Now we ask the question
Who makes the paper and film we use and how stable are the companies and how long will they produce the materials.
Micheal Smith says Kodak will provide him with the remainder of Azo paper, then sells it to some unknown enitiy.
JandC can't provide all of the products it lists all of the time.
Amidol developer wasn't available for months this Summer/Fall.
There are no film camera stores with complete inventories. My one and only store in town has a one shelf "real" photo shelf, mostly enpty.
I just went to France and couldn't find a real photograph there. Everything is digital. And NO TRIPODS IN PARIS. They are pushing film photography into the trash there as they are here in the US.
Maybe the world community should ban paint and canvas or clay? Better yet burn all of the Art and Photography books. Have everything digital so it can be examined to determine if it is legal and acceptable.
I can see the problems that the early artists had with the Church and Governments. Artists are like a fragile flower that only grows under specific conditions and is easily crushed and made extinct.
It's hard not to think about it when so many are abandoning craft for so called "ease".
I just returned from a small local show. ALL inkjet, labeled on back as such, but what really got my goat was the one guy who labeled his b&w inkjets as..(sit down, hold on to the chair arms..) well, he labeled them as "piezoelectric". WTF is that supposed to mean?
Besides the prints being absolutely devoid of any emotional content and just plain "dead", I can only assume that they were printed and then zapped with a defibrillator or some shock device.
To be honest, there were two B&w's that I feel got the most out of the epson technology. Many were digital "capture" as well.
Plain dead. Piezoelectrifried.
Matt's Photo Site
"I invent nothing, I rediscover". Auguste Rodin
My favorite inkjet terms are:
- archival ultrachrome
- digital c print
I know there are several more but I'm a bit brain dead at the moment.
Why not just call them for what they are: inkjet prints
And again I scream out loud: support ilford
It means that he not only uses an inkjet, but he is proud of how it manages to shoot the ink onto the paper. According to Epson, this was quite an innovation in 1993 when they introduced it. It is the inkjet equivalent of advertising your "cold light" prints. Come to think of it, that might sound cool, "Silver Gelatin Cold Light Prints." :o
Originally Posted by blaze-on
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
A "digital c print" is not an inkjet print. It is made by direct exposure on type c photo paper thru one of a number of means. Digital yes, but not an inkjet. The existence and commercial viability of these hybrid prints is one of the factors which keeps cut sheet color paper available for those who want to make (analog) C prints in low volumes. The downside of this symbiosis is that the success of lightjets, chromiras, frontiers, dlabs, etc. has served to effectively push direct reversal processes into the empty elevator shaft of history.
Originally Posted by david b
I think the folks you want to call on the carpet are the ones referring to monochrome inkjets as "carbon prints." At best this demonstrates a lack of awareness of photo history. If I boldly announced that my next oeuvre would consist exclusively of the specular brilliance of 57 chevy bumpers captured in pinhole photographs you might suspect I was a bit daft but harmless. However, if I announced that I was calling the prints "Autochromes", I think I would be roundly (and rightfully) called to task. Carbon Giclee?
There must be millions of film cameras out there, if people continue to use them film will stay with us. Many young people are satisfied with looking at an instant result on their mobile phone screen. Recently I observed a group of teenagers enthuse about all the fantastic shots they had taken on their phones. They then proceeded to wipe their memory cards clean ready for the next lot of instant pictures. Good fun for them, yes, but is it photography or is it image capture? Will future generations care how a picture is produced? I think not, just as long as it is instant and its quality is acceptable to them digital will tick all the boxes. It seems like Kodak have recognised that the majority of people love photographs but are too lazy or hate having to learn how to make them, digital is the answer, pop the memory card into a digital workstation, press a few buttons and thats it. What you get are prints that are acceptable to the majority, if they need tweaking there is always photo shop, which for some is too much to learn. You can argue forever the advantages/ disadvantages of film versus digital, but just take a moment and think how lazy the majority of the human race is, excellence in anything takes effort. For me producing an excellent b&w print takes a lot of effort, I also: climb mountains, ride motorcycles as fast as they will go, restore vintage bikes, cars, cameras , guns, furniture etc,etc. For me doing the hard things in life gives me great satisfaction, a natural high. Have I got it wrong? Maybe if I was young today I would take the easy way, pop a few pills, sniff a bit of coke, drink myself to a standstill and take pictures on my mobie phone, have a laugh at the photos of myself and others totally incapacitated, then wipe the phones memory and my own because to be honest the high wasnt so good after all. Who can take good photographs when intoxicated anyway? Could that be a new topic?Apologies for the rant I have become middle aged.
Originally Posted by david b
See here what happens when you actually say this in the presence of *grits teeth* 'digital darkroom' users . It is an interesting thread, things get 'warm' on page four)
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
Not true. My nearest photography shop is stuffed with film, paper, chemicals etc. Silverprint (for it is they) in London continue to add to their inventory with new films, e.g. rollei R3. They are also doing a roaring trade in digital stuff. See, analogue and digital can exist side by side.
Originally Posted by Curt
The no tripod rule, along with the no street photography rule is *not* anti film, it's anti photography. That doesn't stop you whipping out a press 5x4, using a SLR, TLR, rangefinder etc.
Originally Posted by Curt
My favorite stupidity of the current time: "Is this film or digital?" below a screen capture of an image. Its pixels on a monitor, and turned into zeroes and ones somehow to get there - ITS ALL DIGITAL on a computer screen.
Nice way to share your images with people - I am eternally grateful for our APUG galleries because I get to see some wonderful photos I would otherwise have no access to (and get valuable input on my own stuff) - but for the sake of these idiotic "bet you can't tell" tests... there is hardly anything more pointless.
Frankly, I couldn't stomach going to page four, I gave up...