Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,363   Posts: 1,682,886   Online: 842
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    RattyMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,611
    Images
    83

    "Photographs Gain Importance as Tangible Objects"

    That quote's from an interesting project going on at Fujifilm. Lots of digital images lost in the Tsunami, lots of film images salvageable.

    http://www.fujifilm.com/support/photo_rescue/10.html

  2. #2
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,718
    Images
    15
    Very noteworthy, if a touch sad too. The making, or striving for, a 'tangible image', is by and large lost in this digital generation, and as analogue photographers, don't we know it. The 'print' — something to show around anywhere, any time, is now a PC screen, an iPad, iPhone, phablet or whatever else — none of this tangible nor reliable, or expressing character, texture and finesse of a printed image. The world has turned a corner, and I don't like the path ahead.

    The stand-up and take notice bit is at the end:

    "In 20 or 30 years time, when today's technology has been replaced, your memories will remain the most important legacy of your life. In order to prevent the disappearance of such memories, we would like to share the importance of making physical photographs [...]"

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,690
    Well we all at APUG could have told Fujifilm this but while interesting it would seem that Fuji is simply encouraging people to make paper images from their digital files while they can. I don't think it has much to do with the revival of film or chemically processed paper. Indeed if the images had been shot on film in the first place then it wouldn't matter if there were no prints as the negatives would exist.

    Nothing in the article even hints that a return to film photography is the answer. It might be one answer but the article doesn't even make this connection.

    This of course may not be your point in drawing our attention to the article.

    pentaxuser

  4. #4
    RattyMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,611
    Images
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by snapguy View Post
    While it is true many people may just make photo prints of their electronic images, this might in the long run make people think harder about film. I have met many electronic image photographers who are very fond of film images and remember their old, or first, film camera well. Perhaps more will drag out an old film classic camera and help keep film alive. Those electronic boxes are quick and handy to use but let's hope more people start using film for landmark family gatherings, recording the old homestead or whatever.
    Yes, exactly. A shame that Fujifilm does not hint at this.

  5. #5
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,463
    Images
    12
    Fuji makes most of their (photo) money from RA4 materials. Of course they want you to print digital stuff, that's their main market.

    Doesn't mean they're wrong, just that we should recognise where they're coming from and not assume that they're advocating for film just because they speak of tangible products.

  6. #6
    RattyMouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,611
    Images
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    Fuji makes most of their (photo) money from RA4 materials. Of course they want you to print digital stuff, that's their main market.

    Doesn't mean they're wrong, just that we should recognise where they're coming from and not assume that they're advocating for film just because they speak of tangible products.
    Well, anything that keeps RA41 materials in high volume is good for film shooters, right? So Fujifilm's efforts can have a tangential benefit for those shooting color film.

  7. #7
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18,315
    Blog Entries
    17
    Images
    79
    rattymouse

    thanks for posting this
    tangible is good ...
    it is too bad more people don't make prints of their images
    whether they are film scans or digital images ...
    as that guy who had that podcast about photography used to say
    its not a photograph unless it is a print ( or something like that )

    i feel bad for all the people after the cosmic storm when the power surges
    and everything is erased .. its gonna be not only anarchy, but visual anarchy

  8. #8
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,248
    Images
    63
    Sounds exactly like what Kodak Alaris is trying to emphasize.

    The profits are in the RA4 world.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,049
    We have said it for years...and we mean it.

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

  10. #10
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,164
    Well, in that article it is not said how those digital files had been erased.
    Nor is it said how images on paper (of any kind) or on film would have come out better from those circumstances.


    One could argue that material photographs may have been spread and thus safed, but this comes true for digital files too. Spreading is even easier.

    I do see the advantage of film as archival means. But not in this case.
    I just don't see the point in this whole matter.
    Last edited by AgX; 07-24-2014 at 03:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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