Black and White film is obsolete
Robert Feinman
black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
read it before getting defensive.
My position is that you have more presentation options and less
limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
I also invite you to look at my new Hawaii pictures. Taken with a 4x5
view on sheet and roll film.
--
Robert Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Panoramic and Landscape Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
Paul Light
get from conversions are so good that it is almost pointless to shoot
black and white film. But I must emphasize almost. If you were to see
actual prints, not reproductions, by Emmett Gowin, Nick Nixon, Michael
Kenna, Lee Friedlander or Abe Morrell you would see black and white is not
obsolete and will not be at any point soon.
In article <3CADB08E...@netscape.net>, Robert Feinman
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
> black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
> read it before getting defensive.
> My position is that you have more presentation options and less
> limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
>
> I also invite you to look at my new Hawaii pictures. Taken with a 4x5
> view on sheet and roll film.
--
Paul Light
ligh...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/lightwav
Chris Ellinger
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
>black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
>read it before getting defensive.
>My position is that you have more presentation options and less
>limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
From your website:
"Before anyone objects too strongly, I'll admit that there is one
aspect in which negative film is superior: latitude. The exposure
range of slide film is 4 to 6 stops compared to 8 to 10 stops for
negative film (especially if given full exposure for shadows). There
is even a solution for this, at least for static subjects."
For me, being limited to "static subjects", when more than 6 stops of
latitude is required, is not an option.
Chris Ellinger
Ann Arbor, MI
Amr Ibrahim
I agree with you...but would the level of demand from an ever shrinking
market support this type of film much longer? I hope that it shall, but I
am not sure.
Brgrds
AI
"Paul Light" <ligh...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:lightwav-050...@p174.block2.tc1.rnktel.net...
Robert Feinman
you display your images is a subject for another discussion.
The major avenues for viewing images are:
1. Online
2. Traditional chemical-based images
3. Inkjet or other mechanical methods
4. Halftone and other mass-production methods.
I personally believe that it is now possible to get as good a print via
inkjet as from chemical-based methods, but this indepdendent of how you
capture the original image. I even put a method in my tip for producing
a manipulated negative to use in a conventional darkroom. So I'm not
opposed to traditional displays.
Paul Light wrote:
--
Robert Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
Godfrey DiGiorgi
mixer to create B&W images, even applying "film grain" using digital
silver ... but saying that B&W film is obsolete is an overstatement.
As one point, B&W films are higher resolution than color films due to
their thinner, single layer construction. There is no color film emulsion
that has the resolution of Kodak Technical Pan.
B&W films are also more flexible and manipulable for speed, contrast,
density and grain characteristics. There are a large number different
developer formulations each of which can be used with a given
film/exposure/processing technique to arrive at unique imaging qualities.
Very few people come close to exploiting the full possibilities of B&W
film. For many, shooting color neg and using digital means to mix down to
a b&w image are more than they'll ever need. But that does not make B&W
obsolete.
Godfrey
In article <3CADB08E...@netscape.net>, Robert Feinman
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
hogarth
I work in B&W almost exclusively, so my experience with color is not the
most in-depth ;-) What I remember is that B&W film has a far greater
dynamic range than color film. I remember that B&W is typically good for
around 10 zones, color negative film is good for about 5 zones, and
color transparency film is good for about 4 zones. Maybe technology has
given this a boost in the last 15-20 years...
Given the dynamic range differences, conversion of color transparency
film to gray scale would result in images that are relatively flat
compared to the "real thing" will it not? Of course, you can stretch the
information you have in Photoshop to create a fuller image. Problem is,
your color transparency has limited information for Photoshop to
stretch.
Are you planning to do side-by-side comparisons of B&W vs. scanned and
manipulated color? I would be interested in seeing your results for
that.
UrbanVoyeur
others here, B&W film has a greater latitude than color negative. It is also
in my opinion capable of much more subtle tonal separation than color film.
Though I also think that to take full advantage of the capabilities of B&W
film you have to spend a fair amount of time in methodical experimentation,
working with various chemistries, film, and paper. I think more than color
film, B&W film & paper gives you results that are directly proportional to
the effort you put into understanding your materials.
So yes, I think that color can equal or exceed average B&W. But I don't
think it is yet equal to the best that B&W can produce.
Oh and BTW, I shoot mostly people and other moving subjects. I rarely shoot
landscapes or static subjects.
"Robert Feinman" <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3CADB08E...@netscape.net...
Joseph O'Neil
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
>black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
>read it before getting defensive.
>My position is that you have more presentation options and less
>limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
Neat article, quite well done, but I disagree with you one two points:
1) Film is no more obsolete than oil painting is. The medium
itself, and what you go through (physically, mentally) to arrive at
the final image is part of the overall creation process.
What you have done is re-invent the wheel, so to speak, but in
a most elegant manner.
They say cars made horses obsolete, but all the richest farms
around here have horse on them. :)
2) What happens, if, like myself, a person is colour blind,
and is unable to form a good colour image with well balanced tonality
to start with in the first place? Very few people are totally colour
blind, that is, seeing the entire world in B&W, but usually deficient
in one or all colours. Thus, it is almost impossible to create a good
colour print by any means - digital or film - in the first place.
Finally, the finished look of your final print is something
that is always unique, and somethign that cannto be reproduced 100% by
digital means. it is like reproducing a watercolour painting
digitally. On the computer screen, ti can pretty much be done, but to
see the real print in person, and then compare it to a digital print,t
here is a difference. Not to say one is better or worse than another,
just different.
joe
Joe Foto
Traditional b&w films look much better (IMO) than converting color
files. Yes, I shoot 4x5 as well, 120, & 35 (occasionally).
If this works for you, that's fine. But I'll stick with Agfapan for my
b&ws.
JF
Robert Feinman <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<3CADB08E...@netscape.net>...
> I also invite you to look at my new Hawaii pictures. Taken with a 4x5
Jorge Gasteazoro
> black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
> read it before getting defensive.
> My position is that you have more presentation options and less
> limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
>
> I also invite you to look at my new Hawaii pictures. Taken with a 4x5
> view on sheet and roll film.
Ok, it might be alternative modes of presentation, but unless I have a
monitor I am unable to see the image, not so with paper, which is the
final presentation of B&W. Besides unless you are printing them, a
monitor will never show the depth of a B&W print! so I am not
defensive I just hate these kind of dumb remarks.
