Nor I, but then again, I'm a brand new participant in APUG as well.
Originally Posted by fdi
I'm trying to get my bearings. I still shoot film, and I have decades of experience in the darkroom. However, when Kodak killed my beloved Dye Transfer process, I went to the IRIS 3047 and at that point, I was an early adopter of hybrid film/ digital workflows. As I now understand it, APUG is trying to confine the discussion to a strictly classical analog photographic workflow. While I understand this philosophical construct really well and have a soft spot in my heart for it, the simple fact is that anyone shooting with film these days is going to be hard pressed not to move to some kind of hybrid analog-digital workflow, if not for all of one's work, at least for some of it. So, I also just joined the Hybridphoto.com site, but I have mixed emotions about all of this. I really hate to compartmentalize my comments along these analog-digital divides. I'd feel much happier in a forum where the members didn't freak out if I was talking about mixing and matching digital and analog technologies as opposed to talking about pure analog workflows only. No doubt, I wasn't here when the decision to move the "gray area" over to a new site called hybridphoto.com occurred. Had I been, I would have strongly suggested it's a mistake. But that's water under the bridge.
Anyway, I want the Aardenburg Imaging and Archives digital print research program not to overlook the classic processes, and indeed add some important ones as benchmarks to compare modern digital output to in terms of print longevity.
I will try to stay all analog on this forum. In that spirit, I would like to say that my years in strictly analog photography leave me with a soft spot in my heart for it. After all, I have a degree in Photographic science from RIT, and it was all analog at the time! My new company, Aardenburg-imaging & Archives is trying to change the game for the way print longevity information is presented to the consumer. In particular, I'm trying to give relevant print permanence information for fine art printmaking community rather than more liberal consumer photofinishing requirements. My test methods lend themselves naturally to digital workflows, but when I created my test targets I kept in mind the idea that the targets should be possible to print using purely analog workflows as well. So, I standardized on a color target the is mostly comprised of the Macbeth ColorChecker Chart. Hence, analog practitioners can simply photograph the ColorChecker target to produce test samples I can evaluate. Similarly, the monochrome target I use, ableit very easy to reproduce in a digital workflow, can in effect by printed using strictly analog workflows as well. What all this means is that the Aardenburg Imaging & Archives light fade testing program is in fact extensible to analog workflows as well.
One of my goals for this year is to get the classic analog color processes of Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) and Kodak Dye Transfer into test using the latest lightfade testing protocols before these materials become totally lost to the ages. Likewise, I'm looking to bring some classical silver gelatin print materials into light fade testing. We've always assumed they have no light fastness issues, but in fact, many have optical brighteners in the gelatin layers, so there may indeed be some lightfastness sensitivity.
Glad to be here,