So is film dead yet?
Gordon Gekko
been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
answer to the question.
Let me make the following points (which some may disagree with):
(1) Digital is more "practical" than film, and what this means is that
for commercial photography, film is not going to be used much anymore,
because it's less expensive to go digital. With high end digital
cameras continuing to get better (they now have 35mm sized digital
cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported to be almost "medium
format quality").
(2) Film has changed. Once upon a time, 35mm wasn't considered a
useful medium for serious photography, but 35mm film became a lot
better, and now it's used almost exclusively. Medium format is so
rare that they never even bothered to come up with a better film
loading format for it. Will 35mm film become as rare in the future as
medium format is today?
(3) The masses continue to use film, and this is written in May 2003.
A year from now things could be different? At the moment, people are
convinced that they need a bunch of 4 x 6" prints as a result of their
picture taking (it was color print film and inexpensive "idiot-proof"
cameras that probably brought photography to the masses). At the
moment, the 35mm film route provides this with less hassle than
digital. Pro digital evangelists argue that there will be a glorious
time in the near future when it will be as inexpensive and as easy to
get the same with digital. Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it.
Behind the scenes, the one-hour photo labs are converting to digital
equipment... the negatives are scanned and printed out using digital
technology, and the consumer doesn't even realize it! I forsee that
film will be used by low end consumers for the next decade.
(4) Could there be technological advancements in film emulsions that
create a new film renaissance? (Even if this happens, the negatives
will still be digitally scanned.)
(5) Digital is cheaper for the serious amateur photographer. That's
right. People complain about the high cost of digital cameras and the
fact that they become "obsolete" in a year. Well digital is actually
a lot less expensive than film cameras. Of course there is the cost
of developing and film that we all know about. But if you want to
have actual control over the print-making process, even a small black
and white developing setup and enlarger will cost more money than an
inkjet printer. (I paid $180 for my inkjet. And I was ripped, the
new model now sells for less money and has more features). Even for
black and white, it's less expensive and more "practical" to buy a
good film scanner ($800 range) than an enlarger. As a bonus, the film
scanner and inkjet can make fabulous color prints as well.
(6) It has been the ability to make my own prints, using digital
techniques, that has really gotten be excited about photography. This
is a follow-up of point 5, but it's worth repeating. Few people using
film ever bothered to do their own black and white developing--I
didn't--so I never knew what I was missing.
(7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
Not true photographic prints. How about that!
(8) Will digital capture ever be accepted as art? Once upon a time,
photography wasn't even accepted as art. The art world can be very
conservative in what's acceptable. Even today, oil paintings are
considered more valuable than acrylic paintings, even though acrylics
have been around for decades. I see a strong possibility that digital
will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
color lab in their house, are they?)
Irakli West
news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This reminds me of Martin Luther nailing his thesis(es) on doors in
Wittenberg proclaiming the demise of Catholisism...
My guess is digital will replace chemical film as a "mass medium" when it
becomes idiot-proof. Some might argue it already is, but many people still
fear computers and digital post-production.
Compare that to newspapers or magazines, and the hype surrounding digital
content a couple of years ago.
Both will co-exist for a long time
my 2p / cents
--
Irakli
http://www.urbandetail.net
Dennis O'Connor
Denny
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
Bill Hilton
>
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> been talked to death.
Y-a-w-n ...
Rodeo Clown
> been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
> in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
> hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
> answer to the question.
>
Alan Browne
YES: It is absolutely dead. You cannot buy it. You cannot get it
developed. (I hear a rumor that "Guido" sells it in an alley at 4th and
Cresent, but it is certainly not legal). The White House will advise
the senate, the house and the several states that they reccomend film be
constitutionally banned. "The right to bear and load film shall be
forever quashed."
If you show people perfectly composed, exposed, focused shots in
brilliant color and boldness, people will ask, was that digital, and you
say, no, it's film, their eyes glaze over and they say "My uncle has a
little HP digital that takes great pitchurs" and they walk away.
Yes, film is dead, 'cause >99% of people who have cameras (film or
digital) are not "photographers" (amateur or pro or in-between).
BTW: you are full of shit: Medium Format is alive and well and still
the main choice of commercial/professional photographers for most of
their work. Many, of course, are using digital WHERE APPROPRIATE ...
eg: newsies, weekly magazines (Time, NW, SI), product catalogues, etc.
Yes, MF is rare to you, 'cause you are too remote from it. MF shooters
usually use things called "backs" to load and shoot their film, and it
is a hell of a lot more flexible than the 35mm cassette.
It is already cheaper for a P&Ser to shoot digital and make his own
prints (if he sticks to printing the 'keepers'.) Even up to ca. 8x10
prints, a good quality digital camera is capable of great results (if
the photog is too, which is not always the case). If the P&Ser uses,
eg, photoshop, then the cost of a computer needs to be considered ... or
does it? Most people who shoot digital cameras have computers in any
case for other uses (like inane posting of bait questions on NG's).
Is digital art? Art has no boundaries. You can make images with the
Hubble Telescope that qualify as art as you can make stick drawings with
a piece of charcoal from your fireplace. When somebody acts as a keeper
for "what is art" he is a sham.
Shoot digital, shoot film, shoot what is right for you (if you have any
idea what is "right" for you), and stop looking for consensus on
meaningless questions to justify some point of view that you have
already settled on. Get yourself a nice little digital camera and a
printer and blow your socks off.
Alan.
Gordon Moat
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
> in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
> hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
> answer to the question.
One thing is that if you want to use the name "Gordon Gekko", then you
should be checking the SEC reports on Kodak, Fuji, AGFA, and Polaroid.
Those reports will give you a more realistic pictures than any article in
any magazine (or any news group).
>
>
> Let me make the following points (which some may disagree with):
>
> (1) Digital is more "practical" than film, and what this means is that
> for commercial photography, film is not going to be used much anymore,
> because it's less expensive to go digital.
Wrong assumption because in some professional photography, time in post
production is direct expense. Unlike consumer digital, the time a
professional spends in front of a computer is not free (call it a digital
light box if you like). In some professional areas there are advantages
to using direct digital capture, though you should realize that almost
all publication imagery has been digital for well over a decade. Even if
the originating image was on film, at some point it would have been
scanned, and edited in PhotoShop (or similar). That has been going on for
longer than direct digital SLRs have been "all the rage".
> With high end digital
> cameras continuing to get better (they now have 35mm sized digital
> cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported to be almost "medium
> format quality").
Much more than that, though still fairly expensive. Most of those are
leased, with an upgrade option in the lease, rather than purchase. The
advantage is to high volume catalogue and product photographers. This is
one professional area with digital advantages over film, despite the high
cost of medium format digital gear. Also, forget the megapixel
comparison. Most medium format digital backs have some active cooling of
the chip, meaning more accurate colours and greater colour tonal range,
which are much more important for publication.
With news and photojournalists, the time to press is much more important
than any quality issues. Newsprint printing is very low saturation, and
low resolution, giving much more room to make errors in quality. Digital
is an advantage here, but wireless imaging is challenging in some
markets. The other aspect is more still news photographers switching to
digital video, providing even more saleable products, and still leaving
room to gather digital stills.
>
>
> (2) Film has changed. Once upon a time, 35mm wasn't considered a
> useful medium for serious photography, but 35mm film became a lot
> better, and now it's used almost exclusively. Medium format is so
> rare that they never even bothered to come up with a better film
> loading format for it. Will 35mm film become as rare in the future as
> medium format is today?
It does not sound to me that you have much experience with Medium Format
gear. Their are flip open backs just like in 35 mm cameras. Not all of
those are detachable back designs. Also, there is a fairly good selection
of films directly comparable to 35 mm choices.
35 mm film is much better than it was ten years ago, and new emulsions
continue to be developed and produced. As for rarity, it is true that you
cannot buy medium format film in a grocery or department store, but these
are big selling areas for 35 mm. Those little disposable 35 mm cameras
are the primary camera for many people, and are a great profit source for
Kodak, Fuji, et al.
Anyway, film quality is much better, which does help 35 mm users and
professionals. However, I think the small digital file sizes from some
digital SLRs creates an acceptance of lesser quality. While it is still
possible to scan 35 mm film to larger file sizes than direct digital
capture, and put those on a CD-R for a client, scanned 35 mm film will
continue to be acceptable. Also, when it is delivered to a client by FTP,
or on a CD-R, there is almost no way they could know whether it was film
or direct digital acquisition, and why should they care.
>
>
> (3) The masses continue to use film, and this is written in May 2003.
> A year from now things could be different? At the moment, people are
> convinced that they need a bunch of 4 x 6" prints as a result of their
> picture taking (it was color print film and inexpensive "idiot-proof"
> cameras that probably brought photography to the masses). At the
> moment, the 35mm film route provides this with less hassle than
> digital. Pro digital evangelists argue that there will be a glorious
> time in the near future when it will be as inexpensive and as easy to
> get the same with digital. Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it.
> Behind the scenes, the one-hour photo labs are converting to digital
> equipment... the negatives are scanned and printed out using digital
> technology, and the consumer doesn't even realize it! I forsee that
> film will be used by low end consumers for the next decade.
Probably longer than that. Not everyone wants to sit in front of a
computer. Many consumer digital users also have trouble understanding why
their images do not look good when blown up larger than 4" by 6". Keep in
mind that many of these point and shoot digital owners keep the settings
towards the highest volume, lowest quality, to get more pictures into
memory.
Another aspect is looking at every picture on the back of the camera once
it is taken. It is very tough to judge image quality on a small LCD under
any lighting conditions, but people do it all the time. So they see the
image right after they have taken it, then they see it again on their
computer, then they pass it on through e-mail . . . and probably get
bored with it enough to not look at it several months later.
Industry statistics from PMAI indicate that very few people print digital
images. This has been a concern for the inkjet industry, who all hoped to
make quite a bit from digital camera sales. The next big hope is digital
printing kiosks, either one hour photo types, or self serve. It remains
to be seen if this will finally get people printing digital images.
The number one use of digital cameras remains e-mail. The biggest
challenger now is wireless imaging. The mobile phone market needs to
increase sales, and wireless imaging is the next big thing. The advantage
to them is subscriber fees, rather than sales of phones with cameras
built in. The low cost, e-mail and image sharing ability, convenience,
and small size will likely negatively impact sales of digital point and
shoot cameras.
>
>
> (4) Could there be technological advancements in film emulsions that
> create a new film renaissance? (Even if this happens, the negatives
> will still be digitally scanned.)
Yes, and already happening. Kodak has recently opened a new plant for B/W
film production, and introduced new emulsions. They also have new colour
emulsions with better capabilities at colour accuracy, saturation, and
grain reduction. All the new films do scan better than older versions,
which is important for professionals, but also means that advance
amateurs can get really nice prints from their slide photography. FUJI,
AGFA, and Ilford have not sat still on developments, and are introducing
similar product. The big struggling company has been Polaroid, though
even they managed to introduce some new professional films, and new
consumer products.
>
>
> (5) Digital is cheaper for the serious amateur photographer. That's
> right. People complain about the high cost of digital cameras and the
> fact that they become "obsolete" in a year. Well digital is actually
> a lot less expensive than film cameras. Of course there is the cost
> of developing and film that we all know about. But if you want to
> have actual control over the print-making process, even a small black
> and white developing setup and enlarger will cost more money than an
> inkjet printer. (I paid $180 for my inkjet. And I was ripped, the
> new model now sells for less money and has more features). Even for
> black and white, it's less expensive and more "practical" to buy a
> good film scanner ($800 range) than an enlarger. As a bonus, the film
> scanner and inkjet can make fabulous color prints as well.
This is a choice on where someone wants to spend their time and money.
There are probably more justifications for the various methods, than
there are methods. There are newer printers coming on the market that do
not need a computer to print directly from digital cameras. Those may be
a better choice for people who do not want to sit in front of a computer
to get images. Of course, as I stated earlier, there are also one hour
photo places that will print digital images. The other development is
that many digital cameras are easier to plug into a television, and allow
a digital slide show to share images with others.
>
>
> (6) It has been the ability to make my own prints, using digital
> techniques, that has really gotten be excited about photography. This
> is a follow-up of point 5, but it's worth repeating. Few people using
> film ever bothered to do their own black and white developing--I
> didn't--so I never knew what I was missing.
Not everyone can set-up a darkroom, nor has access to a darkroom.
However, true B/W printing, papers, and films, are very different than
any digital B/W. The reality here is that if someone likes their results,
then they are valid for that individual. Glad you found a way to enjoy
photography more.
>
>
> (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> Not true photographic prints. How about that!
Likely a Giclée or IRIS print. These are very expensive to produce,
though there are some advantages over Gravure or true Litho prints. If it
was indeed someone's desktop Epson, and for sale artwork, what liability
was given against image degradation? Anyway, there are some high end
printing methods that use some digital step to arrive a a final image.
These techniques are developments from the printing and publishing
industries, but far beyond anything one could buy at a computer store.
Carbro printing is one method that comes to mind that benefits from some
digital processes, and just happens to be the highest quality, longest
archive, and best colour accuracy of any photo printing.
>
>
> (8) Will digital capture ever be accepted as art?
It is starting to appear as a "gimmick" method. I see no reason to state
the method of acquisition as the type of work, and I think it is
completely wrong. A painting may be stated as "oil on canvas", but did it
matter if I used Windsor & Newton paints, or what brushes I used.
Traditional B/W photography can often be stated as "Gelatin silver
print", and some colour as "Chromogenic prints". Those refer correctly to
the print, which is the tangible work of art. I feel that putting
"digital photography" on a print is not a true statement of a tangible
work. Additionally, it trivializes photography, and makes it a novelty.
> Once upon a time,
> photography wasn't even accepted as art. The art world can be very
> conservative in what's acceptable.
Photography is gaining wider acceptance. Earlier works are getting more
recognition and notice, as well as greater sales at auction. Galleries
and juried shows are accepting more photography for exhibitions.
> Even today, oil paintings are
> considered more valuable than acrylic paintings, even though acrylics
> have been around for decades.
Oil can be blended and flows differently than acrylics. Oils also have a
different light and colour quality than acrylics. Acrylics work better
for reproductions, since they are closer to possible printing inks than
oils. Oils are still more expensive to produce, and take slightly more
skill and experience to properly work than acrylics. Properly worked oil
paintings also are very archival in nature.
> I see a strong possibility that digital
> will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
> will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
> color lab in their house, are they?)
Some artists do have a colour darkroom in their house or studio. However,
the more common method is to work with professional labs with experienced
colour printers. Black and white prints will always have a more
noticeable respect from some critics, since they are now established as
traditional photography. Though even with B/W, some speciality labs are
often the choice for printing, rather than do it yourself.
Recent colour printing is improving, and some galleries, critics, and
judges for shows, are opening up to colour photography in the fine art
world. I am glad this is happening, since I have been able to get two of
my works into juried shows this year already. It is an easier route for
me than my oil paintings, which are much more costly and time consuming.
Lots of things to consider. Basically, if direct digital image
acquisition works for an individual, or has any perceived advantage, then
it is a good choice. Using it in combination with film is also a good
choice, since there is no reason it needs to be only one choice. Wireless
imaging will satisfy many e-mail digital image users. Video will satisfy
some others.
When you see disposable, or one-time-use digital cameras, then consumers
may start buying those instead of disposable film cameras. However, there
is still lots of profit in film. There is also a much bigger world out
there than the United States, Europe, and Japan, and there will be
profits to be made from film well past any of our lifetimes.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Mark C
gone 100% digital and is producing amazing prints. He recently produced a
print that was 24x60.......that had unbelieveable detail and color
saturation. With the right camera, software and printer....there are no
boundries to digital photography.
However, I do agree with Alan when he sez, "Shoot digital, shoot film, shoot
what is right for you....."
Ciao,
Mark C
Nashville, TN
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3EBA91CF...@videotron.ca...
Nick Zentena
>
> (1) Digital is more "practical" than film, and what this means is that
> for commercial photography, film is not going to be used much anymore,
> because it's less expensive to go digital. With high end digital
> cameras continuing to get better (they now have 35mm sized digital
> cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported to be almost "medium
> format quality").
Reported by who?
>
> (2) Film has changed. Once upon a time, 35mm wasn't considered a
> useful medium for serious photography, but 35mm film became a lot
> better, and now it's used almost exclusively. Medium format is so
> rare that they never even bothered to come up with a better film
> loading format for it. Will 35mm film become as rare in the future as
> medium format is today?
What are you talking about? MF is simple to load. Modern MF cameras often
come with changable backs to make it even easier.
>
> (3) The masses continue to use film, and this is written in May 2003.
> A year from now things could be different? At the moment, people are
> convinced that they need a bunch of 4 x 6" prints as a result of their
> picture taking (it was color print film and inexpensive "idiot-proof"
> cameras that probably brought photography to the masses). At the
> moment, the 35mm film route provides this with less hassle than
> digital. Pro digital evangelists argue that there will be a glorious
> time in the near future when it will be as inexpensive and as easy to
> get the same with digital. Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it.
> Behind the scenes, the one-hour photo labs are converting to digital
> equipment... the negatives are scanned and printed out using digital
> technology, and the consumer doesn't even realize it! I forsee that
> film will be used by low end consumers for the next decade.
Vast majority of the world won't switch to digital until you can get the
quality of a disposable camera for the same price they sell in the
developing world. And that better include prints.
>
> (5) Digital is cheaper for the serious amateur photographer. That's
> right. People complain about the high cost of digital cameras and the
> fact that they become "obsolete" in a year. Well digital is actually
> a lot less expensive than film cameras. Of course there is the cost
> of developing and film that we all know about. But if you want to
> have actual control over the print-making process, even a small black
> and white developing setup and enlarger will cost more money than an
> inkjet printer. (I paid $180 for my inkjet. And I was ripped, the
> new model now sells for less money and has more features). Even for
> black and white, it's less expensive and more "practical" to buy a
> good film scanner ($800 range) than an enlarger. As a bonus, the film
> scanner and inkjet can make fabulous color prints as well.
You can buy a MF B&W enlarger for $50 without even trying too hard. It'll
outlast any printer.
>
> (6) It has been the ability to make my own prints, using digital
> techniques, that has really gotten be excited about photography. This
> is a follow-up of point 5, but it's worth repeating. Few people using
> film ever bothered to do their own black and white developing--I
> didn't--so I never knew what I was missing.
I get the feeling you don't remember the home darkroom booms. Wanna bet
many of the same people who today are so hot on home printing digital will
be dumping that home printing equipment in the future? Home printing is work
for many people. The only people who will stick with it are those who enjoy
the hobby. The percentage of people home printing digital won't be higher
then the percentage of people home printing film. Not long term.
>
> (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> Not true photographic prints. How about that!
You should see the crap some people try passing off.
>
> (8) Will digital capture ever be accepted as art? Once upon a time,
> photography wasn't even accepted as art. The art world can be very
> conservative in what's acceptable. Even today, oil paintings are
> considered more valuable than acrylic paintings, even though acrylics
> have been around for decades. I see a strong possibility that digital
> will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
> will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
> color lab in their house, are they?)
I don't doubt high dollar areas will be film based. For the same reason
people buy hand built cars instead of civics.
Nick
Tony Spadaro
itself. If it's alive, it must be a virus.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
135U
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll"
snip
Ron Hunter
I don't think film will be 'dead' until you can't buy a roll of 35 mm
color in Wal-Mart... Come back and tell me when that happens, but you
will probably find me in the local graveyard...
Smitty
Med format transparencies. Stock agencies by a wide margin would still
rather look at slides on a light table than a stack of CDs.
smitty
Gregory L. Hansen
Gordon Gekko <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
>been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
>in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
>hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
>answer to the question.
There still seems to be a lot of it hanging on the wall at the drug store,
it's still there in the checkout lines at the supermarket. I've found
Kodak's new consumer-level "High Definition" film. There are more
brands of film SLRs than digital SLRs, and new film cameras continue to be
developed. There's at least four shops within casual walking distance of
me where I could get film developed, and the CVS near me is getting an
expensive new machine. And that's from casual consumer-level observation.
It's not just that film is still available and there are still places that
will develop it. New films are being made, new film cameras are being
made, new film developing machines are being purchased...
Exactly what do you mean by "dead"?
--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Smitty" <jschmidt(nospam)@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:Rdxua.187$Iy1.1...@kent.svc.tds.net...
steve
know of wont go digital because of doubts over longevity & storage of
digital. Negs last a long long time when properly stored. Remember the 5 1/4
inch floppy......no & try and find one new. How many digi prints will last
the test of time & technology ?????
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
Mike Marty
> Film is dead. It does not breath. It does not laugh. It does not move by
> itself. If it's alive, it must be a virus.
>
Depends on your definition of "alive". Some people classify a virus as
non-living because it can't reproduce and doesn' have a metabolism. Those
two requirements fit one definition of the term "living".
However I am far from a biologist and I attend an American university.
Alan Browne
bob
news:3EBA99C1...@attglobal.net:
What a great post. I'm just adding a few thoughts at the end.
[...]
>> I see a strong possibility that digital
>> will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
>> will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
>> color lab in their house, are they?)
>
> Some artists do have a colour darkroom in their house or studio.
However,
> the more common method is to work with professional labs with
experienced
> colour printers.
And you can always make your own separations and use a three color
pigment process, avoiding all the nasty "color" chemicals. You can make
your own paper too, and some people do that as well.
[...]
> Lots of things to consider. Basically, if direct digital image
> acquisition works for an individual, or has any perceived advantage,
then
> it is a good choice. Using it in combination with film is also a good
> choice, since there is no reason it needs to be only one choice.
Wireless
> imaging will satisfy many e-mail digital image users. Video will
satisfy
> some others.
My current setup: a good digicam for most work, documentary and artistic,
which I do soley because I want to; a 35mm SLR, that I can't bring myself
to sell, but I probably will anyway but I love it so much; a 4x5 camera
that I'm not using until I get a permanent darkroom setup.
> When you see disposable, or one-time-use digital cameras, then
consumers
Kodak was advertising that on TV last night. I think it's film with
prepaid scanning.
> may start buying those instead of disposable film cameras. However,
there
> is still lots of profit in film. There is also a much bigger world out
> there than the United States, Europe, and Japan, and there will be
> profits to be made from film well past any of our lifetimes.
And there are companies that almost all of their money on film and
photographic paper.
Bob
Bhup
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..Yawn Z ZZZZZZ
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
mike II
>
> YES FILM IS DEAD, can't you tell?
>
> YES: It is absolutely dead. You cannot buy it. You cannot get it
> developed. (I hear a rumor that "Guido" sells it in an alley at 4th and
> Cresent, but it is certainly not legal).
I gots this nice fresh roll 620 off him yesterday. Real discrete, that
Guido. Brown paper bag an' everythin..real class! His cousin's got a 126
connection somewheres but he ain't talkin..
mike
Mxsmanic
d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
> (1) Digital is more "practical" than film ...
No such general statement can be made. It all depends on the type of
photography.
> ... cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported
> to be almost "medium format quality" ...
Anyone reporting that is either a liar or hasn't taken a good look at
medium-format photographs.
> Medium format is so rare that they never even
> bothered to come up with a better film
> loading format for it.
It's not rare at all; it's just overshadowed by 35mm. Lots of people still
shoot medium format.
> Will 35mm film become as rare in the future as
> medium format is today?
Impossible to say at this point.
> (3) The masses continue to use film, and this
> is written in May 2003. A year from now things
> could be different?
A year from now, the situation will still be pretty much the same, at least
on a worldwide basis.
> Pro digital evangelists argue that there will be
> a glorious time in the near future when it will
> be as inexpensive and as easy to get the same
> with digital. Maybe.
Nope. If the only objective is prints, there are almost no advantages to
digital at all, except the savings on film, and the savings on film isn't
enough to offset the initial investment required for digital unless one
shoots a _lot_ of pictures (thousands).
> I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm not holding my breath.
> Behind the scenes, the one-hour photo labs are
> converting to digital equipment... the negatives
> are scanned and printed out using digital technology,
> and the consumer doesn't even realize it!
The same thing that the publishing world did twenty years ago.
> I forsee that film will be used by low end consumers
> for the next decade.
I agree, especially outside a handful of industrialized nations.
> (4) Could there be technological advancements in
> film emulsions that create a new film renaissance?
Absolutely, but it's not clear whether or not film manufacturers are
pursuing these advances. For example, Agfa knows how to make film ten times
more sensitive without any increase in grain, but I don't know if it is
working on a real product to take advantage of this.
> (5) Digital is cheaper for the serious amateur
> photographer. That's right.
If he takes a lot of pictures, and if he already has a computer, yes.
> But if you want to have actual control over the
> print-making process, even a small black and white
> developing setup and enlarger will cost more money than an
> inkjet printer.
You can have that control with both film and digital; you don't need to
shoot digitally to have it. And nobody is still using enlargers. Even pro
labs scan and print from digital files. And since you can create digital
files from both electronic ("digital") cameras and from film cameras, there
is no need to go digital just to gain control of your prints.
> I paid $180 for my inkjet. And I was ripped, the
> new model now sells for less money and has more features
Inkjet prints are inferior to true photographic prints, at least for color
(for black and white, it's more debatable).
> Few people using film ever bothered to do their
> own black and white developing--I didn't--so I
> never knew what I was missing.
I develop my own B&W film, but I scan the negatives. I only develop myself
to save money (I don't do the same for color because it is too much
trouble).
> (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit,
> and the prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based
> on scanned film. Not true photographic prints. How about that!
I see that a lot. Sometimes the quality is really poor.
> (8) Will digital capture ever be accepted as art?
From an art standpoint, it doesn't matter how the image is captured.
Mxsmanic
3EBA99C1...@attglobal.net...
> Likely a Giclée or IRIS print.
If so, then my respect for gicléé or IRIS has diminished. The ones I saw
looked like they were printed on a giant version of a cheap Epson printer,
and they even had spots where someone had gotten the print wet (are giclée
and IRIS prints waterproof?).
Mxsmanic
b9ea4j$6r0$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Remember the 5 1/4 inch floppy......no & try and
> find one new.
Why does it have to be new? I have one in my closet.
> How many digi prints will last the test of
> time & technology ?????
There is NO SUCH THING as a "digital print." All prints are analog.
bob
8CcnRvyHJX...@giganews.com:
The actual response should be "What difference does it make?" Since
they're digital, you can always just print more.
The real concern is about loosing the files. That is a real issue -- your
files are only as good as your backup system. The only media I have
*never* lost data from is tape.
Bob
badgerfish
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_8CcnRvyHJX...@giganews.com...
John Miller
> dickhead....
It's not unusual for people to write posts and forget to sign them, but it's
not everyday you see someone sign a post, but forget to write it.
--
John Miller
You will pay for your sins. If you have already paid, please disregard
this message.
Tony Spadaro
archival -- film. I have essentially 2 percent (max) of all the film I shot
before 1978. One fire destroyed almost everything I shot to that time.
People who claim film is archival are living in a dream world.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:Xns9375B378C2D...@65.82.44.187...
Jason O'Rourke
>I've lost a whole lot of data from the media that everyone claims is
>archival -- film. I have essentially 2 percent (max) of all the film I shot
>before 1978. One fire destroyed almost everything I shot to that time.
> People who claim film is archival are living in a dream world.
Well, no archival format is fireproof - there is a presumption of care.
A stack of molten CDs would do you just as well.
Most film does age, and obviously cannot be duplicated (well) for remote
site storage.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Gordon Gekko
> Exactly what do you mean by "dead"?
That was just rhetoric to make the message sound more exciting to
read.
I consider fountain pens to be dead. You can still buy them. I have
a few. I like them better than ballpoints.
Fountain pens used to be a mass market product, but now only one
person in a hundred uses them.
Gordon Gekko
> What are you talking about? MF is simple to load. Modern MF cameras often
> come with changable backs to make it even easier.
The process seems intimidating to the uninitiated.
> Vast majority of the world won't switch to digital until you can get the
> quality of a disposable camera for the same price they sell in the
> developing world. And that better include prints.
If you rephrase that to "the vast majority of disposable camera users
won't switch to digital until..." then I'd buy that.
"Single use cameras" are the fastest growing segment of the film
business.
> You can buy a MF B&W enlarger for $50 without even trying too hard. It'll
> outlast any printer.
I checked the prices at a reputable online photographic store. They
cost a lot more than that.
> Wanna bet
> many of the same people who today are so hot on home printing digital will
> be dumping that home printing equipment in the future?
I agree that people get bored with their hobbies, especially when its
a fad hobby. Remember when everyone wanted to have a CB radio? They
are all gathering dust now.
> > (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> > prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> > Not true photographic prints. How about that!
>
> You should see the crap some people try passing off.
I should repeat this point, because I see respectable art museums
displaying photographs that are printed using inkjet printers (and
whether it's the $180 inkjet that I have, or a $5000 inkjet, that's
not the point).
> I don't doubt high dollar areas will be film based. For the same reason
> people buy hand built cars instead of civics.
And people spend thousands on an oil painting when they could buy a
print for a fraction of the price.
Chieh Cheng
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
> in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
> hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
> answer to the question.
Why bother bringing it up?
Does it matter to you whether you shoot digital or film?
Does it matter to you if your next door neighbor shoot digital or
film?
Does it matter to you if I shoot digitial or film?
I am part of a relatively young generation. I can tell you that film
won't go away until (at least) my grandparents and my parents leaves
this world. Same applies to the paperless vs. paper debate, or so many
other contemporary vs. traditional debates out there.
Personally I prefer that film never goes away. I like to option of
shooting digital, film, or whatever artistic procedures out there.
> (1) Digital is more "practical" than film, and what this means is that
> for commercial photography, film is not going to be used much anymore,
> because it's less expensive to go digital. With high end digital
> cameras continuing to get better (they now have 35mm sized digital
> cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported to be almost "medium
> format quality").
For who? You? Me? My parents? My grand-parents?
I have spent the last 15 years, trying to computerize my parents'
video store, plastic bag distribution business, restaruant, and their
daily lifes. I am still trying. But in the end, they always fall back
on paper and pens. Did you feel that was "practical"?
> (2) Film has changed. Once upon a time, 35mm wasn't considered a
> useful medium for serious photography, but 35mm film became a lot
> better, and now it's used almost exclusively. Medium format is so
> rare that they never even bothered to come up with a better film
> loading format for it. Will 35mm film become as rare in the future as
> medium format is today?
I studied photography for the past 10 years. I moved from film to
digital. My friend just started two month ago. He went medium format
as his camera. Enough said.
> (4) Could there be technological advancements in film emulsions that
> create a new film renaissance? (Even if this happens, the negatives
> will still be digitally scanned.)
Film will (hopefully) always be an artistic medium. Unless you are
willing to sit down and painfully duplicate the characteristic of all
the films out there digitally.
If you are a true artist, you will probably want to do away with
conventional means of making image. Assuming digital does become the
conventional mean, many artists will seek out alternative method of
generating art, such as film. For you average snap-shot shooter, film
may be dead. But not everyone feels that way today and not everyone
will feel that way in the future.
> (5) Digital is cheaper for the serious amateur photographer. That's
> right. People complain about the high cost of digital cameras and the
> fact that they become "obsolete" in a year. Well digital is actually
> a lot less expensive than film cameras. Of course there is the cost
> of developing and film that we all know about. But if you want to
> have actual control over the print-making process, even a small black
> and white developing setup and enlarger will cost more money than an
> inkjet printer. (I paid $180 for my inkjet. And I was ripped, the
> new model now sells for less money and has more features). Even for
> black and white, it's less expensive and more "practical" to buy a
> good film scanner ($800 range) than an enlarger. As a bonus, the film
> scanner and inkjet can make fabulous color prints as well.
You forgot to factor in the cost of the computer system. Being a
computer scientist for the past 15 years, I can tell you that cost is
not cheap. And I'm not just talking about the material. I'm talking
about training, space, and maintenance.
> (6) It has been the ability to make my own prints, using digital
> techniques, that has really gotten be excited about photography. This
> is a follow-up of point 5, but it's worth repeating. Few people using
> film ever bothered to do their own black and white developing--I
> didn't--so I never knew what I was missing.
Spoken like a pre-freshman in photography. Take a photography course
and you will learn all you want about darkroom.
> (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> Not true photographic prints. How about that!
How about it? I seen prints made on glass. What's your point?
> (8) Will digital capture ever be accepted as art? Once upon a time,
> photography wasn't even accepted as art. The art world can be very
> conservative in what's acceptable. Even today, oil paintings are
> considered more valuable than acrylic paintings, even though acrylics
> have been around for decades. I see a strong possibility that digital
> will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
> will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
> color lab in their house, are they?)
Why not? I have had a color slide lab in my apartment.
Chieh
--
Chieh's Web - http://Chieh.CameraHacker.com/
stan
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
stan
Gordon Gekko wrote:
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
> in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
> hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
> answer to the question.
Yes troll. You haven't added anything to the discussion. No rebuttals at
all. You won't get a solid answer.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Gordon Gekko
> One thing is that if you want to use the name "Gordon Gekko", then you
> should be checking the SEC reports on Kodak, Fuji, AGFA, and Polaroid.
> Those reports will give you a more realistic pictures than any article in
> any magazine (or any news group).
Film sales are at an all time high. Sales problems are blamed more on
the bad economy (fewer people going on vacation), then digital.
Kodak isn't making as much money as it used to, primarily because it
used to have a near monopoly in the United States, but now Fuji is
competing against them.
> Wrong assumption because in some professional photography, time in post
> production is direct expense.
Developing and scanning film is both a pain, and time consuming. So
commercial photography will continue to move towards digital capture
as it becomes more accepted and easier.
> > I forsee that
> > film will be used by low end consumers for the next decade.
>
> Probably longer than that. Not everyone wants to sit in front of a
> computer. Many consumer digital users also have trouble understanding why
> their images do not look good when blown up larger than 4" by 6".
Blowing up the disposable camera negatives to bigger than 4 x6 doesn't
look so good either. In fact, they don't even look so good at 4 x 6.
The people using the disposable cameras obviously don't care.
Consumer digital cameras now offer plenty of quality. The issues are
price, ease of use, and ease of getting a bunch of prints.
> Another aspect is looking at every picture on the back of the camera once
> it is taken.
This is a big selling point for digital cameras.
> Industry statistics from PMAI indicate that very few people print digital
> images.
You need computer know-how to print digital.
> The next big hope is digital
> printing kiosks, either one hour photo types, or self serve. It remains
> to be seen if this will finally get people printing digital images.
If it's as easy and as cheap as developing film, people will convert.
But it hasn't been proven yet that this will be the case in the next
five years.
> > (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> > prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> > Not true photographic prints. How about that!
>
> Likely a Giclée or IRIS print. These are very expensive to produce,
> though there are some advantages over Gravure or true Litho prints. If it
> was indeed someone's desktop Epson, and for sale artwork, what liability
> was given against image degradation?
Art museums display photographs that were printed with inkjet
printers. Whether it's a $150 inkjet or a $5000 injket (I suspect the
latter) is not really important.
Image degredation doesn't matter, because they are temporary exhibits,
not permanent ones.
They could always be reprinted again in a few years from the image
file anyway.
> A painting may be stated as "oil on canvas", but did it
> matter if I used Windsor & Newton paints, or what brushes I used.
I've never seen an art gallery specify this. I don't think anyone
cares, as long it it was "oil paint". People should care, because it
could affect the longevity of the painting.
> I feel that putting
> "digital photography" on a print is not a true statement of a tangible
> work. Additionally, it trivializes photography, and makes it a novelty.
If everyone in the art world feels that way, then digital won't be
accepted as art.
> Oil can be blended and flows differently than acrylics. Oils also have a
> different light and colour quality than acrylics.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that people can tell the difference. I
know oil paints very well, but I can't tell if a painting is acrylic.
(Sometimes I can tell if it was oil.)
> Oils are still more expensive to produce, and take slightly more
> skill and experience to properly work than acrylics. Properly worked oil
> paintings also are very archival in nature.
I disagree with all of that. Oil paintings aren't that much more
expensive. The tubes of paint are twice the price, but it's twice a
small price. Painting is a much less expensive hobby than
photography. Photography is a rich man's hobby.
Acrylic painting is more difficult because the paints dry so fast.
Acrylic is much more archival than oil. Five hundred years from now,
the oil painting will be all darkened with age and cracked, while the
acrylic painting will look like it was painted yesterday. Such is the
archivalness of what is essentially plastic.
> When you see disposable, or one-time-use digital cameras, then consumers
> may start buying those instead of disposable film cameras.
I suspect this won't happen for a long time.
Non-disposable digital cameras for the same price as non-disposable
film cameras ($100), that might happen soon.
Gordon Gekko
> There is a pretty well respected nature photographer in Nashville that has
> gone 100% digital and is producing amazing prints. He recently produced a
> print that was 24x60.......that had unbelieveable detail and color
> saturation.
Thomas Kinkaid is "well respected" by some, but in the higher echelons
of the art world, is works are derided as "kitsch."
So that anecdote doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether
digital will be accepted as fine art.
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"stan" <vis...@mc.net> wrote in message news:3EBAECAB...@mc.net...
Peter Irwin
> Nick Zentena <zen...@hophead.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:<h28e9b.qoq.ln@barley>...
>
>> What are you talking about? MF is simple to load. Modern MF cameras often
>> come with changable backs to make it even easier.
>
> The process seems intimidating to the uninitiated.
I'm intimidated by modern auto-everything SLRs, because
I've never used one. I don't imagine that I would have too
much trouble after reading the manual and playing around a bit,
but whenever someone shows me their modern camera, I'm amazed
at how completely clueless I feel.
The paper backed roll film formats used to be by far the most
popluar films. Millions and millions of children shot rolls of
medium format film in box cameras. It might be intimidating
to the uninitiated, but it gave the average six year old very
little actual difficulty.
Peter.
---
pir...@ktb.net
David J. Littleboy
"Peter Irwin" <pir...@ktb.net> wrote:
>
> The paper backed roll film formats used to be by far the most
> popluar films. Millions and millions of children shot rolls of
> medium format film in box cameras. It might be intimidating
> to the uninitiated, but it gave the average six year old very
> little actual difficulty.
And while I don't see many six-year olds shooting Mamiyas and Bronicas, the
Japanese still call 120 "Brownie" film<g>. (Really, they do.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bob Ingraham
times and it becomes automatic. Hardly a reason not to use the cameras! (If
you think 120 is hard to load, try loading an old Leica, although even there
it's just a case of practice.)
An aside: A couple of years ago I bought a Kodak Brownie camera, 1928 model,
that used 120 film, the same film I was using in my Pentax 645 and Mamiya
RB67. I tried a roll in the Brownie and was amazed to find that the paper
backing still is being printed with the frame numbers that show through the
little red gel window at the back of the camera! Talk about retro!
>> What are you talking about? MF is simple to load. Modern MF cameras often
>> come with changable backs to make it even easier.
>
> The process seems intimidating to the uninitiated.
---------------
You might be able to buy one for $50, but whether it will produce acceptable
prints is quite another. $50 wouldn't even come close to buying a good lens!
>> You can buy a MF B&W enlarger for $50 without even trying too hard. It'll
>> outlast any printer.
>
> I checked the prices at a reputable online photographic store. They
> cost a lot more than that.
---------------
Here I don't have the benefit of experience, but home printing is looking
more and more like the cat's meow compared to the generally poor results
that one-hour labs give from analog film. CB Radio was a step in technology
to a different technology, namely cell phones. Home printing of photographs
seems to me to be the destination.
>> Wanna bet
>> many of the same people who today are so hot on home printing digital will
>> be dumping that home printing equipment in the future?
>
> I agree that people get bored with their hobbies, especially when its
> a fad hobby. Remember when everyone wanted to have a CB radio? They
> are all gathering dust now.
Bob Ingraham
Jonathan Wilson
wrote:
>"Single use cameras" are the fastest growing segment of the film
>business.
Thats because 3 GBP for a camera and development, that if you happen
to loose is no great loss.
Perfect for the stag/hen do, for a swingers meet in a pub, or any
other type of photograph where the quality is not the most important
issue, but rather a quick/cheap/easy memory of an event that otherwise
you would not not take a 300 film body, or 1500 digital body too.
its interesting that while people speak of quality of photography of
film/dpi/etc, the general public are more and more accepting lower
quality cheap and quick.
If you look at the "posh" magazines of "stars" the quality is more and
more based on the snatched digital/pocket film than the all singing
all dancing SLR/Medium format.
Only large prints and model shots seem to be done with high end kit
(be that digital or film)
I wonder however if digital can cope with being blown up as far as
full size posters (20foot/10foot) and the very impressive "poster" as
you get near birmingham (UK) that covers the side of a warehouse... i
have no idea of size... but its about 10 stories/30rooms. having said
that... its viewed from the M6 which is some way away from it.
This is why i think that digital will continue to improve to the level
of film in its MP rating.... and if the limits of the substrate/pixel
size can be improved upon it could do even further than film...
it seems that only a short time ago the 1gig processor would never be
reached, and now we have 4gig+ processors...
if there is any corelation between that and digital sensors then its
concievable that a 100MP 2/3ds or 35mm equivelent camera would be
available at 100GBP at some point in the future, the question will be
how soon as aposed to if.
Jon
Bob Ingraham
>> Medium format is so rare that they never even
>> bothered to come up with a better film
>> loading format for it.
>
> It's not rare at all; it's just overshadowed by 35mm. Lots of people still
> shoot medium format.
And why should anyone bother coming up with a "better film-loading format"?
The 120/220 format works just fine. Why fix what ain't broke?
Not to mention about 90% of commercial and portrait photographers! Any
photographer who believes that you can get the same quality out of 35mm or
any "affordable" digital camera is deluding himself. It just ain't so! Love
my little Canon G2, though!
Bob Ingraham
Gregory L. Hansen
Fountain pens are fun, but it can be hard to find refills. I can't find
refills at the supermarkets or drug stores around here. I can find film
at the supermarkets and drug stores around here.
I know more people with film cameras than with digital cameras, I see film
and film developing everywhere, new film cameras are designed and marketed
every year, new films are being produced, new film developing equipment is
being designed and bought. It's not even close to a maintenance or
nostalgic mode, every aspect of it is experiencing new development.
No pun intended, but cheerfully retained.
We're at a point now where futurists are predicting that film will be
"dead" or marginalized. It hasn't happened, but predictions are being
made. Maybe we'll call film dead when all the MotoPhotos close and you
can't find it at drug stores or supermarkets.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
Charlie
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> Fountain pens are fun, but it can be hard to find refills.
Refills?
"Real" fountain pens suck up ink from a bottle. ;)
--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA
Tony Spadaro
final files) in my safe deposit box. It would take one hell of a disaster to
get both my house and my bank. I suspect my pictures would be unimportant to
me or anyone else after such a disaster.
I still have all my surviving film to boot, and take good care of that
too, but I'm not stupid enough to believe it is even faintly archival.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:b9eo97$2aqg$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Todd Walker
gordong...@yahoo.com says...
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> been talked to death.
>
Yes I do, on both counts. If you want to read the previous 4,673 (just
an estimate,) threads on this subject, do so at groups.google.com
--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Olympus E20
Canon G2
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________
Gordon Moat
Agencies. There are several that are moving there archiving to digital files,
but still take submissions in the form of film. Some agencies are starting to
take scanned film if the scans meet their quality criteria. A few others are
reported as starting to take direct digital files, if the file contains enough
information. Some of the newer direct digital SLRs, and most digital backs for
Medium format can accomplish this.
I would venture a guess that a sports only agency might be all digital. If
enough interest is there, check out AllSport, or some of the other big sports
only Stock Agencies. Photojournalism and Sports are heavy direct digital
realms. Good luck on using Google to find anything of value for photography
Stick Agencies information.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Bob Ingraham
> and film developing everywhere, new film cameras are designed and marketed
> every year, new films are being produced, new film developing equipment is
> being designed and bought. It's not even close to a maintenance or
> nostalgic mode, every aspect of it is experiencing new development.
> No pun intended, but cheerfully retained.
I live in the West End of Vancouver, British Columbia. It's a popular
tourist area, and hosts a large population of foreign students, most from
Korea, Japan, and China. Probably a majority of them carry cameras
everywhere they go.
I am out walking every day. I would guess that 70% of the cameras I see are
digital, and most of the rest are high-end 35mm Nikons and Canons, older
models sometimes but mostly new. In almost a year and a half, I've
encountered just one person using a medium-format camera, a beautiful
Rolleiflex TLR.
Bob Ingraham
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in
> news:3EBA99C1...@attglobal.net:
>
> What a great post. I'm just adding a few thoughts at the end.
Thanks!
>
>
> [...]
> >> I see a strong possibility that digital
> >> will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
> >> will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
> >> color lab in their house, are they?)
> >
> > Some artists do have a colour darkroom in their house or studio.
> However,
> > the more common method is to work with professional labs with
> experienced
> > colour printers.
>
> And you can always make your own separations and use a three color
> pigment process, avoiding all the nasty "color" chemicals. You can make
> your own paper too, and some people do that as well.
The last one I read about was a four colour pigment process. So far, I have
only done platinum printing, though I learned a digital preparation
technique from Dan Burkholder
<http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/main_pages/gallery_main_page.htm> on how
to do this.
Making your own paper is another story, and it is easier to buy high quality
archive paper. I just used some yesterday to make a Polaroid Emulsion Lift
card for Mother's Day.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Lots of things to consider. Basically, if direct digital image
> > acquisition works for an individual, or has any perceived advantage,
> then
> > it is a good choice. Using it in combination with film is also a good
> > choice, since there is no reason it needs to be only one choice.
> Wireless
> > imaging will satisfy many e-mail digital image users. Video will
> satisfy
> > some others.
>
> My current setup: a good digicam for most work, documentary and artistic,
> which I do soley because I want to; a 35mm SLR, that I can't bring myself
> to sell, but I probably will anyway but I love it so much; a 4x5 camera
> that I'm not using until I get a permanent darkroom setup.
The 4" by 5" is next on my list. I miss that from college. However, I think
I would go strictly Polaroid for the large format stuff, especially with
their great positive/negative B/W film.
Most of my work is done with 35 mm, then drum or film scanned. I do some
medium format for work, but most locations are easier with the smaller gear,
and I still have to outsource my medium format scanning. My digital work has
been mostly video, though not much of that lately.
>
>
> > When you see disposable, or one-time-use digital cameras, then
> consumers
>
> Kodak was advertising that on TV last night. I think it's film with
> prepaid scanning.
More of a value added feature of their processing. This is an easy way to
let consumers try digital images, at least on their computers. The new
machines do this easily, and Kodak makes their own CDs, so lots of profit
potential. The previous idea was PictureCD, which should still be around.
The professional version has been PhotoCD, which I have used extensively in
the past.
>
>
> > may start buying those instead of disposable film cameras. However,
> there
> > is still lots of profit in film. There is also a much bigger world out
> > there than the United States, Europe, and Japan, and there will be
> > profits to be made from film well past any of our lifetimes.
>
> And there are companies that almost all of their money on film and
> photographic paper.
>
> Bob
I noticed that Ilford has entered the inkjet paper game as well. They still
make B/W films, but see an opportunity to expand their market. I wish they
would drop prices on Ilfachrome.
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3EBA99C1...@attglobal.net...
>
> > Likely a Giclée or IRIS print.
>
> If so, then my respect for gicléé or IRIS has diminished. The ones I saw
> looked like they were printed on a giant version of a cheap Epson printer,
> and they even had spots where someone had gotten the print wet (are giclée
> and IRIS prints waterproof?).
It is my understanding that a Giclée must be treated to avoid damage. Also, I
have been told in the past that they should not be pulled out of the machines
immediately when done, and needed careful handling at first. IRIS also make
several other machines, some just for proofing work, so these vary in quality
and fragility.
Heidleberg make a few really nice small presses that do amazingly good
printing. The paper sizes are more limited, but the quality and durability
can be very good. However, they are expensive to operate for less than 500
impressions at a time.
If you did see large inkjet output, I would ask what the longevity guarantee
would be. Also, if the print fades, it should be replaced, but just my
opinion.
I learned how to be careful and work oil paints properly to ensure long
lasting paintings. I also learned about choosing archival papers, and using
durable printing inks, and good work procedures. I think these are a
responsibility of good artists to create lasting art works. Those art work
that quickly deteriorate are the work of the irresponsible.
Bob Ingraham
>> gone 100% digital and is producing amazing prints. He recently produced a
>> print that was 24x60.......that had unbelieveable detail and color
>> saturation.
>
> Thomas Kinkaid is "well respected" by some, but in the higher echelons
> of the art world, is works are derided as "kitsch."
>
> So that anecdote doesn't necessarily answer the question of whether
> digital will be accepted as fine art.
And who, pray tell, is the arbiter of fine art? Already it's hard to tell
whether a print is digital, analogue, or a hybrid. No one will ever convince
me that a particular work, regardless of the medium, is or is not art,
because it depends entirely on the relationship between the work and the
person who is "receiving" it.
There are two new sculptures on display in my neighborhood. One, in my
opinion, is a rusty piece of junk which mainly serves to block my view of
the ocean when I walk by it. The other made me stop for several minutes,
walk around it, ponder it, tell people about it, think about it. I want to
talk to the sculptor who created the latter; her skull houses something
unique in the Universe.
I really could care less how a photograph that I like is created, although
it is always interesting to know the technique behind a great image. Anyway,
whether it's digital or analog is immaterial. What's important is how I feel
when I look at it. I've known "artists" who deride all photography as
something less than art. They are truly full of themselves, and a good
dollop of bullshit as well.
Bob Ingraham
Vancouver
Jeff
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.03050...@posting.google.com...
Perhaps, but do you honestly believe that this is because of the use of a
digital camera or of bona fide artistic caliber?
Jeff
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3EBA99C1...@attglobal.net>...
>
> > One thing is that if you want to use the name "Gordon Gekko", then you
> > should be checking the SEC reports on Kodak, Fuji, AGFA, and Polaroid.
> > Those reports will give you a more realistic pictures than any article in
> > any magazine (or any news group).
>
> Film sales are at an all time high. Sales problems are blamed more on
> the bad economy (fewer people going on vacation), then digital.
>
> Kodak isn't making as much money as it used to, primarily because it
> used to have a near monopoly in the United States, but now Fuji is
> competing against them.
>
> > Wrong assumption because in some professional photography, time in post
> > production is direct expense.
>
> Developing and scanning film is both a pain, and time consuming. So
> commercial photography will continue to move towards digital capture
> as it becomes more accepted and easier.
Most pros using film still use labs to develop their films, so no time constraint. What I am
hearing more is that digital acquisition can take longer for a total job. There are a few
reasons for this. One is that having digital acquisition on location can result in having many
more images. The other is that the careful lighting required for digital studio work can make
for tougher post production to avoid having images that print somewhat flat (publication
printing, not chemical). Editing and colour correction can take more time with direct digital
acquisitions. The colour spaces used for digital chips do not translate well for some higher
quality printing, especially many magazines. The non linear nature of editing transparencies
on a light table is often much faster film film.
Photojournalists are a different realm, as are catalogue (high volume) studios. Both those
realms are well served by digital. Moves to digital do occur, but often at the request of
clients. The greatest consideration is profit potential. Remember that film is essentially
free for the professional photographer, since the client pays the bills. The opposite downside
is that some clients think their costs should be lower with digital, though the direct costs
to the photographer are often higher. It is rare to here of publication, advertising, and
corporate photographers going only digital, or those who do not work with digital images.
Scanners are very mature technology that leave a good amount of room for profits.
All these considerations are quite different than what amateur photographers and hobbyist will
want. Honestly, it matters little in the overall market what pros use, since they are only a
small portion of camera and film sales relative to consumers. Consumers will notice more the
sports photographers, and photojournalists, most of whom are mostly digital SLR users.
Advanced amateurs are more likely to want to emulate the sports and news photographers, since
they will know little about what other professional photographers use.
>
>
>
> > > I forsee that
> > > film will be used by low end consumers for the next decade.
> >
> > Probably longer than that. Not everyone wants to sit in front of a
> > computer. Many consumer digital users also have trouble understanding why
> > their images do not look good when blown up larger than 4" by 6".
>
> Blowing up the disposable camera negatives to bigger than 4 x6 doesn't
> look so good either. In fact, they don't even look so good at 4 x 6.
> The people using the disposable cameras obviously don't care.
Yeah . . . . and funny how the film manufacturers still get the most profits from those
consumers.
>
>
> Consumer digital cameras now offer plenty of quality. The issues are
> price, ease of use, and ease of getting a bunch of prints.
>
> > Another aspect is looking at every picture on the back of the camera once
> > it is taken.
>
> This is a big selling point for digital cameras.
>
> > Industry statistics from PMAI indicate that very few people print digital
> > images.
>
> You need computer know-how to print digital.
Which is one of the big problems, since not everyone has a home computer, or even access to a
computer.
>
>
> > The next big hope is digital
> > printing kiosks, either one hour photo types, or self serve. It remains
> > to be seen if this will finally get people printing digital images.
>
> If it's as easy and as cheap as developing film, people will convert.
> But it hasn't been proven yet that this will be the case in the next
> five years.
Yeah . . . I am a bit sceptical of this next hoped for innovation. I wish them luck.
>
>
> > > (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> > > prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> > > Not true photographic prints. How about that!
> >
> > Likely a Giclée or IRIS print. These are very expensive to produce,
> > though there are some advantages over Gravure or true Litho prints. If it
> > was indeed someone's desktop Epson, and for sale artwork, what liability
> > was given against image degradation?
>
> Art museums display photographs that were printed with inkjet
> printers. Whether it's a $150 inkjet or a $5000 injket (I suspect the
> latter) is not really important.
>
> Image degredation doesn't matter, because they are temporary exhibits,
> not permanent ones.
>
> They could always be reprinted again in a few years from the image
> file anyway.
The disposable nature of some art is not new. Picasso did a few works that are only known
today from descriptions and a few B/W photos. Museums usually pay quite a bit to acquire works
for display, though it would not surprise me that some may be irresponsible enough to buy
works that will deteriorate. If it really is a digital file that they purchased, it could be
printed in many better methods than a desktop inkjet.
>
>
> > A painting may be stated as "oil on canvas", but did it
> > matter if I used Windsor & Newton paints, or what brushes I used.
>
> I've never seen an art gallery specify this. I don't think anyone
> cares, as long it it was "oil paint".
Exactly my point, and that should be enough.
> People should care, because it
> could affect the longevity of the painting.
Even oils can be worked improperly, or poorly prepared canvases can affect longevity.
Unfortunately, this is often the responsibility of the artist.
>
>
> > I feel that putting
> > "digital photography" on a print is not a true statement of a tangible
> > work. Additionally, it trivializes photography, and makes it a novelty.
>
> If everyone in the art world feels that way, then digital won't be
> accepted as art.
It still comes up in discussions and commentaries. I think it is too early to tell what an
appropriate description will become. So far, I have only seen "Digital Photo" used in some
juried gallery shows.
>
>
> > Oil can be blended and flows differently than acrylics. Oils also have a
> > different light and colour quality than acrylics.
>
> Yes, but that doesn't mean that people can tell the difference. I
> know oil paints very well, but I can't tell if a painting is acrylic.
> (Sometimes I can tell if it was oil.)
True enough, and someone could pass off one as the other. Hopefully, the juror for the
gallery, or museum director know enough to tell the difference.
>
>
> > Oils are still more expensive to produce, and take slightly more
> > skill and experience to properly work than acrylics. Properly worked oil
> > paintings also are very archival in nature.
>
> I disagree with all of that. Oil paintings aren't that much more
> expensive. The tubes of paint are twice the price, but it's twice a
> small price.
Twice the price is still more expensive ;-)
> Painting is a much less expensive hobby than
> photography. Photography is a rich man's hobby.
Cameras are becoming a rich mans hobby, which is unfortunate. There are still some low cost,
and good working used choices. At least one prominent professional uses disposable cameras, so
the costs can be kept low to do compelling work. A book recently came out that originated on
disposable cameras, and provided some very well done imagery of the tomato fields of northern
Italy.
While in college my painting classes cost me substantially more than my photography classes. I
do not know what hobby costs would be, since I have a degree in art, and I work as a
photographer. My paintings are fairly large, and my materials costs were $300 to $900 for each
painting. The one I have had in a gallery show this year was one of my smaller works, though
still about 1m square.
>
>
> Acrylic painting is more difficult because the paints dry so fast.
Not as fast as Gouache, but just something to get use to working. I found it easier to paint
with oils, though many others I knew in college thought it easier to work in acrylics. Also,
you can use an Acrylic Retarding agent to slow the drying time.
>
>
> Acrylic is much more archival than oil. Five hundred years from now,
> the oil painting will be all darkened with age and cracked, while the
> acrylic painting will look like it was painted yesterday. Such is the
> archivalness of what is essentially plastic.
Check out the lightfastness rating and permanence values for acrylics and oils. Winsor &
Newton have these as readily available PDF downloads from their web site:
You should find that many are fairly close in permanence between oil colour and acrylic
choices, though some colour choices have a slight edge in ligthfastness in the oil paint
choices. Impurities in water can also adversely affect acrylics, though again proper
techniques can help avoid that.
The fact remains that there are 500 years old oil paintings. Acrylic painting have barely a
half century of usage, so the reality of their true archival nature has yet to be seen,
despite estimates. Also, it is important to remember that exterior varnishes are often the
cause of cracking or yellowing on oil paintings, and not the underlying oil paints.
I enjoy the discussion of painting, especially since this was an area in which I achieved
distinction as part of my art degree, but this is a photography forum. I will keep the rest of
my comments to photography.
>
>
> > When you see disposable, or one-time-use digital cameras, then consumers
> > may start buying those instead of disposable film cameras.
>
> I suspect this won't happen for a long time.
>
> Non-disposable digital cameras for the same price as non-disposable
> film cameras ($100), that might happen soon.
Just saw some in Target for $40. Not sure if they are good sellers yet. Since portable phones
with cameras can now be purchased for $100, maybe even cheaper offering with higher quality
capability will be available soon. Unfortunately, they will most likely use inferior quality
optics.
Great discussion. Thanks.
Mxsmanic
de news: Xns9375B378C2D...@65.82.44.187...
> The actual response should be "What difference
> does it make?" Since they're digital, you can
> always just print more.
I considered that, but decided to clear up the misconception first.
Mxsmanic
de news: b9f23r$4vt$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> We're at a point now where futurists are
> predicting that film will be "dead" or marginalized.
Futurists are notoriously unreliable. They routinely overestimate the rate
of change in society, they mistakenly believe that past areas of rapid
change will continue to be future areas of rapid change, and they are unable
to anticipate random events that often produce the greatest changes of all.
If futurists were even remotely accurate in their predictions, we'd all be
flying private hovercraft instead of cars, we'd have chips embedded in our
brains to augment our intelligence, there would be walking, talking robots
strolling the streets among us, and we'd be vacationing on the dark side of
the Moon. They've been predicting all these things--over, and over, and
over--for more than half a century.
Rodeo Clown
news:WoKdnRULN_4...@giganews.com...
> If futurists were even remotely accurate in their predictions we'd have
chips embedded in our brains to augment our intelligence
>
8^)
Mxsmanic
BAE077EB.19E3%b.ing...@shaw.ca...
> I live in the West End of Vancouver, British
> Columbia. It's a popular tourist area, and hosts
> a large population of foreign students, most from
> Korea, Japan, and China. Probably a majority of
> them carry cameras everywhere they go.
Not a representative cross-section of tourists, though.
> I would guess that 70% of the cameras I see are
> digital, and most of the rest are high-end 35mm
> Nikons and Canons, older models sometimes but mostly
> new. In almost a year and a half, I've encountered
> just one person using a medium-format camera, a beautiful
> Rolleiflex TLR.
I live in the world's most popular tourist destination (Paris, France), and
about 90% of the cameras I see are film cameras. People from a handful of
countries--mainly the U.S. and Japan--shoot a lot more digital, but everyone
else shoots film. MF cameras are rare but not unknown; on one bizarre day,
I saw five in the space of ten minutes (I still haven't figured that
out--maybe it was a club or something). I also see Leicas occasionally, and
I've even seen view cameras and Brownies. A lot of surprisingly old
cameras, too.
Mxsmanic
> I tried a roll in the Brownie and was amazed
> to find that the paper backing still is being
> printed with the frame numbers that show through the
> little red gel window at the back of the camera!
> Talk about retro!
I seem to recall that China still has a significant consumer market for 120
film.
> Here I don't have the benefit of experience,
> but home printing is looking more and more like
> the cat's meow compared to the generally poor results
> that one-hour labs give from analog film.
Sounds like you haven't been to a one-hour lab lately. Labs using Fuji
Frontiers can routinely produce results that will blow away home ink-jet
prints, and they can do it for less money than an ink-jet print costs, and
they can do it for both film and digital images.
I get all my digital images printed at a one-hour lab, up to 8x12 (they
can't go larger than that). For larger stuff, I'll print myself up to A3
(because it's cheaper, not because it's better), or go to a pro lab for
really nice photo prints.
> Home printing of photographs seems to me to be
> the destination.
Home printing is for hobbyists. Most people don't want to bother. And they
can get better quality at a one-hour lab.
Indeed, if all they want is prints, there is very little reason to consider
digital photography at all.
Mxsmanic
7b2mbv4ktruuptsrb...@4ax.com...
> Perfect for the stag/hen do, for a swingers meet
> in a pub, or any other type of photograph where
> the quality is not the most important issue, but
> rather a quick/cheap/easy memory of an event that
> otherwise you would not not take a 300 film body,
> or 1500 digital body too.
I see disposables being used for once-in-a-lifetime trips, too.
And if quality is required, high-end film is mandatory.
> its interesting that while people speak of quality
> of photography of film/dpi/etc, the general public
> are more and more accepting lower quality cheap and quick.
I think it would be more precise to say that the general public is embracing
cheap and quick, in areas where there was nothing before. Today you can get
a cheap, quick photograph in situations where no photograph at all could be
had in the past. Digital cameras and disposables are moving into this
niche.
For serious photography, on the other hand, there is no reason to use
digital or disposable cameras, as the quality diminishes and the capital
investment is high. Those who have film tend to continue using film.
Newcomers may choose digital or film, depending on many factors.
> I wonder however if digital can cope with being
> blown up as far as full size posters ...
It's not the size of the enlargement alone that counts, it's the size of the
enlargement divided by the viewing distance. As long as the viewing
distance is "standard" (equal to the diagonal of the enlargement), even a
6-megapixel digital image is fine--and this is true even for enlargements
covering the side of a building.
> This is why i think that digital will continue
> to improve to the level of film in its MP rating ...
It is going to be really, really hard to match the pixel density of film,
particularly if film technology is pushed further. The advantage of film is
that it is very simple: pixels are just a few molecules, whereas pixels in
an electronic sensor require many molecules and many active elements.
If current advances are put into manufacturing practice, it could be
possible to have film with the fine grain and resolution of Technical Pan
and the light sensitivity of Tri-X, and in color.
> if there is any corelation between that and digital
> sensors then its concievable that a 100MP 2/3ds or
> 35mm equivelent camera would be available at 100GBP
> at some point in the future, the question will be
> how soon as aposed to if.
There isn't that much of a correlation. "Digital" sensors are not digital;
they are analog. And analog devices have very severe constraints that do
not exist for purely digital devices such as microprocessors. In
microprocessors, exact voltage levels aren't that important, as long as the
microprocessor works. But in an analog image sensor, any change in voltage
is a change in the resulting image, and so tolerances for voltage levels are
extremely tight--and this cannot be avoided or changed.
Rodeo Clown
news:7b2mbv4ktruuptsrb...@4ax.com...
> I wonder however if digital can cope with being blown up as far as
> full size posters (20foot/10foot) and the very impressive "poster" as
> you get near birmingham (UK) that covers the side of a warehouse... i
> have no idea of size... but its about 10 stories/30rooms. having said
> that... its viewed from the M6 which is some way away from it.
>
probably
Mxsmanic
news: VoGua.9$mf...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Perhaps, but do you honestly believe that this
> is because of the use of a digital camera or
> of bona fide artistic caliber?
Neither. The world of fine art revolves around politics, networking, and
marketing. Artistic talent and methods are irrelevant.
Mxsmanic
news: b9fkvv$t3v$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> But some posters here would need a Cray
> supercomputer embedding !!
And some would use it only as an I/O processor.
Bob Ingraham
> Frontiers can routinely produce results that will blow away home ink-jet
> prints, and they can do it for less money than an ink-jet print costs, and
> they can do it for both film and digital images.
You are correct. I have little need for prints for myself or anyone else.
Almost everyone I would want to send prints to has a computer, so I can
e-mail jpegs, and my apartment walls are pretty much covered with
photographs that are there because I want them there. If I get tired of any
of them, there are enough in storage to make good companions for many more
years.
My experiences with one-hour labs has been largely negative, no pun
intended. As a working pro, I came to regard them as proofing services, a
concept that still stands. However, it seems likely that I would be pleased
with digital prints made from my manipulated files. (Cost is a factor, too.
I take many more photos with my Canon G2 than I could possibly afford with
my 35mm Nikon. I'm retired, with a fixed income, a mortgage, and retirement
funds that have shrunk 20% since 9/11. At least I can take pictures without
any film and processing charges.
>
> Home printing is for hobbyists. Most people don't want to bother. And they
> can get better quality at a one-hour lab.
That's no doubt true. I taught photography to adults for many years, and I
was always amazed at how little effort some of my students put into the
class. I remember a few who didn't do a single assignment and never brought
a photograph to class!
>
> Indeed, if all they want is prints, there is very little reason to consider
> digital photography at all.
The corollary: Indeed, cost aside, if all they want is jpegs, there is very
little reason to consider analog photography at all.
Bob Ingraham
Don Stauffer
r.p.digital and r.p.equipment.35. There are many of us that subscribe
to both groups, and cross posted trolling really pisses us off :-(
Jeremy wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
> > You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> > been talked to death
>
> With a handle of "Gordon Gekko," you're darned right that you're a TROLL!
>
> This is a 35mm EQUIPMENT discussion group. Your post is off-topic, you very
> well know it, and you are just fanning the flames with respect to the
> digital vs. film issue.
>
> Your post belongs on a general photography NG, like "alt.photography," not
> on a 35mm equipment group.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Alan Browne
Gordon Gekko wrote:
> Nick Zentena <zen...@hophead.dyndns.org> wrote in message news:<h28e9b.qoq.ln@barley>...
>
>> What are you talking about? MF is simple to load. Modern MF cameras often
>>come with changable backs to make it even easier.
>
> The process seems intimidating to the uninitiated.
>
So is potty training. When you get past that, you'll be ready for MF.
Alan Browne
Jeremy, I know it was a troll, and instead of replying "in defense of
film" in the usual pitiful way, I just trashed his premise.
Cheers,
Alan
Jeremy wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:3EBA91CF...@videotron.ca...
>
>>YES FILM IS DEAD, can't you tell?
>
>
> [BIG SNIP]
>
> Everything you said is perfectly reasonable, but you were responding to a
> TROLL, who cross-posted his original article on both the digital and the
> 35mm NGs.
>
> You can see from the number of responses that he's managed to fan the flames
> of the film vs. digital debate very well.
>
> It is obvious from his handle and the wording of his post that he was not
> attempting to have a serious exchange of opinion--the fact that he
> cross-posted this to two audiences on opposite sides of the issue is proof
> enough of that.
>
> Best thing we can all do is to stay on guard against falling into the
> troll's trap.
>
> "Here a TROLL,
> There a TROLL,
> EVERYWHERE a TROLL!"
>
>
>
Mxsmanic
> My experiences with one-hour labs has been
> largely negative, no pun intended.
As recently as a few years ago, most of them were dismal at best, at least
as far as prints were concerned (they are much better at film development).
But the arrival of digital minilabs has changed everything. It's like night
and day.
For prints up to 8x12, I can no longer justify going to a pro lab, as the
results don't look any different from those from a one-hour lab, but they
cost five times as much. No surprise, really, since the pro lab uses the
same equipment. A pro lab will use different paper, without any markings on
the back, but that's about all I can see that is different.
I even tell clients to get their reprints from a one-hour lab. I give them
a CD with the photos, plus instructions on what to tell the one-hour place,
and they can have at it. Generally they are very happy with that option.
Of course, they can always take the same files to a pro lab in order to get
nearly identical results for 400% more money if they truly have caviar
tastes.
> However, it seems likely that I would be pleased
> with digital prints made from my manipulated files.
Take a digital file to a lab with a Frontier, and tell them to print it
as-is, with no adjustment. If your own monitor is decently calibrated, the
print from the Frontier will look just like your image did on your monitor.
It's amazing how well it turns out, in fact.
And yes, you can control everything. You can put legends on the print,
copyrights, whatever. You can even print arbitrary image files (not just
photographs), as long as you can provide the lab with an RGB JPEG or TIFF.
They usually like sRGB for their color space, but I give them Adobe 1998 RGB
with essentially identical results.
> ... retirement funds that have shrunk 20% since 9/11.
You're lucky. I was forced into bankruptcy last year by the wonders of the
stock market. The world's only completely legitimized casino.
> I taught photography to adults for many years, and I
> was always amazed at how little effort some of my
> students put into the class. I remember a few who didn't
> do a single assignment and never brought
> a photograph to class!
Why did they take the class?
> The corollary: Indeed, cost aside, if all they want
> is jpegs, there is very little reason to consider
> analog photography at all.
Quite so. Since no display device comes anywhere close to displaying even
the resolution of a middle-of-the-road digital camera, there is virtually no
reason to shoot film if all you want is images for display on a screen.
Indeed, there's very little reason to even spend money on pro digital if
that's all you want. There may be 12-megapixel flat-panel displays one day,
but I'm not holding my breath (resolutions are increasing by only about 11%
per year, so expect about 30 years to elapse to get where digital cameras
are today).
Alan Browne
Your wish is granted.
mark_digital©
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.0305...@posting.google.com...
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
> hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
> answer to the question.
You could have replied to any of the threads no matter how far back they
were posted. Try it sometime and maybe you might get some respect instead of
disdain.
Mark_
Bob Ingraham
> copyrights, whatever. You can even print arbitrary image files (not just
> photographs), as long as you can provide the lab with an RGB JPEG or TIFF.
> They usually like sRGB for their color space, but I give them Adobe 1998 RGB
> with essentially identical results.
>
>> ... retirement funds that have shrunk 20% since 9/11.
> You're lucky. I was forced into bankruptcy last year by the wonders of the
> stock market. The world's only completely legitimized casino.
To a large degree, I am indebted to my very conservative wife, who opted for
investments in "tried and true" funds. :^) I am much more the gambler, and
most of our losses were in my portfolio. :^(
>
>> I taught photography to adults for many years, and I
>> was always amazed at how little effort some of my
>> students put into the class. I remember a few who didn't
>> do a single assignment and never brought
>> a photograph to class!
>
> Why did they take the class?
It's a puzzle. I think in most cases they came into the class without the
slightest idea of what they faced. They were probably seduced by the images
on display in one-hour labs and camera stores. As soon as I started talking
about f-stops and shutter speeds and focal length, their eyes began to glaze
over. The students who had expensive wunderplastik cameras, with nine
onboard computers and shutter speeds like 1/90 and f-stops of f6.9 and f13
or whatever, had the most trouble. Those with old manual Pentaxes and
Minoltas generally did much better.
>
>> The corollary: Indeed, cost aside, if all they want
>> is jpegs, there is very little reason to consider
>> analog photography at all.
>
> Quite so. Since no display device comes anywhere close to displaying even
> the resolution of a middle-of-the-road digital camera, there is virtually no
> reason to shoot film if all you want is images for display on a screen.
> Indeed, there's very little reason to even spend money on pro digital if
> that's all you want.
I would buy a pro-digital camera in a second if I could afford one, even for
image display only on my monitor and perhaps yours. I really miss the long,
wide and ultra-wide lenses, and the very fast lenses, that I have for my
Nikon. Drives me nuts that I can't get a limited depth of field in my
digital images, although I've learned to simulate it with the very simple
image editing program that I use with my Macintosh, called ColorIt!
Bob Ingraham
Mxsmanic
> I really miss the long, wide and ultra-wide
> lenses, and the very fast lenses, that I have
> for my Nikon.
Don't go digital, then. The wide and ultra-wide lenses are a lot less wide
when mounted on a digital body.
> ... although I've learned to simulate it with
> the very simple image editing program that I
> use with my Macintosh, called ColorIt!
Beware. OOF areas are _extremely_ difficult to simulate with any accuracy.
Gordon Gekko
> Why bother bringing it up?
> Does it matter to you whether you shoot digital or film?
> Does it matter to you if your next door neighbor shoot digital or
> film?
> Does it matter to you if I shoot digitial or film?
Yes, it DOES matter to me if other people shoot film or digital. I
have financial investments that would rise or fall based on whether
the masses continue to use film.
And it also matters if I use it. I wouldn't want to spend a year
learning how to bowl, only to discover that bowling was looked down
upon and I should have learned golf instead. Same with photography.
Gordon Gekko
> I wish people, ESPECIALLY TROLLS, would quit crossposting between
> r.p.digital and r.p.equipment.35. There are many of us that subscribe
> to both groups, and cross posted trolling really pisses us off :-(
I suppose if the intent of my post was to see how many angry responses
I coudl get, then I succeeded.
Unfortunately wish I had received fewer but better responses. Based
on some respones, it's as if I asked people if their children were
dead, and not an inanimate object.
The reason I posted on these two newsgroups was because they seemed to
have the most traffic, and because both film and digital photographers
might have some unique insight that the other didn't have.
Pat Chaney
> Another winblows asshole who can't reader a news post header!
Maybe you could give him 'readering' lessons?
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
Chieh Cheng
> have financial investments that would rise or fall based on whether
> the masses continue to use film.
So is this how you get a feel of the market?
I'd like to hear what you have gotten out of all this debate.
> And it also matters if I use it. I wouldn't want to spend a year
> learning how to bowl, only to discover that bowling was looked down
> upon and I should have learned golf instead. Same with photography.
That's the whole point. Photography is photography whether you use
film or digital. Learning either gets you to the same goal.
Digital photography vs. film photography is not comparable to bowling
vs. golfing. Althought bowling and golfing are sports, they are not
the same sport.
Also, your example is a double-edged sword. Just because the mass is
moving toward one direction, doesn't mean you should. If the mass is
learning digital, by learning film, you now picked up a specialty that
may help in your favor.
Think about the Digital Electrical Engineer vs. Analog Electrical
Engineer example. The market is flooded with the digital talent. On
the other hand, analog talent is extremely hard to find and are in
high demand.
Chieh
--
Chieh's Web - http://Chieh.CameraHacker.com/
Bob Sull
> You may be thinking this post is a "troll", or that this has already
> been talked to death. But I didn't have an opportunity to participate
> in those discussions, so it wasn't of any use to me! And actually, it
> hasn't been talked to death yet, because I still don't have a solid
> answer to the question.
>
>
> (1) Digital is more "practical" than film, and what this means is that
> for commercial photography, film is not going to be used much anymore,
> because it's less expensive to go digital. With high end digital
> cameras continuing to get better (they now have 35mm sized digital
> cameras with 10+ megapixels that are reported to be almost "medium
> format quality").
Less expensive to go digital...... Depends on what you're doing with
the image. Once you get past the high cost of digital bodies, $3-8k for
a good pro body, you have to consider things like ink and quality paper.
>
> (2) Film has changed. Once upon a time, 35mm wasn't considered a
> useful medium for serious photography, but 35mm film became a lot
> better, and now it's used almost exclusively. Medium format is so
> rare that they never even bothered to come up with a better film
> loading format for it. Will 35mm film become as rare in the future as
> medium format is today?
The advances in 35mm film are in place for MF cameras too. There are
many who, when compare 35mm and MF, still don't consider 35mm usable. I
don't think MF is as "rare" as you might think.
> (3) The masses continue to use film, and this is written in May 2003.
> A year from now things could be different? At the moment, people are
> convinced that they need a bunch of 4 x 6" prints as a result of their
> picture taking (it was color print film and inexpensive "idiot-proof"
> cameras that probably brought photography to the masses). At the
> moment, the 35mm film route provides this with less hassle than
> digital. Pro digital evangelists argue that there will be a glorious
> time in the near future when it will be as inexpensive and as easy to
> get the same with digital. Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it.
> Behind the scenes, the one-hour photo labs are converting to digital
> equipment... the negatives are scanned and printed out using digital
> technology, and the consumer doesn't even realize it! I forsee that
> film will be used by low end consumers for the next decade.
A digitally processed image from film is still a film image.
> (4) Could there be technological advancements in film emulsions that
> create a new film renaissance? (Even if this happens, the negatives
> will still be digitally scanned.)
See my comment to #3
> (5) Digital is cheaper for the serious amateur photographer. That's
> right. People complain about the high cost of digital cameras and the
> fact that they become "obsolete" in a year. Well digital is actually
> a lot less expensive than film cameras. Of course there is the cost
> of developing and film that we all know about. But if you want to
> have actual control over the print-making process, even a small black
> and white developing setup and enlarger will cost more money than an
> inkjet printer. (I paid $180 for my inkjet. And I was ripped, the
> new model now sells for less money and has more features). Even for
> black and white, it's less expensive and more "practical" to buy a
> good film scanner ($800 range) than an enlarger. As a bonus, the film
> scanner and inkjet can make fabulous color prints as well.
Once again, price ink..... Good photo printers use a lot of ink.
What about the value of your time? In a hobby it is usually not
considered, but you still have an investment in the amount of time
you're sitting in front of that $1500 computer and the $500 latest and
greatest flat panel LCD monitor. Oh yeah, and how much does Photoshop cost?
> (6) It has been the ability to make my own prints, using digital
> techniques, that has really gotten be excited about photography. This
> is a follow-up of point 5, but it's worth repeating. Few people using
> film ever bothered to do their own black and white developing--I
> didn't--so I never knew what I was missing.
You talk about serious amateurs..... Serious amateurs that I know
generally have darkrooms and we know how to use them for B&W and color.
> (7) I went to an art museum to see a photography exhibit, and the
> prints behind the frames were inkjet prints based on scanned film.
> Not true photographic prints. How about that!
> (8) Will digital capture ever be accepted as art? Once upon a time,
> photography wasn't even accepted as art. The art world can be very
> conservative in what's acceptable. Even today, oil paintings are
> considered more valuable than acrylic paintings, even though acrylics
> have been around for decades. I see a strong possibility that digital
> will be rejected in favor of handmade prints from film. (But they
> will have to be black and white prints, no one is going to have a
> color lab in their house, are they?)
Oh no? E6 and Cibachrome processing equates to a mini color lab.
Bob
Rodeo Clown
Gordon Gekko
> > Yes, it DOES matter to me if other people shoot film or digital. I
> > have financial investments that would rise or fall based on whether
> > the masses continue to use film.
>
> So is this how you get a feel of the market?
> I'd like to hear what you have gotten out of all this debate.
My opinion is that digital cameras are only useful to people who are
computer literate, and that's about 30% of the United States, and 10%
of the world. So film sales aren't about to decline.
But I've been known to be wrong about these things. In 1994, someone
showed me the internet for the first time. I thought "this will never
be used by the masses; this is only for computer geeks." Boy, was I
ever so wrong about that.
IF film use suddenly declines, there will be a tipping point. Tipping
points jump up on you all of a sudden. They can't be predicted by
looking at long term trends (which show film use rising every year).
Did I get anything out of this? Not that much.
> Digital photography vs. film photography is not comparable to bowling
> vs. golfing. Althought bowling and golfing are sports, they are not
> the same sport.
There are some who would say that digital and film have nothing in
common. But I guess I agree with you so far.
> Also, your example is a double-edged sword. Just because the mass is
> moving toward one direction, doesn't mean you should. If the mass is
> learning digital, by learning film, you now picked up a specialty that
> may help in your favor.
I guess a more interesting question that I should have asked is this:
THIRTY years from now, what will rich people be hanging on their
walls? Black and white prints made using traditional photographic
techniques? Or color inkjet prints of digitally captured images?
(And let's call an inkjet an inkjet. A "giclee" is just a fancy name
for an inkjet print.)
Gordon Gekko
> Once again, price ink..... Good photo printers use a lot of ink.
>
> What about the value of your time? In a hobby it is usually not
> considered, but you still have an investment in the amount of time
> you're sitting in front of that $1500 computer and the $500 latest and
> greatest flat panel LCD monitor. Oh yeah, and how much does Photoshop cost?
You've missed the nature of my question, which wasn't an "attack" on
film. The subject title was just to draw attnention, not to draw a
conclusion.
However, you are over-defending film. There is no doubt that digital
is a better choice for most people who desire high qualiy color
prints.
Ink isn't that expensive. I've calculate it costs $1.25 or so for me
to print an 8 x 10. That's a lot less than it would cost to take a
negative to a film lab. And the result wouldn't be my vision, because
I wouldn't have control over the color tints, contrast, cropping, etc.
Even if I was using film capture, the results would be better by
scanning and printing on an inkjet. Which I've done. I think some
people here are MAD that I can get such good results doing that,
skipping all the esoteric chemicals and darkroom stuff.
The computer is free. I'd have it anyway even if I wasn't doing
photography with it. Photoshop is overpriced, but there are excellent
less expensive alternatives, such as Corel Photopaint.
Just because digital is better doesn't mean it will kill film. Beta
was said to be better than VHS, but Beta is dead and VHS still lives.
Gordon Gekko
> Most pros using film still use labs to develop their films, so no time constraint.
I guess if you have an assistant to run the film to the lab for you,
then it's just as fast.
> The disposable nature of some art is not new. Picasso did a few works that are only known
> today from descriptions and a few B/W photos. Museums usually pay quite a bit to acquire works
> for display, though it would not surprise me that some may be irresponsible enough to buy
> works that will deteriorate. If it really is a digital file that they purchased, it could be
> printed in many better methods than a desktop inkjet.
I guess this is a misconception about what part of the photograph is
the "art".
If it's the image itself, then the museum can make it's own inkjet
prints as needed.
But if the "art" is the print that is hand-done by the artist, that's
a different story.
> > > I feel that putting
> > > "digital photography" on a print is not a true statement of a tangible
> > > work. Additionally, it trivializes photography, and makes it a novelty.
> >
> > If everyone in the art world feels that way, then digital won't be
> > accepted as art.
>
> It still comes up in discussions and commentaries. I think it is too early to tell what an
> appropriate description will become. So far, I have only seen "Digital Photo" used in some
> juried gallery shows.
So you're hinting that digitally captured "photographs" won't be
considered "real" photographs by the fine art word.
> True enough, and someone could pass off one as the other. Hopefully, the juror for the
> gallery, or museum director know enough to tell the difference.
Unless the art gallery director is himself (or herself) an oil
painter, it's hard to pick up the subtle differences between the two
media.
> Cameras are becoming a rich mans hobby, which is unfortunate. There are still some low cost,
> and good working used choices. At least one prominent professional uses disposable cameras, so
> the costs can be kept low to do compelling work. A book recently came out that originated on
> disposable cameras, and provided some very well done imagery of the tomato fields of northern
> Italy.
This could be a bad sign of art degrading to the level of the masses.
I can't see how anyone could publish a book based on disposable camera
photos. You can get a small inexpensive SLR for less than $200.
But despite that previously quoted low price for an SLR, photography
is a rich man's hobby because the high end camera gear is so
expensive. The person with the $200 camera becomes envious of all the
more epensive stuff.
> My paintings are fairly large, and my materials costs were $300 to $900 for each
> painting. The one I have had in a gallery show this year was one of my smaller works, though
> still about 1m square.
You need to lay off the Winsor & Newton, and try Utrecht oils in the
big jars.
> > Acrylic is much more archival than oil. Five hundred years from now,
> > the oil painting will be all darkened with age and cracked, while the
> > acrylic painting will look like it was painted yesterday. Such is the
> > archivalness of what is essentially plastic.
>
> Check out the lightfastness rating and permanence values for acrylics and oils. Winsor &
> Newton have these as readily available PDF downloads from their web site:
>
> <http://www.winsornewton.com>
The issue isn't the lightfastness, which depends upon the pigment.
Acrylics and oils usually use the exact same pigment, so lightfastness
is the same.
Unless you're using fugitive colors, the linseed oil base will age and
degrade long before the color fades.
As linseed oil ages, it gets darker and yellower and brittler until
you eventually have a painting that's all dark and yellow and full of
cracks.
> The fact remains that there are 500 years old oil paintings. Acrylic painting have barely a
> half century of usage, so the reality of their true archival nature has yet to be seen,
> despite estimates.
Yes, there are old painting in museums, but look at them closely and
they don't look too good.
Sure, you can't say for certain that Acrylic paintings will last as
long. But THEORETICALLY, in 500 years the Acrylic painting will look
like it was painted yesterday, unlike the oil painting.
> I enjoy the discussion of painting, especially since this was an area in which I achieved
> distinction as part of my art degree, but this is a photography forum. I will keep the rest of
> my comments to photography.
But I find the "photography as art" topics a lot more interesting than
commercial photography (which is clearly going to be all digital in a
few more years despite what anyone here says to the contrary).
Mxsmanic
d07edc6d.03050...@posting.google.com...
> In 1994, someone showed me the internet for the
> first time. I thought "this will never be used
> by the masses; this is only for computer geeks."
> Boy, was I ever so wrong about that.
If it is any consolation, 99% of the Internet still isn't used by anyone but
geeks. Only e-mail and the Web have really reached a very broad market.
It's more a matter of two "killer apps" that happen to rely on the Internet.
> There are some who would say that digital
> and film have nothing in common.
I'd say that digital and film are hard to tell apart.
> THIRTY years from now, what will rich people
> be hanging on their walls?
Oil paintings, just as they do today.
Mxsmanic
3EBC54A0...@arrl.net...
> Once you get past the high cost of digital
> bodies, $3-8k for a good pro body, you have
> to consider things like ink and quality paper.
There is no connection between the two. Printing is independent of image
capture. There is no obligation to print digital images on an ink-jet
printer. Conversely, film can be printed on ink-jet printers if desired.
> A digitally processed image from film is
> still a film image.
No, a digitally processed image is a digital image, no matter how it was
captured. Once it is converted to bits, all differences in capture are
erased.
> Once again, price ink..... Good photo printers
> use a lot of ink.
Once again, printing has nothing to do with capture.
> In a hobby it is usually not considered, but you
> still have an investment in the amount of time
> you're sitting in front of that $1500 computer
> and the $500 latest and greatest flat panel LCD
> monitor. Oh yeah, and how much does Photoshop cost?
Excellent points. You can shoot 3000 images in no time with a digital
camera, but it still takes you just as long to sort through the results as
it would if they were shot with film. The time behind the viewfinder does
not change, but the time in front of the computer increases by a factor of
ten.
Mxsmanic
d07edc6d.03050...@posting.google.com...
> There is no doubt that digital is a better choice
> for most people who desire high qualiy color
> prints.
There is a great deal of doubt. Indeed, when printing is the desired end
product, digital is particularly unremarkable in comparison to film, and is
often at a disadvantage for large prints.
> Ink isn't that expensive. I've calculate it costs
> $1.25 or so for me to print an 8 x 10.
Good ink-jet 8x10 prints cost several dollars each. You can get cheaper,
better prints from a one-hour lab with a Fuji Frontier.
In any case, this has nothing to do with image capture, so it is irrelevant.
> Even if I was using film capture, the results
> would be better by scanning and printing on
> an inkjet. Which I've done.
No, they would not. The best results you can get today are from true
photographic printing processes with digital workflow. Ink-jets come into
play only when the print is so large that wet processes are not practical,
or when special characteristics such as transparency are required.
> I think some people here are MAD that I can get
> such good results doing that, skipping all the
> esoteric chemicals and darkroom stuff.
I doubt that. Wet prints still look noticeably better.
But, as I've said, this has nothing to do with the method of image capture.
Mxsmanic
> I guess if you have an assistant to run the
> film to the lab for you, then it's just as fast.
You can set up a lab in the next room, if required. News organizations have
often done that. It only takes 15 minutes or so to develop a roll of film.
> I can't see how anyone could publish a book
> based on disposable camera photos.
Why? It's usually the content of the images that sells, not their technical
quality.
> But despite that previously quoted low price
> for an SLR, photography is a rich man's hobby
> because the high end camera gear is so
> expensive.
Hardly. In fact, photography is one of those rare hobbies in which any
amateur with a reasonable budget can buy exactly the same equipment used by
pros. Try that with video, and you'll see the difference.
> The person with the $200 camera becomes envious
> of all the more epensive stuff.
Unless he's busy taking pictures instead of looking at equipment, of course.
Jeremy
--
x-no-archive: yes
"Andrew Price" <ajp...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:hveobvgmbs4tiui6t...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 May 2003 18:33:50 GMT, Enough <eno...@idontcare.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3EBBDB24...@usfamily.net>,
> > Don Stauffer <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I wish people, ESPECIALLY TROLLS, would quit crossposting between
> >> r.p.digital and r.p.equipment.35. There are many of us that subscribe
> >> to both groups, and cross posted trolling really pisses us off :-(
> >
> >If you had a real newsreader, it would not should you a crosspost after
> >you have marked it as read in the first group. Oh, wait! You're using a
> >winblows POS. Never mind.
>
> That's the second time in less than 24 hours that you've expressed the
> need you feel to let us all know that you have a Macintosh. Now be a
> good boy and go to your room and play with your toys.
>
Gordon Moat
>
> > The disposable nature of some art is not new. Picasso did a few works that are only known
> > today from descriptions and a few B/W photos. Museums usually pay quite a bit to acquire works
> > for display, though it would not surprise me that some may be irresponsible enough to buy
> > works that will deteriorate. If it really is a digital file that they purchased, it could be
> > printed in many better methods than a desktop inkjet.
>
> I guess this is a misconception about what part of the photograph is
> the "art".
If the legal definition contained in copyright law is used, then the creative work needs to be
fixed into a tangible media. Indeed, even performance art can only be copyright protected after it
has been recorded onto film, video, or a written record. However, this is more semantics and
opinions, and the choices an artist made for their tangible media could be considered an aspect of
the work. If artists choose to make works of temporary nature, and find markets for that, then good
for them.
>
>
> If it's the image itself, then the museum can make it's own inkjet
> prints as needed.
I am curious to know what Museum has done this. If you know of one, I would like to contact them
for comment. It is very confusing to me why a museum would not want a more durable media than an
inkjet, unless they are describing a Giclée or IRIS print as such.
Obviously the trend towards installation works are sometimes one shot displays, and may not be easy
to repeat, nor even intended to be repeated. While some work of that nature does generate some
interest, I think it can often push the general public further away from museums. Art for artist's
sake is a dangerous path for a museum, especially financially.
>
>
> But if the "art" is the print that is hand-done by the artist, that's
> a different story.
I know of an artist who creates works of wax. Most of these have a slide projected onto them, then
they are lit on fire, usually burning away in about an hour. She records the one time event on
video so that it can be shared with more people than those at the opening.
Disposable artwork is not uncommon. My problem with it is that I see some of this mentality as
expressing frustration, and I do not consider it to be the best choice. Art truly does reflect
culture, and history. Much of what we know of the past comes from art, not in a purely historical
sense, but in a sense of the feelings, and cultural influences of the generations that created
those works. In the future, when some generations look back and find little to show, what is left
for them to consider of our culture.
>
>
> > > > I feel that putting
> > > > "digital photography" on a print is not a true statement of a tangible
> > > > work. Additionally, it trivializes photography, and makes it a novelty.
> > >
> > > If everyone in the art world feels that way, then digital won't be
> > > accepted as art.
> >
> > It still comes up in discussions and commentaries. I think it is too early to tell what an
> > appropriate description will become. So far, I have only seen "Digital Photo" used in some
> > juried gallery shows.
>
> So you're hinting that digitally captured "photographs" won't be
> considered "real" photographs by the fine art word.
Actually no. The problem is the words "Digital Photography" used as a description are not correct.
Unless you stick a computer monitor on the wall as the display, then it is a print . . . so call it
a print. Even many photos now are printed digitally on some equipment, but that does not mean we
should call all the digital photography. I think what will occur is that once this novelty term has
worn off, then accurate description will provide accurate terminology.
I have done platinum prints in the past that originated as computer image files. The final item
looked exactly like a real photo, since they were based upon real photos. A digital process was
used to create contact negatives to create platinum prints. The final works are described as
"platinum prints" because that is what they were. Currently, by some people's assumptions, I could
have called them "Digital Photos".
>
>
> > True enough, and someone could pass off one as the other. Hopefully, the juror for the
> > gallery, or museum director know enough to tell the difference.
>
> Unless the art gallery director is himself (or herself) an oil
> painter, it's hard to pick up the subtle differences between the two
> media.
These are often people with art history backgrounds. It would not be too surprising for any of them
to make mistakes. High level, high dollar forgery syndicates are examples of accumulated stakes. As
with anything that can become a commodity, there is room for some to take advantage of errors in
knowledge.
>
>
> > Cameras are becoming a rich mans hobby, which is unfortunate. There are still some low cost,
> > and good working used choices. At least one prominent professional uses disposable cameras, so
> > the costs can be kept low to do compelling work. A book recently came out that originated on
> > disposable cameras, and provided some very well done imagery of the tomato fields of northern
> > Italy.
>
> This could be a bad sign of art degrading to the level of the masses.
>
> I can't see how anyone could publish a book based on disposable camera
> photos. You can get a small inexpensive SLR for less than $200.
It was the ideas and the nature of the images. The photographer had some competition from other
professionals with better equipment. His images were simply more compelling.
There are many examples of professionals using "technically inferior" equipment, though that does
not dismiss their work. I feel the important lesson here is if all you have is a $20 old camera,
you can still create compelling images.
>
>
> But despite that previously quoted low price for an SLR, photography
> is a rich man's hobby because the high end camera gear is so
> expensive. The person with the $200 camera becomes envious of all the
> more epensive stuff.
I suppose all of us have an attraction to the latest gear, and one of the reasons we come to this
forum. However, new camera gear does not make one a good photographer any more than a new Harley
makes one a biker . . . sorry for the analogy, but equipment only matters when it hinders one's
vision.
>
>
> > My paintings are fairly large, and my materials costs were $300 to $900 for each
> > painting. The one I have had in a gallery show this year was one of my smaller works, though
> > still about 1m square.
>
> You need to lay off the Winsor & Newton, and try Utrecht oils in the
> big jars.
I have used those, but I prefer using Winsor & Newton.
>
>
> > > Acrylic is much more archival than oil. Five hundred years from now,
> > > the oil painting will be all darkened with age and cracked, while the
> > > acrylic painting will look like it was painted yesterday. Such is the
> > > archivalness of what is essentially plastic.
> >
> > Check out the lightfastness rating and permanence values for acrylics and oils. Winsor &
> > Newton have these as readily available PDF downloads from their web site:
> >
> > <http://www.winsornewton.com>
>
> The issue isn't the lightfastness, which depends upon the pigment.
> Acrylics and oils usually use the exact same pigment, so lightfastness
> is the same.
If you read the data sheets on the web site, you will find instances where lightfastness is not the
same. I am not a chemical engineer, so you may want to ask someone who is why there is a
difference, even for the same colour.
>
>
> Unless you're using fugitive colors, the linseed oil base will age and
> degrade long before the color fades.
Fugitive colours are faster drying. The downside is that there lightfastness is not as good, so
they can quickly give an appearance of fading. If the initial "faded" transformation is accounted
for in the work, then the resulting colour could potentially be more stable. The other downside is
that fast drying can change to pace of a work, similar to what you mentioned about working with
acrylics.
Why do I get the feeling that you are a first or second year art student?
>
>
> As linseed oil ages, it gets darker and yellower and brittler until
> you eventually have a painting that's all dark and yellow and full of
> cracks.
>
> > The fact remains that there are 500 years old oil paintings. Acrylic painting have barely a
> > half century of usage, so the reality of their true archival nature has yet to be seen,
> > despite estimates.
>
> Yes, there are old painting in museums, but look at them closely and
> they don't look too good.
How do you know what they looked like before? ;-)
>
>
> Sure, you can't say for certain that Acrylic paintings will last as
> long. But THEORETICALLY, in 500 years the Acrylic painting will look
> like it was painted yesterday, unlike the oil painting.
Well . . . there you have the nature of the problem: THEORY.
>
>
> > I enjoy the discussion of painting, especially since this was an area in which I achieved
> > distinction as part of my art degree, but this is a photography forum. I will keep the rest of
> > my comments to photography.
>
> But I find the "photography as art" topics a lot more interesting than
> commercial photography (which is clearly going to be all digital in a
> few more years despite what anyone here says to the contrary).
Okay, photography as art is okay. Some friends and former fellow graduates have convinced me to
explore the art route again, after I had abandoned it a couple years ago. Lots of things have
changed in a couple years. I have found much more interest in photography, though predominantly
B/W. There is also a great deal of interest in alternative Polaroid processes. Many of the people
displaying in galleries are still formally trained, or work in creative professions, though not
necessarily photography. Few that I talk with about their photography have much gear.
I do not agree with a mentality that implies that one needs a certain type of gear to accomplish
their vision, nor to share their vision. At a recent large art event, one of the body of works that
really caught my attention was a project that gave kids around the world disposable B/W cameras.
The kids took photos of how they saw their world. Many of them were displaced due to events in
their countries, though what they choose to photograph was not strictly images of terrible
situations. While I am sure that editing played a large role in selecting the images on display,
the fact remains that there were some truly compelling images, despite any technical shortcomings.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Gekko
> > If it's the image itself, then the museum can make it's own inkjet
> > prints as needed.
>
> I am curious to know what Museum has done this. If you know of one, I would like to contact them
> for comment. It is very confusing to me why a museum would not want a more durable media than an
> inkjet, unless they are describing a Giclée or IRIS print as such.
>
> Obviously the trend towards installation works are sometimes one shot displays, and may not be easy
> to repeat, nor even intended to be repeated. While some work of that nature does generate some
> interest, I think it can often push the general public further away from museums. Art for artist's
> sake is a dangerous path for a museum, especially financially.
This current temporary exhibit at the Smithonian Institution (a pretty
respectable museum), features inkjet prints, not photographic prints:
http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/current/autofocus.htm
"Auto*Focus, one of Raghubir Singh's last great projects, combines the
photographer's passions for color and the Indian landscape with his
fascination with the Ambassador car, an icon of modern India.
Diplomatic limousine, family car, and taxi, its distinctive silhouette
is omnipresent across India. The Sackler's exhibition presents
forty-eight photographs that place the car in the landscape or,
conversely, frame, reflect, and refract the landscape through the
Ambassador's windows and mirrors. The images convey the garish rhythms
of the urban street or the harmonious palettes of desert and monsoon
landscapes in juxtapositions of the ancient and the contemporary.
Throughout the exhibition, the car serves as a metaphor for the
photographer traveling through the landscape and as a meditation upon
the nature of photographic representation."
Personally, I think the car in all the pictures is a gimmick and
doesn't add anything to the photos, but I guess if I were a curator at
a respectable museum like the Smithsonian, I'd know why this is "art".
> There are many examples of professionals using "technically inferior" equipment, though that does
> not dismiss their work. I feel the important lesson here is if all you have is a $20 old camera,
> you can still create compelling images.
If I was going to pay money for a coffee table book, I want to see
compellingly sharp images.
In fact, I see a lot of blurry photos in coffee table type books.
Obviously, low standards are out there.
> I suppose all of us have an attraction to the latest gear, and one of the reasons we come to this
> forum. However, new camera gear does not make one a good photographer any more than a new Harley
> makes one a biker . . . sorry for the analogy, but equipment only matters when it hinders one's
> vision.
It seems to me that professionals who want to be taken seriously have
to use the best equipment, because the competition is.
I think that Raghubir Singh used plain old Nikon SLRs, not sure about
that. If true though, I guess it proves that you can get your photos
displayed in the Smithsonian and still use humble equipment.
Maybe, because he was Indian, he was less status concious that the
typical American photographer.
> > Unless you're using fugitive colors, the linseed oil base will age and
> > degrade long before the color fades.
>
> Fugitive colours are faster drying.
If you want your oils to dry fast, mix some Liquin in there, they will
dry in a fraction of the time! Of course you already know this
because you know more about oil painting than I do, it would seem.
> Why do I get the feeling that you are a first or second year art student?
No first or second year art student would choose the pseudonym "Gordon
Gekko". Being an art student is about thumbing your nose at any hope
of making the big bucks.
I WISH I was an art student. Being any kind of student sure beats
having to go to work.
> > Yes, there are old painting in museums, but look at them closely and
> > they don't look too good.
>
> How do you know what they looked like before? ;-)
Well first of all, I'm sure they didn't have cracks all over them.
Secondly, there has been a lot written about how the dark paintings we
see in the museums were actually intended to be bright and colorful.
When the conservationists restore a painting, it magically becomes
bright and colorful again. (Not sure what vodoo they use to make that
happen.)
> At a recent large art event, one of the body of works that
> really caught my attention was a project that gave kids around the world disposable B/W cameras.
> The kids took photos of how they saw their world. Many of them were displaced due to events in
> their countries, though what they choose to photograph was not strictly images of terrible
> situations. While I am sure that editing played a large role in selecting the images on display,
> the fact remains that there were some truly compelling images, despite any technical shortcomings.
Are the artists the kids, or the editors? I say the latter. Anyone
could become a much better photographer if they only took one good
photo out of the roll, and threw away the other 23.
But most people with a camera don't know which photo is the good
photo!
Gordon Moat
>
> This current temporary exhibit at the Smithonian Institution (a pretty
> respectable museum), features inkjet prints, not photographic prints:
>
> http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/current/autofocus.htm
Thanks for the link. Shame they do not show more images. The two listed are printed fairly large. Where
they actually Giclée?
>
> Personally, I think the car in all the pictures is a gimmick and
> doesn't add anything to the photos, but I guess if I were a curator at
> a respectable museum like the Smithsonian, I'd know why this is "art".
It is up to each individual to decide, and I would not be surprised if some felt exactly as you do.
Given too many exhibits that are unpopular with the viewing public, a curator would be out of a job.
They people are far from perfect, but at a higher level of employment have fairly good record of
successful exhibits. Since I have not seen that exhibit, I reserve judgement.
>
>
> > There are many examples of professionals using "technically inferior" equipment, though that does
> > not dismiss their work. I feel the important lesson here is if all you have is a $20 old camera,
> > you can still create compelling images.
>
> If I was going to pay money for a coffee table book, I want to see
> compellingly sharp images.
Having seen a copy of the book, I can report that sharpness was not an issue. In fact, I would have
liked a bit more short depth of field images, and more images with out of focus areas. Unfortunately,
the nature of technology of disposable cameras means that nearly everything will be in focus, with
defocus areas in images being quite rare.
>
>
> In fact, I see a lot of blurry photos in coffee table type books.
> Obviously, low standards are out there.
>
Depends upon the images, and their intended affect on the viewer. Many people only like photos in which
everything is seemingly in focus. There are many landscape photo books that will satisfy those tastes.
Some people like portrait photography where the subject is separated from the background by the
background being defocused. The other "blurry" nature of images is showing motion blur in an image.
Often these can look more surreal, or abstract, and by their nature can be more confusing. Their is a
market for all these styles of image taking, and many more that I have not mentioned.
Painting are also lacking in lots of details, yet the mind fills in the blanks and creates the remainder
of the image. The low resolution of paintings is usually not an issue for viewers. While it is difficult
to recreate that feeling of painting in photography, there are some methods that evoke a similar effect
in the minds of the viewers.
>
> > I suppose all of us have an attraction to the latest gear, and one of the reasons we come to this
> > forum. However, new camera gear does not make one a good photographer any more than a new Harley
> > makes one a biker . . . sorry for the analogy, but equipment only matters when it hinders one's
> > vision.
>
> It seems to me that professionals who want to be taken seriously have
> to use the best equipment, because the competition is.
While Hasselblad may be a well known name, often clients will know little beyond 35 mm, and even then
usually just Nikon or Canon. Using a camera that is different from one the client is likely to own can
be enough. Larger 35 mm, like the F5, or larger lenses, or even just bags full of gear (even if they are
not used), can give an impression that one might be a pro, or might know what they are doing. Despite
whatever attention equipment might get, the poise and confidence of the photographer are the most
important issues for a successful start to a shoot. Delivering good images that the client is pleased to
use will ensure continued work, despite any equipment considerations.
With expenses, the lighting gear can cost far more than the camera gear, especially for advertising
photographers. Some equipment issues are important to imply experience, which is why worn looking gear
can be a better choice for some situations. The reality of that is often due more to higher profits from
used gear, or simply sticking to the gear that one is comfortable using, despite the age or appearance
of that gear.
Photojournalists, and sports photographers, seem to play follow the leader more. Many of them do have
the latest, and newest gear, and the largest lenses. This is likely the "look" that you and other refer
to seeing, and probably the "look" most emulated by amateurs.
>
>
> I think that Raghubir Singh used plain old Nikon SLRs, not sure about
> that. If true though, I guess it proves that you can get your photos
> displayed in the Smithsonian and still use humble equipment.
Just because the gear was old did not make it inferior. Antonin Kratochvil of
<http://www.sevenphoto.com/> still uses a Nikon FE and older Nikon lenses for a great deal of his work.
This does not validate, nor invalidate equipment choices. Anyone who believes compelling photography
only happens with the latest gear, does not understand photography.
>
>
> Maybe, because he was Indian, he was less status concious that the
> typical American photographer.
I think you have hit upon one issue. With some of the American males involved in photography, the giant
zoom lens could be little more than a penis extension. This is the "Camera of the Month" idea, which is
widely practised. The other aspects are the "show and tell" nature of new gear, or the "gadget" lust.
How many of these people actually continue to take photos is anyone's guess, but their expenditures due
fuel the market for more research and development. Also, the upgrade cycles can leave some really nice
used gear available at good prices.
>
> > At a recent large art event, one of the body of works that
> > really caught my attention was a project that gave kids around the world disposable B/W cameras.
> > The kids took photos of how they saw their world. Many of them were displaced due to events in
> > their countries, though what they choose to photograph was not strictly images of terrible
> > situations. While I am sure that editing played a large role in selecting the images on display,
> > the fact remains that there were some truly compelling images, despite any technical shortcomings.
>
> Are the artists the kids, or the editors? I say the latter.
I would say a bit of both. Since I am in the process of putting together a portfolio update, having good
editing definitely can help. Editing is definitely a skill and talent, though it is not always given the
recognition it should get.
> Anyone
> could become a much better photographer if they only took one good
> photo out of the roll, and threw away the other 23.
The displays all had six photos from each kid. It was indeed just one camera each. Since I enjoy the
storytelling aspects of imagery, the selected six images seemed to suit that idea quite well. Obviously,
some of the image selections were better than others.
>
>
> But most people with a camera don't know which photo is the good
> photo!
Absolutely. Editing is highly underrated. Given an even higher volume of images, whether film or direct
digital, makes the task even more daunting.
Gordon Gekko
> While Hasselblad may be a well known name, often clients will know little beyond 35 mm, and even then
> usually just Nikon or Canon. Using a camera that is different from one the client is likely to own can
> be enough. Larger 35 mm, like the F5, or larger lenses, or even just bags full of gear (even if they are
> not used), can give an impression that one might be a pro, or might know what they are doing.
Very funny when you put it that way!
> With some of the American males involved in photography, the giant
> zoom lens could be little more than a penis extension.
You're on a roll today!
bob
news:N1Eua.19972$Lm2.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com:
> Which is why I have two stacks of CDs - one at my home and one (with
> only final files) in my safe deposit box. It would take one hell of a
> disaster to get both my house and my bank. I suspect my pictures would
> be unimportant to me or anyone else after such a disaster.
> I still have all my surviving film to boot, and take good care of
> that
> too, but I'm not stupid enough to believe it is even faintly archival.
>
"Archival" is usually taken to mean it will last _a very long time_ when
stored at controlled temperature and humidity. Fires don't count.
Can you name any media besides pottery that will survive a house fire?
Your CDs are only likely to be archival if you have the equipment to test
your cd writer to assure it is properly calibrated.
Otherwise even Kodak says they might not be readable the day after
they're created. As I said originally, the only media that I've never
lost data from is magnetic tape. Unfortunately, progress in hard drives
has far outpaced progress in tape. I can't afford tape drives anywhere
near large enough to store everything on.
Bob
Gordon Gekko
> Can you name any media besides pottery that will survive a house fire?
>
> Your CDs are only likely to be archival if you have the equipment to test
> your cd writer to assure it is properly calibrated.
Both film and CDs will survive a house fire if they are stored in a
fireproof safe.
You should test the CDs on a different computer to make sure it's
readable.
The point here is that making sure your photos will last forever, be
they digital or film, takes WORK and PLANNING.
Properly planned and maintained, image files should last until the end
of the universe.
bob
news:d07edc6d.03051...@posting.google.com:
> bob <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93796E3F683...@65.82.44.187>...
>
>> Can you name any media besides pottery that will survive a house
>> fire?
>>
>> Your CDs are only likely to be archival if you have the equipment to
>> test your cd writer to assure it is properly calibrated.
>
> Both film and CDs will survive a house fire if they are stored in a
> fireproof safe.
Not likely. "Fireproof" means the contents won't get to 441F. You can
ruin a CDs and film with much lower temperatures.
> You should test the CDs on a different computer to make sure it's
> readable.
You just doubled a lot of folk's computer cost. Many of us only have one
machine.
> The point here is that making sure your photos will last forever, be
> they digital or film, takes WORK and PLANNING.
>
> Properly planned and maintained, image files should last until the end
> of the universe.
Agreed. That was my original point. Although there is nothing difficult
about the planning and maintenance in theory, most people don't do it.
Have you priced any systems that will back up 120 Gb? They cost.
CDRs are not archival media for home users because their life cannot be
known and their condition cannot be checked.
RAID with mirroring and off-site storage is the best most people could
hope for. Even that leaves a bit to be desired. I would guess that most
people just have some of thier files on CDR and hope for the best.
Bob
David Bindle
speaking of tape...
have you seen http://www.fujifilmmediasource.com/dlttape.asp
I wonder if this technology will ever find its way into a digital camera??
"bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:Xns93796E3F683...@65.82.44.187...
Tony Spadaro
"archival" media is living in a dream which can quickly turn into a
nightmare. No amount of archival material will save your work from fire,
flood, tornado, hurricane, looters, atomic blasts, cosmic radiation, or
cockroaches. The only sure way to actually archive anything is to see to it
that the media is protected -- which makes two CDs 100% more archival than
one chip of film. As to the stories about CDs fading -- so does film. For
that matter rocks fade too. Without an archivist there is no archive. If you
don't protect your work it will be destroyed - if you DO protect your work
it can still be destroyed. Archival, my uncle's carbuncle. It's a marketing
term designed to get you to spend serious money on cardboard boxes.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:Xns93796E3F683...@65.82.44.187...
Tony Spadaro
will melt, burn, or just plain carbonize.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Gordon Gekko" <gordong...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d07edc6d.03051...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
to a friends house to test on his machine, and he brought his over to mine.
Eventually each of us ended up buying a newer (read faster) outboard CD
writer, and basically could do our testing "in house". These days an
outboard CD writer with a USB connection is about 130 dollars (I know
because I just put one on this machine for quick copying).
While we are on the subject - what would it take to copy your film
archives onto new film? I have a 100 dollar slide copier, which I used to
use for doing special effects stuff. It is not good enough to make real copy
negatives. The Beseler slide copier system is about 600 dollars and of
course one has to bracket and test filter packs for each picture. The hand
work involved in copying colour slides is enormous. B/W is somewhat easier
but it is best to use PITA copy films, or you get new grain added to old.
I've not found any good way to copy a colour negative film directly onto
another piece of film, but it might very well exist - I know I would not be
interested in wasting time on it.
Fact of the matter is, the best way to copy film to film is to scan it,
do digital corrections and then output to film again -- but of course that
takes everything you need for making digital archives and gives you the same
fallable output media (film) you started with. You could however keep the
second archive off site - if you can afford the storage fee for anything as
bulky as film.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:Xns93799D3923E...@65.82.44.187...
matt
<snip>
>010000010111001001110100001000000110100001100001011100110010000001101110011
>011110010000001100010011011110111010101101110011001000110000101110010011010
>01011001010111001100100000
<snip>
I'll stick to silver.
bob
> Archival essentially means nothing except "acid free". Anyone who
> trusts
> "archival" media is living in a dream which can quickly turn into a
> nightmare. No amount of archival material will save your work from
> fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, looters, atomic blasts, cosmic
> radiation, or cockroaches. The only sure way to actually archive
> anything is to see to it that the media is protected -- which makes
> two CDs 100% more archival than one chip of film. As to the stories
> about CDs fading -- so does film. For that matter rocks fade too.
> Without an archivist there is no archive. If you don't protect your
> work it will be destroyed - if you DO protect your work it can still
> be destroyed. Archival, my uncle's carbuncle. It's a marketing term
> designed to get you to spend serious money on cardboard boxes. --
Probably why there is an ISO standard for it, right? (ISO standard for
archival paper, that is -- there are other ISO standards for other
archival procedures).
You *are* correct that a cataclysmic event is likely to wipe out whatever
you have stored in the location the event hits. What does that have to do
with Kodak saying your CDs are prone to failure, and there is no real way
to know when?
Bob
bob
> When I had only one machine that could write or read CDs I brought
> mine
> to a friends house to test on his machine, and he brought his over to
> mine. Eventually each of us ended up buying a newer (read faster)
> outboard CD writer, and basically could do our testing "in house".
> These days an outboard CD writer with a USB connection is about 130
> dollars (I know because I just put one on this machine for quick
> copying).
> While we are on the subject - what would it take to copy your
> film archives onto new film?
You seem to be missing the point. You continue to discuss film. I'm not
really interested in discussing your film archive in this forum. Film has
a fairly long history and it's characteristics are pretty well known,
including which types are good for long term stability, and which aren't.
CDRs are much less well known. I hope mine last forever, but the few
studies I've read (real studies by the people who make the media)
indicate there is no chance of that.
It doesnt matter how many CDs you burn if your CD burner is out of spec,
and there doesn't seem to be any way to test the burner without
specialized test equipment. Buying a new burner is no help if the new
unit is not in spec. Again, there doesn't seem to be a good way to tell.
You've probably read those same studies (the Kodak and the TDK white
papers), and understand the issues and the risks with CDR. A lot of
people who are new to digital photography probably have not. Many people
are under the false assumption that CDRs are just like pre-recorded music
CDs. There are a lot of "givens" that go into the CDR longevity
estimates. Kodak's include: The writer is a Kodak model and it is in
spec.; the media is Kodak's best (which they don't make anymore), and the
media is stored dark at controlled room temperature and humidity.
You know what the number one disclaimer in the study is? They say that
CD-R life might *not* be directly related to storage temperature, and
there could be other factors involved that they did not consider. That
doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings.
[big snip about film]
Bob
Tony Spadaro
1) I CHECK MY CDS ON TWO DRIVES! therefore, unless both drives are out
of spec in the same manner they are fine.
2) My entire point here has been that ANYONE WHO THINKS AN ARCHIVE WILL
REMAIN GOOD WITHOUT CARE AND VIGILANCE< IS A DAMN FOOL.
Catch it?
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:Xns937A6AD4D10...@65.82.44.187...