Mike
senior high school packages at a nomal charge. I was in her studio to day
when one senior picked up her package, she loved the B&W shots more them the
color. May be there is a new crop of B&W customers just waiting.
"Amr Ibrahim" <aibr...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:khkr8.6881$ud6.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Photobob
Someone bored, maybe too much time on their hands ( possibly attributable to
not working in a wet darkroom ), and with a half baked idea, tossing it out
there to see what kind of reaction he can get. The more outlandish, the
better. I doubt that even HE believes that B&W film is obsolete, and if he
does, why try to convince him otherwise?
b~
"Robert Feinman" <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3CADB08E...@netscape.net...
Mxsmanic
news: 3CADB08E...@netscape.net...
> My position is that you have more presentation
> options and less limitations in the field than
> with black and white negatives.
Not necessarily. Some black-and-white emulsions respond to light in ways
that cannot be duplicated by digital manipulation of a color image, because
the necessary information is simply not present in the latter.
Mxsmanic
khkr8.6881$ud6.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> I agree with you...but would the level of demand
> from an ever shrinking market support this type
> of film much longer?
As long as there is a market, there will be someone to fill it.
David Meiland
How is transparency film easier than black & white film to shoot? Have
you done much of either??
For me, b&w film is exactly what I need. I have no desire to sit in
front of my computer adjusting images. I have no desire to buy a
scanner or pay for hi-res scans necessary for printing. I shoot film,
I have it processed, and I have it printed--no problems. As far as
scanning goes, when I do that, I can get a neg scanned and print that
as easily as a transparency.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
**Check the reply address before sending mail
Ken
>
> As one point, B&W films are higher resolution than color films due to
> their thinner, single layer construction. There is no color film emulsion
> that has the resolution of Kodak Technical Pan.
This may be true but for what it's worth I found Ektar 25
to be superior to Tech Pan for lunar photography with my
8 inch telescope.
--
Ken
--
reddpeety
whitefilm.anachronism
Thanks,
Redd
Gene A. Townsend
Ektar 25 has been obsolete for several years now.
GAT
>
>--
> Ken
>--
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Gene A. Townsend
wrote:
>Can we please move this discussion to alt.photo.blackand
>whitefilm.anachronism
NO
GAT
>
> Thanks,
> Redd
Gene A. Townsend
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
COLOR TRANSPARENCY FILM IS OBSOLETE!!!
Just to educate those less fortunate, the primary reason for color
transparency materials for professional photographers was due to the
publishing industry's requirements for color separations back in the o
ld days. Now days, color film scanners, which are used exclusively
for pre-press work, work with either color negative or positives, and
since photography is inherently a negative process, in modern times,
the color transparencies are becoming obsolete. They are easily
replaced with much better quality and less limited color negative
materials. Just witness the greater difficulty in purchasing and
processing color slides today, compared with a few years ago.
COLOR NEGATIVE FILM IS OBSOLETE!!!
It's been replaced with digital imaging technology, which is able to
eliminate the messy chemical steps, and reduce environmental impact.
Black and white film has been obsolete for about 20 years now, so your
posting is incredably old, old, old news. Not very imaginative at
all. It's so obsolete, that many amature photographers continue to
use it, as many will for many more years t come.
This will not be true of color transparency film, which I predict will
become unavailable long before b+w, since nobody is really all that
fond of it.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > My position is that you have more presentation
> > options and less limitations in the field than
> > with black and white negatives.
> Not necessarily. Some black-and-white emulsions
> respond to light in ways that cannot be duplicated
> by digital manipulation of a color image, because
> the necessary information is simply not present
> in the latter.
Very true. One would need an image where the spectrum is
recorded for each pixel rather than rgb values.
That being said, the rgb ratio does a very good job of
classifying a color when compared to full spectral
measurement, storage, evaluation and correlation: It takes
simpler hardware, less memory, is just about as accurate and
is a heck of a lot faster.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Robert Feinman
channels to make black and white images. So I've added an additional
column of examples to my web page to show what happens with a simple
step wedge.
It also illustrates that tonal adustments are possible in the digital
realm which are difficult to impossible otherwise.
Robert Feinman wrote:
> I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
> black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
> read it before getting defensive.
> My position is that you have more presentation options and less
> limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
>
> I also invite you to look at my new Hawaii pictures. Taken with a 4x5
> view on sheet and roll film.
>
>
--
Robert Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
steven...@banet.net
a higher resolution transparancy than you can with color reversal film.
I've found B&W photography to be much more difficult that color. With medium
format film the colors are so striking compared to 35mm and therefore give
even my mediocre pictures the edge over my better B&Ws. I find it much more
difficult to get "oohs and aahs" out of B&W than color, even from myself.
David Meiland
>Plus most B&W emulsions can be reversal processed which means you can obtain
>a higher resolution transparancy than you can with color reversal film.
>I've found B&W photography to be much more difficult that color. With medium
>format film the colors are so striking compared to 35mm and therefore give
>even my mediocre pictures the edge over my better B&Ws. I find it much more
>difficult to get "oohs and aahs" out of B&W than color, even from myself.
<snip>
Technically difficult or aesthetically difficult?
LEDMRVM
>robertd...@netscape.net
>Panoramic and Landscape Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
>
Interesting - yes. Spectacular - not particularly.
steven...@banet.net
Or should I have phrased that as a question?
anti...@ftc.gov
Silver based film, properly fixed and washed can handle it. I do not know of
any color material that can claim the same.
And please don't start with the serial copying of digital information to the
next new storage device. That chain is only as strong as its weaking link.
John
Mxsmanic
news: a8lbqc$q3v$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> That being said, the rgb ratio does a very
> good job of classifying a color when compared
> to full spectral measurement, storage,
> evaluation and correlation: It takes
> simpler hardware, less memory, is just
> about as accurate and is a heck of a lot faster.
For accurate visual perception, it is just about perfect. However, black
and white is not accurate visually (we see in color, not black and white),
so the very fact of presenting a photograph in black and white implies a
deliberate modification of the image for some purpose. Additionally, the
varying ways in which different B&W emulsions respond to light can mean that
some visible light is not represented in the B&W image, while other
invisible light may be; and in all cases, the proportions of different
wavelengths that contribute to the final monochrome result may vary from
that of normal human visual perception.
Notice that, no matter what color film you scan and manipulate in Photoshop,
the grayscaled rendering of the image is always pretty much the same.
That's because the color rendering is always pretty much the same, intended
to be reasonably accurate visually. In some cases, the contrast with true
B&W films is patent. For example, the lower sensitivity to red of Tri-X
films produces a very visibly different rendering of a scene in B&W than
does simple conversion of color to B&W. This can be simulated by extra
manipulation in Photoshop, but always with varying levels of inaccuracy. A
B&W film that is sensitive to infrared, for example, cannot be accurately
simulated by manipulation of an RGB image, because the infrared information
is simply not present.
Additionally, the extreme dynamic range of B&W films has already been
mentioned. This can't be simulated, either.
Mxsmanic
3cae30ae...@news.dakotacom.net...
> Just witness the greater difficulty in purchasing
> and processing color slides today, compared with
> a few years ago.
What greater difficulty? I can find slide film anywhere, and I can get it
processed in two hours or less at just about any decent photo lab.
Stephe
> I find it much
> more difficult to get "oohs and aahs" out of B&W than color, even from
> myself.
>
>
Which is a good reason to use it. I start shooting B&W when I find myself
getting too many boring color shots <G>
--
stephe
Stephe
>
> What greater difficulty? I can find slide film anywhere, and I can get it
> processed in two hours or less at just about any decent photo lab.
Actually the only places that sell slide film anymore are photography
stores. Try to buy slide film at a drug store or other places that sell
consumer films. It's like buying 120 film, it's sure not common.
--
stephe
WS
That is the point. Modern color emulsions do not have the same silver
halide composition and responsiveness as black and white. The trend is
to homogenize the emulsions. That is why, for many, the TMax, even
Delta films, as good as they are, are "not the real thing." Use any
media that can best express what you have to say. Personally, I think
color negative materials are much better as a "universal film,"
especially the low contrast ones that can capture a great light
differential. The modern lenses are highly contrasty. Why are modern
films also so contrasty and super-saturated???
Stephe
>
> And please don't start with the serial copying of digital information to
> the
> next new storage device. That chain is only as strong as its weaking
> link.
>
Plus how many copies/backups would it take to make it "safe? One scratch
can make a CD unreadable. Hard drives sure aren't that reliable. No digi
prints are tested to be archival like B&W is.
--
Stephe
Ralf R. Radermacher
> My position is that you have more presentation options and less
> limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
The typical misconceptions of someone who thinks that B/W is just colour
photography minus the colours. It's an art on its own, mate. It has
quite different... Oh... never mind.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Mxsmanic
1fa6uv7.1er545aai5egwN%dfs...@earthlink.net...
> Why are modern films also so contrasty and
> super-saturated???
Those films sell best.
Brian Ellis
or black and white at the time they're making the photograph, they need to
take up some interest other than photography. Bowling maybe.
"WS" <dfs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1fa6uv7.1er545aai5egwN%dfs...@earthlink.net...
Robert Feinman
1. Greater tonal range (but I admitted that from the start - use color
negative film instead).
2. B&W film will last longer. True, but who is really going to want to
look at your stuff 100 years from now? Anyway well produced digital
prints will last as long as silver-based.
Not valid:
1. B&W has some special way of recording light. Except for infrared the
spectral sensitivity of a b&w film can be matched quite closely by
choosing the appropriate mixture of channels. (Not exactly, just
closely. There is even a brand of Photoshop plugins which claims to
emulate specific film brands).
2. Finer grain: Modern color negatives have less grain than b&w. They
may not be as sharp, but they have less apparent grain. I'm assuming
most of the people reading this are using medium format or larger so
grain isn't really a big issue.
3. Insulting me or other photographers. You are not a superior person
because you "previsualize" or use some other exotic technique. Lots of
people take wonderful pictures without knowing the zone system, etc.
And, yes, they sometimes change their minds after they've shot the film
and would like to produce a different interpretation. There was an
article recently showing two Ansel Adams prints made years apart which
showed how much he had changed his ideas for the image. So much for
"previsualization".
All I said was that it is no longer necessary to shoot b&w negatives to
get excellent b&w prints and therefore many people can explore the b&w
aesthetic using color film. Let's face it color film is about 96% of the
market. If you load up with b&w and you see something you want to shoot
in color, you're stuck. The other way around you can do both. So this
technique should encourage more people to try b&w.
And to repeat what I said at the end of my tip, you can make
conventional photographic prints using a "digital" negative.
Lighten up!
--
Robert Feinman, Ph.D
Database Doctor
KelsoLundeen
your website show the tell-tale signs of mis-manipulated "digital"
images: most are underexposed, most have washed-out color, and nearly
all lack sharpness.
The Sears Tower image, for example. Is this a film image improperly
scanned?
Or is this a digital image?
On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:11:26 -0500, Robert Feinman
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
>black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
>read it before getting defensive.
>My position is that you have more presentation options and less
>limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
>
Andrew Wilcox
>
> Silver based film, properly fixed and washed can handle it. I do not know of
> any color material that can claim the same.
John,
Yeah, that's what I always thought until I looked at the Epson Stylus
2000P. Epson claims that prints made with this printer can last up to
200 years. So much for B&W being the clear choice for archival
processing.
Cheers,
Andrew
Photobob
FEMALE monikers....
I certainly didn't know that JAR JAR was the feminine version of "newbie
idiot" in whatever language it is you speak. "Wonder about me" all you
want, the fact is, that the majority of POSTERS here ARE male with a few
notable exception.
If you think is his information is so "valuable" then use it. I don't know
what you deem to be "qualified" but someone who's shot a couple of rolls of
slide film and used the "change to black and white" button on their computer
doesn't cut it for me.
Go find another windmill to fight, "Jar Jar" meesa not innerested in tawkin
wif youz no mo'.
(by the way, this group is used to me "showing my ass" - what a clever
little coloquism - I will trash anyone who calls themselves an "expert" or
asserts themselves as an authority simply because they have written down an
opinion and bothered to put in on the internet. I don't give way to
pseudo-intellectuals so easily - you can if you like" )
"meesa" <me...@naboo.com> wrote in message
news:ukasau862ofjb0f99...@4ax.com...
> Robert Feinman appears to be an intelligent man and a qualified
> photog, and he backs up his point. I have to wonder about someone who
> calls the majority "gentleman" but for some reason unknown to me is
> name calling someone who seems to have a lot of good info to offer.
>
> Photobob, you just showed your ass to the group. I'm new here, so I
> have no idea why you did that.
>
> (FYI, I am the same Jar Jar Binks who starred in Star Wars. I type
> better than I speak.)
>
> JJ
>
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:17:41 GMT, "Photobob"
> <bob_remove_to_...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Gentlemen, this posting is what is commonly referred to as a "troll".
> >
> >Someone bored, maybe too much time on their hands ( possibly attributable
to
> >not working in a wet darkroom ), and with a half baked idea, tossing it
out
> >there to see what kind of reaction he can get. The more outlandish, the
> >better. I doubt that even HE believes that B&W film is obsolete, and if
he
> >does, why try to convince him otherwise?
> >
> >b~
> >
> >
> >"Robert Feinman" <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:3CADB08E...@netscape.net...
> >> I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
> >> black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
> >> read it before getting defensive.
> >> My position is that you have more presentation options and less
> >> limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
> >>
> >> I also invite you to look at my new Hawaii pictures. Taken with a 4x5
> >> view on sheet and roll film.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robert Feinman
> >> robertd...@netscape.net
> >> Panoramic and Landscape Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
> >>
> >
>
>
> Here'sa meesa: http://JJ.ontheInter.net
Godfrey DiGiorgi
I didn't know this was supposed to be a contest. <grin>
One of my BIGGEST reasons for shooting B&W with traditional process
chemistry is that it's much cheaper than color film and easy to process
with just two chemicals for pennies a roll. C41 processing requires either
machine photofinishing or a more expensive, more complex processing
regimen for home use. With a roll of B&W film, I can have negatives to
work with, dry to dry, in about an hour any time I want, day or night.
> All I said was that it is no longer necessary to shoot b&w negatives to
> get excellent b&w prints and therefore many people can explore the b&w
> aesthetic using color film. ...
True.
> ... Let's face it color film is about 96% of the market. ...
Why is this significant if you're looking to make B&W photographs?
> ... If you load up with b&w and you see something you want to shoot
> in color, you're stuck. The other way around you can do both. So this
> technique should encourage more people to try b&w.
Seeing in B&W is different from seeing in color. When I'm shooting in B&W,
I concentrate on looking for opportunities that will present fine B&W
images. When I'm shooting in color, I'm looking for opportunities that
will express themselves best in color. I find it very difficult to do both
at the same time, and I have 30+ years experience shooting. I find the
constraint of having ONLY the B&W medium to work in is freeing ... I think
simply, concentrate on my B&W seeing, and don't waste anywhere near as
much film.
This is true whether I'm using B&W or color film to do the recording. Or
whether I'm shooting with the digital camera too.
Godfrey
John Stafford
Regardless of the effort, when you start with a colour negative or
transparency, you do not have a B&W negative to work from, and you
CANNOT make a B&W negative of the same size from a colour film. In
digital, the negative is absent. Period. You have few of the original
virtues of B&W negative, and is the few that distinguishes the
original.
Show me the B&W print. Today (note date) it is is highly unlikely you
are producing "black and white" (grey) images, but some kind of
screwed up compromise using colour inks. I see no mention of piezeo
printing methods.. that's what you are going to need to make prints
more like silvergel prints.
"close enough" or "good enough" is for the indiscriminating.
Joseph O'Neil
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>So far only two valid counterarguments have been given:
-snip-
With all due respect, you still have not addressed the issue I
raised earlier - colour film is not a viable medium to those who are
colour blind. Speaking as a person who is colour blind, telling me
that B&W film is obsolete is like telling everyone in a wheelchair
that ramps are obsolete now that we have escalators.
The very last thing I want to do is pull "pollitically
correct" on anyone, but approx 8% to 10% of the male population (less
than 1% of all females) are colour blind to some degree. That's a
lot of people.
For even a person with slight colour blindness, the ability to
base & judge tonality on colour can be most difficult. When I focus my
4x5 on any subject, I usually do so through a yellow filter, as I find
this helps me immensly in judging the tonal range of the picture I
want to shoot.
Your technique assumes the ability to create a good colour
image, but again, what if one cannot create a good colour image,
either by film or digital, in the first place?
regards
joe
Jorge Gasteazoro
100 years old, not so Epson prints. Besides do you always beleive what
they tell you? if so I have a very pretty bridge I would like to sell
you! I recall Kodak and them all said the same thing about RC
paper....and still cant get it to last more than a few years. I
serously doubt any Epson prints will last much longer as long as they
keep using dyes, it is just a matter of chemistry. If they are using
pigments then maybe they will last a few years longer, but not to the
same extent as a B&W print.
it_was_...@yahoo.com (Andrew Wilcox) wrote in message news:<e408baf.02040...@posting.google.com>...
John Halliwell
Radermacher <ra...@free-photons.de> writes
>Robert Feinman <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> My position is that you have more presentation options and less
>> limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
>
>The typical misconceptions of someone who thinks that B/W is just colour
>photography minus the colours. It's an art on its own, mate. It has
>quite different... Oh... never mind.
I've just started to develop my own B&W film (printing next when I can
turn the lights out) and I'm hooked, nuff said...
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
John Halliwell
Wilcox <it_was_...@yahoo.com> writes
>Yeah, that's what I always thought until I looked at the Epson Stylus
>2000P. Epson claims that prints made with this printer can last up to
>200 years. So much for B&W being the clear choice for archival
>processing.
Are those the inks that were later found to fade in weeks due to
exposure to ozone? One problem with 'guessing' how long they'll last,
you never really know.
steven...@banet.net
160 years. Posterity should figure out if they really want to keep it by then.
Ralf R. Radermacher
> Are those the inks that were later found to fade in weeks due to
> exposure to ozone? One problem with 'guessing' how long they'll last,
> you never really know.
No. The problem you're referring to occurred in a few instances with the
Epson 870/1270 series and dye-based inks. Some people had the problem,
most didn't and that includes me. My oldest 870 prints are about two
years old and still fine. Most of the noise in this context was caused
by Epson's less than elegant way of dealing with the issue.
The Epson 2000 uses pigmented inks which can reasonably be expected to
last as long as other media made with pigmented colours, e.g. paintings.
Pigments don't really care much about how they were brought onto the
paper. In fact, they won't even know when they've passed through an
Epson printer. ;-)
Mxsmanic
> Not valid:
> 1. B&W has some special way of recording
> light. Except for infrared the spectral
> sensitivity of a b&w film can be matched
> quite closely by choosing the appropriate
> mixture of channels.
I'm afraid this is incorrect. In fact, one reason why color blindness is a
problem in human beings, even though it normally doesn't involve the
inability to see color, is that even minor variations in tristimulus values
shift the gamut of representable colors significantly. An RGB color system
can only perfectly reproduce images captured with an identical system, just
as an RGB color system can only represent colors visually with perfect
correspondance to human vision if the RGB system exactly duplicates the RGB
parameters of the human system (this is the whole idea behind color
calibration).
The complication for black and white is that B&W film will record slightly
(or dramatically) different luminance levels from those registered by color
film depending on the exact sensitivity curve of the B&W film. In a great
many cases, this means that some information recorded by the B&W film will
be missing in an ordinary color image; and when information is missing,
there is _no way_ to duplicate the "look" of the B&W film using any type of
color film or standard RGB representation.
Recording the infrared is an obvious and convenient illustration of this,
but it is certainly not the only case in which it occurs.
> 2. Finer grain: Modern color negatives have
> less grain than b&w.
Have you ever shot Technical Pan?
> All I said was that it is no longer necessary
> to shoot b&w negatives to get excellent b&w
> prints ...
Even to my inexperienced and untrained eyes, the rendering of some B&W films
is quite dramatically different from that of any color film. Indeed, I very
much like Tri-X, and I haven't seen any color-to-grayscale rendering that
exactly matches it. Even if you get the color balance right, you're still
missing the shadow and highlight detail.
> Let's face it color film is about 96% of the
> market.
And the most popular type of camera is the disposable camera.
Mxsmanic
e408baf.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Epson claims that prints made with this printer
> can last up to 200 years.
And Epson may well be right. But metallic silver doesn't change much, even
after thousands of year, so however long 2000P prints last, silver images
are likely to last at least as long, or longer.
The advantage of the Epson 2000P is that it uses pigment-based ink; in other
words, the inks contain pigments similar to those used in paint. Other
printers use dye-based inks. Dyes can undergo significant changes over time
and under exposure to heat or light, causing them to change color; pigments
are much more stable, and usually keep their color for decades or centuries
(depending on their composition). Titanium dioxide, for example, will
remain brilliantly white indefinitely, and many other pigments are equally
stable.
Mxsmanic
news: 555a3f23.02040...@posting.google.com...
> I serously doubt any Epson prints will last
> much longer as long as they keep using dyes,
> it is just a matter of chemistry. If they
> are using pigments then maybe they will last
> a few years longer, but not to the same extent
> as a B&W print.
The 2000P uses pigments, not dyes.
Mxsmanic
news: jk5YRJAI...@photopia.demon.co.uk...
> Are those the inks that were later found to
> fade in weeks due to exposure to ozone?
No. Those were dye-based inks.
Mxsmanic
3CAE0B8F...@banet.net...
> Kodachrome is very stable.
As long as you keep it in the dark, yes.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> the difference Andrew is that there is B&W prints out
there
> which are 100 years old
Er, closer to 170 years, if you are willing to count silver
salts on paper. Then there are carbon prints....
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Brian Ellis
nor did I suggest that a photograph could be printed only one way forever.
However, there is a fundamental difference between the type of photograph
one makes in black and white and the type of photograph one makes in color.
Very rarely, if ever, does the same photograph work well in both mediums.
Very rarely, if ever, does anyone do both black and white and color
photography equally well. The two mediums are so fundamentally different
that I can't imagine making a photograph without knowing at the time I'm
making it whether it is going to be a color photograph or a black and white
photograph. Almost always, a photograph that works in black and white
wouldn't work in color and vice versa. A color photograph isn't just a black
and white photograph with colors inserted. So it just seemed very strange,
and I thought reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of black and white
photography, to suggest that one should use color slide film to the
exclusion of black and white film because with slide film one could later
decide whether to print the photograph in color or in black and white.
However, I'm sorry if you thought I was insulting you, that wasn't my intent
and I apologize for any unintended insult.
"Robert Feinman" <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3CAEFB7...@netscape.net...
Woodard R. Springstube
news:MTJr8.17730$l7.18...@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com:
As someone who has done watercolor and oil painting, I can tell
you that not all pigments are permanet. Some are and some are
unstable. Go to one of the suppliers of artists' materials and
check. They give every pigment a rating, based on how stable it
is.
Woodard
Robert Feinman
to make a negative that can be contact printed onto conventional
chemically processed paper, if that is what you desire.
John Stafford wrote:
John Halliwell
Radermacher <ra...@free-photons.de> writes
>No. The problem you're referring to occurred in a few instances with the
>Epson 870/1270 series and dye-based inks. Some people had the problem,
>most didn't and that includes me. My oldest 870 prints are about two
>years old and still fine. Most of the noise in this context was caused
>by Epson's less than elegant way of dealing with the issue.
The point I was making, was that since those inks had a 'proven' life of
many decades by the accelerated ageing process, it kind of blows apart
the 'proven' part of the test.
hogarth
> "Andrew Wilcox" <it_was_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> e408baf.02040...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Epson claims that prints made with this printer
> > can last up to 200 years.
>
> And Epson may well be right. But metallic silver doesn't change much, even
> after thousands of year, so however long 2000P prints last, silver images
> are likely to last at least as long, or longer.
>
<snip>
Silver should last a "long time." Elemental carbon seems to hold the record,
however. That's what carbon 14 dating is all about.
So... what modern process uses carbon to form an image? Why, inkjet printing:
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/carbon-black.html
http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcnew.html
This is not a troll even if some of you take it that way. I'm just giving you a
fact. Do with it what you will.
David Boyce
> If you read my entire tip you will find that at the end I suggest a way
> to make a negative that can be contact printed onto conventional
> chemically processed paper, if that is what you desire.
So why not just shoot a black and white neg in the first place and miss out
the expense, inconvenience and frustration of shooting colour, getting it
processed and then having it scanned????
With all due respect, I am at a loss to understand your logic, or am I
missing something??
David
ps, whats your doctorate in?
Sam Reeves
>
> I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
> black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
> read it before getting defensive.
> limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
>
> view on sheet and roll film.
You ever thought of taking a job at Kodak? You would fit right in! *G*
Sam Reeves
--
Sam Reeves Photography - http://www.sysresearchassoc.com/srphoto/
Jorge Gasteazoro
your web site, but the color ones were washed out and frankly
unimaginative, so I thought well, if this is an example of the kind of
scanning and photography I am wasting my time. Anything that you might
suggest is already been done by much better photographers, like Dan
Burholder or David(?) Fokos, so all I wanted to say is I am embarassed
I even answered to this thread. Please dont take this persoanlly but
in my opinion you are not a very good color photographer, and I think
your B&W images are probably just as uninspired. Frankly my advice
would be to first keep on working on your color photography before you
even attempt to tackle B&W, you are clearly inexeperienced in this
kind of photography.
Good luck to you and I wish you success.
Robert Feinman <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<3CAFA9F5...@netscape.net>...
Stephe
> If somebody can't figure out whether they want a photograph to be in color
> or black and white at the time they're making the photograph, they need to
> take up some interest other than photography. Bowling maybe.
>
>
I was thinking the same thing. And why people need to be able to shoot the
same scene in black and white and color. Any time I've done this, I
realized later what a waste of time it was to do one or the other and I
knew it at the time I was doing it! Guess I just wanted a reason to have a
camera with different backs? :-)
--
stephe
Jorge Gasteazoro
opinion. Sure inkjet some inkjet printers use carbon, but they are not
the norm, but an exception like the Jon Cone system, they need a
special paper that does not last even close to 10 years, let alone the
200 plus they advertize, and when you use it on Cranes or something
else, although it may have the permanence of a silver print, I am sure
it wont come close to a platinum print or other alt process that
absorbs the chemical into the paper as opposed to being in the surface
like a pigment from a printer.
So this is not an argument of digital versus traditional, it is a
thread about B&W being obsolete, maybe it is maybe is not, but lets
keep it on the subject, shall we?
hogarth <hogarth@**notspam***directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:<3cafb...@nopics.sjc>...
Stephe
> So far only two valid counterarguments have been given:
>
> 1. Greater tonal range (but I admitted that from the start - use color
> negative film instead).
The problem then is getting true blacks, no digi printer can equal real
black and white paper. Also I've never seen any digi prints that can
recreate the look of matt fiber based paper.
>
> 2. B&W film will last longer. True, but who is really going to want to
> look at your stuff 100 years from now?
Hopefully many people will! I know I found some negatives saved from the
1930's of my parents when they were dating, make some *priceless* prints
from them that look great (They were shot on 6X9) Imagine trying to print
any sort of digital image 50 years from now that wasn't copied to the next
format every time it changed? You really think 50 years from now a CD of
tiff files will be readable by anything?
You left out 3. Being able to control what the negative can produce by the
developer used. One can use rodinal to get sharpness or one of the fine
grain developers to smooth the image out.
4. What about the 3200asa B&W films? How do you replace them with color
film?
>Anyway well produced digital
> prints will last as long as silver-based.
>
Says who? How has this been tested? They said the same thing about color
chemical prints and early E6. I have some that hav shifted totally red to
the point of being junk.
>Lighten up!
You asked for this posting this nonsense like it was fact.
--
stephe
Stephe
>
> Seeing in B&W is different from seeing in color. When I'm shooting in B&W,
> I concentrate on looking for opportunities that will present fine B&W
> images. When I'm shooting in color, I'm looking for opportunities that
> will express themselves best in color. I find it very difficult to do both
> at the same time, and I have 30+ years experience shooting.
This is why when I was choosing a med format camera, having different backs
wasn't a concern. I either am shooting black and white that day or I'm
shooting color. I've never been able to see both ways as you said at the
same time.
--
stephe
Stephe
> If you read my entire tip you will find that at the end I suggest a way
> to make a negative that can be contact printed onto conventional
> chemically processed paper, if that is what you desire.
>
And how much quality will be lost in this chain of events needed to end up
with a black and while negative that is so obsolete to start with?
--
stephe
Stephe
>Frankly my advice
> would be to first keep on working on your color photography before you
> even attempt to tackle B&W, you are clearly inexeperienced in this
> kind of photography.
>
Frankly <G> better advice is to shoot ONLY black and white film until you
can make interesting shots wih it. Color film can be a crutch to poor
composition and shooting black and white will force one to learn how to see
better.
--
stephe
Mxsmanic
news: 3caf9fbd$0$3100$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> There is an incredible market today for 100+
> year old photographs.
How many 100-plus-year-old photographers are still around to collect
royalties on them?
I'd prefer to produce photographs that generate a market that doesn't take
100 years to mature.
Mxsmanic
de news: 3cafb...@nopics.sjc...
> So... what modern process uses carbon to form
> an image? Why, inkjet printing:
Only for some types of black-and-white printing. The usual concern is for
color prints.
Mxsmanic
news: 555a3f23.02040...@posting.google.com...
> ... I am sure it wont come close to a platinum
> print or other alt process that absorbs the
> chemical into the paper as opposed to being
> in the surface like a pigment from a printer.
This is irrelevant to longevity, which depends exclusively on the stability
of the imaging agent. Platinum, silver, and carbon are all elements, and
they'll all be around for billions of years to come. The paper behind them
will crumble to dust long before they show any signs of change, so any
prints made with these substances have a lifetime based on the paper upon
which they are printed, not the imaging agents.
Mxsmanic
a8oqua$u163s$1...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
> The problem then is getting true blacks,
> no digi printer can equal real black and
> white paper.
Sure it can. There's nothing magic about black-and-white chemical prints.
Of course, there are digital printers today that print chemically--like the
Fuji Frontier and Durst Lambda. And the results are great!
> Also I've never seen any digi prints that can
> recreate the look of matt fiber based paper.
I have. Very nice. I only knew they were not traditional chemical prints
after being told.
> Imagine trying to print any sort of digital
> image 50 years from now that wasn't copied
> to the next format every time it changed?
The standard, specious argument. Tell you what: Let's discuss this again
in 1000 years, and we'll see how your parents' negatives have survived, and
how digital images have survived.
If you want a preview of which technology will win, read the Bible.
Ralf R. Radermacher
> The point I was making, was that since those inks had a 'proven' life of
> many decades by the accelerated ageing process, it kind of blows apart
> the 'proven' part of the test.
Are we discussing traceable facts or are you on a crusade?
Q.G. de Bakker
> As someone who has done watercolor and oil painting, I can tell
> you that not all pigments are permanet. Some are and some are
> unstable. Go to one of the suppliers of artists' materials and
> check. They give every pigment a rating, based on how stable it
> is.
Indeed. Dyes and pigments aren't that different.
hogarth
Lets stay on topic shall we - this is about B&W.
John Halliwell
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
>How many 100-plus-year-old photographers are still around to collect
>royalties on them?
>
>I'd prefer to produce photographs that generate a market that doesn't take
>100 years to mature.
I think the key point here is 'historical record', something that will
diminish as digital takes a bigger hold without careful attention paid
to archiving the data (most people don't bother moving it further than a
hard drive).
Since one of the biggest uses of photography is documenting life, it
makes some sense preserving images as long as possible, especially if it
isn't too hard to do in the first place.
hogarth
> Lol, ah I love how digital people pick and choose facts to fit their
> opinion. Sure inkjet some inkjet printers use carbon, but they are not
> the norm, but an exception like the Jon Cone system, they need a
> special paper that does not last even close to 10 years, let alone the
> 200 plus they advertize, and when you use it on Cranes or something
> else, although it may have the permanence of a silver print, I am sure
> it wont come close to a platinum print or other alt process that
> absorbs the chemical into the paper as opposed to being in the surface
> like a pigment from a printer.
> So this is not an argument of digital versus traditional, it is a
> thread about B&W being obsolete, maybe it is maybe is not, but lets
> keep it on the subject, shall we?
I was responding to Mxsmanic. See below.
BTW, the Piezography system is a driver plugin for Photoshop, and inks. It is not paper specific.
LOL, I love the way chemical people choose *rumor* to fit their opinion!
>
>
> hogarth <hogarth@**notspam***directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:<3cafb...@nopics.sjc>...
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> > > "Andrew Wilcox" <it_was_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > > e408baf.02040...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Epson claims that prints made with this printer
> > > > can last up to 200 years.
> > >
> > > And Epson may well be right. But metallic silver doesn't change much, even
> > > after thousands of year, so however long 2000P prints last, silver images
> > > are likely to last at least as long, or longer.
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Silver should last a "long time." Elemental carbon seems to hold the record,
> > however. That's what carbon 14 dating is all about.
> >
> > So... what modern process uses carbon to form an image? Why, inkjet printing:
> >
> > http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/carbon-black.html
> > http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/arcnew.html
> >
> > This is not a troll even if some of you take it that way. I'm just giving you a
> > fact. Do with it what you will.
--
The future has a disturbing habit of becoming the present...
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > year old photographs.
>
> How many 100-plus-year-old photographers are still
> around to collect royalties on them?
Hopefully, none.
'Tis a sad fact of life, but in the arts world one
is never recognized until well and truly dead.
Maybe it is because it takes a 100 years for the
moneyed class to catch up with the tastes of the
avante garde.
Maybe it is because living artists can be such
a nuisance:
"Ha!" says Van Gogh. "If they will pay that much
for such a poor 'Starry Night,' let's see what
they will pay for a good one. And as for those
sunflowers, why they were only wallpaper to
cheer up Gauguin's room when he came to visit."
I.E. "He will piss in your fireplace" - J. Mitchell
See the film "Horse's Mouth", starring Alec Guiness.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LzUr8.265831$Gf.24...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Jorge Gasteazoro
the image will last as long as the paper, but an image that is
inbedded into the paper will last a lot longer and will resist fading
much more than a print that has the pigment just on the surface. Again
please address the salient point, I really think you are trying to
argue Epson prints last just as long without real proof.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<gEUr8.157944$VJ1.12...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
Jorge Gasteazoro
this message enjoys color better, I thought he should stick to it. I
always thought some people, "see" color better and some "see" the B&W
better. I, for instance am terrible with color, sure I can make the
pretty colors etc, but my photogaphs are boring and run of the mill.
OTH I am much better at seeing patterns, contrasts, and textures...and
it shows on my B&W.
Stephe <ms_s...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<a8ouas$u2gtn$6...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de>...
Mxsmanic
news: 555a3f23.02040...@posting.google.com...
> ... I really think you are trying to argue Epson
> prints last just as long without real proof.
I don't care how long they last, since I can make new prints of equal or
better quality whenever I want.
Stephe
> John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The point I was making, was that since those inks had a 'proven' life of
>> many decades by the accelerated ageing process, it kind of blows apart
>> the 'proven' part of the test.
>
> Are we discussing traceable facts or are you on a crusade?
>
I just don't believe everything someone selling something says. Of course
Epson is going to claim their digital prints are archival. It would be a
bummer to print everything you shot from digital only files on one and find
out 20 years later they all fade to a red color wouldn't it?
--
stephe
Stephe
Unless the file it was recorded on is no longer supported, the media it was
recorded on is no longer supported or is somehow -slightly- damaged. How
many times has the negative of a photo that is interesting to someone (like
a portrait I have of my great gransmother) been lost and the only record is
the photo itself? By the time people see how this is going to affect
photography as a way of recording history, it's going to be lost forever.
--
stephe
Robert D Feinman
look at my photographs. You may not like my images, but you can't
judge quality or anything else from the version on the web.
First the picture is reduced from 300dpi to 72dpi and then all the
subtle gradations are sucked out of it by converting to jpeg.
I print all my images a fairly large size. The smallest are some
panoramics at 13x4 inches and the largest color are 13x19. I print b&w
at 11x14 or 16x20, so looking at a image that is 600 pixels high is a
poor representation.
But, just to set the record straight:
I started shooting color and b&w and doing my own processing of both
in 1957. I worked several summers while in college for one of the best
and one of the worst photo labs in NYC. When I started Ektachrome was
E1
and photographers were storing it up in freezers because the world was
coming to an end since Kodak had released E2 and E3.
Printing Kodacolor was P122 which required standing in the dark for
about 45 minutes and agitating prints in a series of trays. Drums,
etc. hadn't been invented yet.
All along there have been severe limitations on what the media could
produce. E1 was very pastel, take a look at Vogue magazine from around
1955 - 1960. Early Kodacolor was flat and grainy and most of the
pictures have faded.
B&W is not immune either. I just scanned in a 50 year old wedding
picture which shows severe signs of silvering out. Did the wedding
photog not fix properly?
And what about all the years worth of prints made on RC before people
realized how unstable it was.
Over the years lots has changed in b&w. I used to use Ansco Jet and
Cykora, Dupont Varigam, Agfa Portriga-Rapid and Kodak Ektalure, Opal
and Medalist. All gone.
Now infrared is gone, too.
A series of articles in recent photo mags have shown digital
techniques for unsharp masks and contrast masks using yellow and
magenta inks.
Many people who make Platinum prints are making full-size digital
negatives to contact print.
At last year's photo show in NY I saw a series of inkjet prints at a
paper makers booth that were as good as any conventional prints I've
ever seen. Full blacks, good range of tonalities, nice surfaces. I
haven't gotten b&w prints from my inkjet to meet that standard for
some reason, so for the time being I'm still making conventional
prints. Since this doesn't lend itself to easy web display it's one of
the reasons I don't have many b&w online.
So, if you don't like my pictures, fine. Perhaps you would like to let
us see some of yours. None of which alters the suggestions I made
about using color originals for b&w prints.
The condescending attitude of the uninformed never ceases to amaze me.
--
Robert Feinman, Ph.D (physics - for the person who asked)
Robert Feinman
David J. Littleboy
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Jorge Gasteazoro" <rosso...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
>
> > prints last just as long without real proof.
>
> I don't care how long they last, since I can make new prints of equal or
> better quality whenever I want.
Yes, but if you are selling prints to collectors, your customers may not be
amused.
And if your prints fade, your work of 5 years ago may come back to haunt you
if you give them to friends, family, or someone who you might like to hire
you somewhere down the road...
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Ralf R. Radermacher
Mxsmanic
a8qgqo$u63fc$2...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
> Unless the file it was recorded on is no
> longer supported, the media it was recorded
> on is no longer supported or is somehow -slightly-
> damaged.
That won't be a problem.
Mxsmanic
ip4s8.12540$T4.9...@nnrp.gol.com...
> Yes, but if you are selling prints to collectors,
> your customers may not be amused.
That's why I use an Epson 2000P.
> And if your prints fade, your work of 5 years
> ago may come back to haunt you if you give them
> to friends, family, or someone who you might
> like to hire you somewhere down the road...
I'm confident that the digital prints will last considerably longer than
five years, with any care at all.
Mxsmanic
3cb0e...@nopics.sjc...
> So it's not about the art, it's about the commodity?
Even artists have to pay the rent.
Jorge Gasteazoro
half truths, like you said piezography is not paper specific, but IT
IS deposited on the surface like any other pigment comming from a
printer. Please be so kind as to pay attention to what I wrote. Funny
how you were selctively reading to fit your opinion. LOL I love it
when digital people selectively read to fit their opinion!
BTW, the Piezography system is a driver plugin for Photoshop, and
inks. It is not paper specific.
> LOL, I love the way chemical people choose *rumor* to fit their opinion!
hogarth <hogarth@**notspam***directvinternet.com> wrote in message news:<3cb04...@nopics.sjc>...
> Jorge Gasteazoro wrote:
>
> > Lol, ah I love how digital people pick and choose facts to fit their
> > opinion. Sure inkjet some inkjet printers use carbon, but they are not
> > the norm, but an exception like the Jon Cone system, they need a
> > special paper that does not last even close to 10 years, let alone the
> > 200 plus they advertize, and when you use it on Cranes or something
> > else, although it may have the permanence of a silver print, I am sure
> > it wont come close to a platinum print or other alt process that
> > absorbs the chemical into the paper as opposed to being in the surface
> > like a pigment from a printer.
> > So this is not an argument of digital versus traditional, it is a
> > thread about B&W being obsolete, maybe it is maybe is not, but lets
> > keep it on the subject, shall we?
>
> I was responding to Mxsmanic. See below.
>
>>
> >
> >
Brian Ellis
stil available in 35 mm, Konica is still available, I believe Ilford's
infrared is still around, and Maco has come on the market with a new
infrared film.
"Robert D Feinman" <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:165c49e4.02040...@posting.google.com...
Stephe
>Early Kodacolor was flat and grainy and most of the
> pictures have faded.
Which we were told wouldn't happen. The point is how do you KNOW that
digital prints will last? Because they (The people selling the printers)
are telling you they will? Sorry, but I have more trust in something that
has proven itself to last.
--
stephe
Stephe
So you do this for a living? This is your only source of income?
--
stephe
ross mcleish
>
..and the patronising attitude of the self-obsessed and fatuous never ceases
to amaze me...
John
<bell...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The only infrared I know of that is gone is Kodak HIE in 4x5.
Small, nit-picking correction. Kodak's High Speed Infrared
sheet film was called HSI 4143. An excellent film that was
perfect for sucking all of the dust out of one's bellows.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.net
John
I would like to suggest that this incredibly lengthy
"conversation" should find a venue in the rec.photo.digital group
where the topic of how good digital media is, is a more popular
subject. This has nothing to offer the darkroom, large and medium
format groups that it is being cross-posted to.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.net
On 7 Apr 2002 16:06:17 -0700, robertd...@netscape.net (Robert
Mxsmanic
a8r9ln$ua2f3$3...@ID-52908.news.dfncis.de...
> So you do this for a living? This is your
> only source of income?
The answers to these questions are not your concern.
Paul Light
their B&w films and Fuji recently expanded their line of b&w films.
In article <khkr8.6881$ud6.3...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, "Amr Ibrahim"
<aibr...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Paul:
>
> I agree with you...but would the level of demand from an ever shrinking
> market support this type of film much longer? I hope that it shall, but I
> am not sure.
>
> Brgrds
>
> AI
> "Paul Light" <ligh...@tiac.net> wrote in message
> news:lightwav-050...@p174.block2.tc1.rnktel.net...
> > This is a bit of an overstatement. I agree with you that the results one
> > get from conversions are so good that it is almost pointless to shoot
> > black and white film. But I must emphasize almost. If you were to see
> > actual prints, not reproductions, by Emmett Gowin, Nick Nixon, Michael
> > Kenna, Lee Friedlander or Abe Morrell you would see black and white is not
> > obsolete and will not be at any point soon.
> >
> > In article <3CADB08E...@netscape.net>, Robert Feinman
> > <robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I've added a tip to my web site describing how to create any desired
> > > black and white image using color transparency film. I invite you to
> > > read it before getting defensive.
> > > My position is that you have more presentation options and less
> > > limitations in the field than with black and white negatives.
> > >
> > > I also invite you to look at my new Hawaii pictures. Taken with a 4x5
> > > view on sheet and roll film.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Light
> > ligh...@tiac.net
> > http://www.tiac.net/users/lightwav
--
Paul Light
ligh...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/lightwav