion technology, but most people don't seem to be getting it. The modern materials we have all been taking for granted come from a century and a half of industrial research, mainly kept out of the public domain, which has resulted in a technology of labyrinthine complexity. Secrecy has been fundamental to it's progress, and altruism has never come into it.

    As an example, Kentmere in their early years were approached by an amateur emulsion maker who had devised a formula which had some characteristics superior to some of their own recipes. In order to use his invention he was given his own laboratory on the site in which to make the emulsion; Kentmere staff were not privy to the formula, and the emulsion maker was not allowed into the coating plant in case he gained an advantage in knowledge of coating.

    If all the large emulsion-based manufacturers ceased, any new small enterprises would still largely have to re-invent this particular wheel. The resulting materials would probably be more basic in quality and speed than those we have become accustomed to, but if we want to work with emulsion paper and film then we would have to accept them for what they are, and work within their characteristics (work with the grain!).
    When we did the 'Silver Gelatin' book, I experimented with coating 8x10" glass plates using both commercial print emulsion and home-made recipes. Technically they certainly couldn't compare with TriX, but the elation of conquering the limitations to create a unique image made up for that.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin