Re: Kodak ceases production of B&W paper
Scott W
PGG wrote:
> They've been making it for 117 years. Yikes...
But there are those who will tell you that film is alive and well and
there will be no problems in the future, which tells me that people can
belive just about anything if they really want to.
Scott
Skip M
some reason, I didn't expect the ancillaries to go away. I figured I'd
always be able to print my old negatives in the darkroom, but first Ilford
has problems, then Agfa, now Kodak drops b&w paper. I guess I'd better get
that film scanner, but inkjet b&w still sucks, and I don't really want to
trust someone else to print my stuff like I'd like it printed.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
DaveW
> They've been making it for 117 years. Yikes...
>
>
Where did you hear or read this? I've not been able to find any
reference to it. A hoax perhaps?
DAve
calc...@hotmail.com
by smaller firms. It's been a long time since Kodak B&W papers have
been considered desirable anyway.
William Graham
"Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6Z5se.87$SF5.18@fed1read07...
>I find this depressing. I knew that film had a finite lifetime, but, for
>some reason, I didn't expect the ancillaries to go away. I figured I'd
>always be able to print my old negatives in the darkroom, but first Ilford
>has problems, then Agfa, now Kodak drops b&w paper. I guess I'd better get
>that film scanner, but inkjet b&w still sucks, and I don't really want to
>trust someone else to print my stuff like I'd like it printed.
>
around for a number of years to come. Like film, the selection will be
smaller, however......
William Graham
"DaveW" <spsffa...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Or6se.5916$1q5.206@trnddc02...
It was on the financial news this morning.....CNBC, I believe.......
Scott W
If the other B/W paper producers were doing well then the decision by
Kodak would not be as significant. But nobody seems to be doing well
producing B/W paper at this time, and this will only be getting worse.
This move also shows Kodak's willingness to drop a produce once it no
longer is bringing in the revenue that Kodak wants.
The other thing that should be troubling is that Kodak said that the
B/W paper sales have been falling at a rate of 25% per year, if that
rate were to continue in 10 year the market for B/W paper would be less
then 6% of its current levels and in 20 years it would be about 0.3%.
This is not a industry that most people would want to invest in.
Scott
Colin D
Scott W wrote:
> The other thing that should be troubling is that Kodak said that the
> B/W paper sales have been falling at a rate of 25% per year
I wonder if that figure applies to all paper sales, or just Kodak's? Are
they losing market share as well as declining sales?
Colin
Scott W
It is hard to know but I would bet that they are not far off from the
over all market.
Scott
Philip Homburg
Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The other thing that should be troubling is that Kodak said that the
>B/W paper sales have been falling at a rate of 25% per year, if that
>rate were to continue in 10 year the market for B/W paper would be less
>then 6% of its current levels and in 20 years it would be about 0.3%.
>This is not a industry that most people would want to invest in.
This is of course just the sales of Kodak B/W paper. If their paper is not
very popular one way or another, they may see bigger drops in sales than the
market as a whole.
I sort of don't understand where the drop in volume comes from. There has
been a lot of darkroom equipment in recent years, but I don't see how
digital B/W is better. Messing around with inkjet printers doesn't sound
like fun to me.
For color it is easy: grain in color images is ugly, lots of film was scanned
(for offset, etc. printing) anyhow, traditional darkroom color printing is
no fun at all, digital output at the same level (certainly for RA-4 paper)
as traditional prints from negatives. Once you can get enough resolution in
a digital system, switch is more or less obvious.
For B/W the situation is mostly reversed: grain can be used effectively in
B/W images. Traditional darkroom prints provide a quality that is hard to
match with other media. And finally, sensors are designed for color and not
for B/W imaging.
And in cases where B/W film was scanned, you would not notice a drop in
paper sales when a switch is made to digital capture.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Scott W
> This is of course just the sales of Kodak B/W paper. If their paper is not
> very popular one way or another, they may see bigger drops in sales than the
> market as a whole.
>
> I sort of don't understand where the drop in volume comes from. There has
> been a lot of darkroom equipment in recent years, but I don't see how
> digital B/W is better. Messing around with inkjet printers doesn't sound
> like fun to me.
>
> For color it is easy: grain in color images is ugly, lots of film was scanned
> (for offset, etc. printing) anyhow, traditional darkroom color printing is
> no fun at all, digital output at the same level (certainly for RA-4 paper)
> as traditional prints from negatives. Once you can get enough resolution in
> a digital system, switch is more or less obvious.
>
> For B/W the situation is mostly reversed: grain can be used effectively in
> B/W images. Traditional darkroom prints provide a quality that is hard to
> match with other media. And finally, sensors are designed for color and not
> for B/W imaging.
>
> And in cases where B/W film was scanned, you would not notice a drop in
> paper sales when a switch is made to digital capture.
>
My guess is that a lot of people were doing B/W not because that like
B/W so much as it gave then control that they did not have if they
simply drop the film off for printing. Now they can get that same
level of control using digital cameras and in color.
I know a lot of people who use to do their own B/W printing, including
me, that now shoot only digital.
Scott
Mark Roberts
>I find this depressing. I knew that film had a finite lifetime, but, for
>some reason, I didn't expect the ancillaries to go away. I figured I'd
>always be able to print my old negatives in the darkroom, but first Ilford
>has problems, then Agfa, now Kodak drops b&w paper.
As most of the news stories noted, Ilford recently emerged from
bankruptcy (see 4th-from-last paragraph at
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--kodakpaper0615jun15,0,1235107.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork)
Although I'm sure that at some level, the people at Ilford find it sad
that Kodak is getting out of B&W paper, a dispassionate business
perspective has to be that the loss of a major competitor is good news
for Ilford.
BTW: When I lived in Rochester, NY (until 3 years ago) I used to
frequent the Rochester Community Darkroom. Even in the heart of Kodak
country they used Ilford products almost exclusively.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Sander Vesik
There are really two things with this...
a) it probably refers to some part of kodak somewhere stoping
making one particular paper
b) who cares? anybody who has been following things at all
knows that Kodak considers its tradional photography
custopers to be aliability. If its true - or when its true -
people using these will say "oh, it was coming anyways"
and switch to other papers.
There is no point in seeing Kodak as a tradional photography bellweather.
>
> DAve
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Alan Browne
> They've been making it for 117 years. Yikes...
It would behoove you to include references.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8AOA2OG0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Paul Bielec
Printing B/W is so easy, both to learn and to do at home.
I was 8 or 9 yo when my grandfather showed me how to print my pictures
at his studio.
Matt Clara
news:1118909280....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I think you're extrapolating a fact about a company that hasn't made a good
business decision in years to the industry as a whole. Yeah, the market is
getting smaller, but that doesn't mean it's going away.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Philip Homburg
Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My guess is that a lot of people were doing B/W not because that like
>B/W so much as it gave then control that they did not have if they
>simply drop the film off for printing. Now they can get that same
>level of control using digital cameras and in color.
But if you like color, why not print color? There were plenty of options
to get color prints other than using the cheapest consumer lab.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
Father Kodak
Why do you say that? (I haven't done any b&w printing since lo these
many years.
I used to favor Afga Brovira and Portriga (sp?). I doubt those papers
are still around. But I also used Kodak polycontrast papers from time
to time. What papers/companies are considered the best these days?
Father Kodak (a/k/a Great Yellow Father)
Bill Tuthill
>
> BTW: When I lived in Rochester, NY (until 3 years ago) I used to
> frequent the Rochester Community Darkroom. Even in the heart of Kodak
> country they used Ilford products almost exclusively.
Can you say what it is about Ilford B&W paper that caused it to be
the preferred choice of the Community Darkroom? Better quality,
ease of use, lower cost, what?
Scott W
Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <1118912297....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >My guess is that a lot of people were doing B/W not because that like
> >B/W so much as it gave then control that they did not have if they
> >simply drop the film off for printing. Now they can get that same
> >level of control using digital cameras and in color.
>
> But if you like color, why not print color? There were plenty of options
> to get color prints other than using the cheapest consumer lab.
>
temperatures and the timing is not all that critical, with color
everything has to be just so, more work then I wanted to do. Getting
the White balance right is also a pain when doing chemical printing.
When I got a film scanner and could start to print my own color photos
from negatives I was amazed at how poorly most labs print photos. I
have many prints where it looks like I blew out the highlight, but with
a good scan the highlights look great. Oddly I can scan my negatives,
adjust the photos for the proper exposure and white balance and then
take them to the same people that printed from the negatives and the
prints look great.
Scott
Gordon Moat
I don't recall any reference about Kodak B/W printing papers being big
sellers, nor very desirable, for at least the last ten years. I think this
opens up the market for other companies. Bergger still makes some impressive
papers, as do Ilford and some other companies. Small market perhaps, but not
down to no choices.
This stuff stores quite well, and can last many years. I still have Oriental
Seagull Baryta paper from over ten years ago, and it is all still usable.
Inkjet B/W prints are getting closer to being figured out. However, colour
casts are often an issue with lower to mid price inkjet systems. The other
issue is that the silver in true B/W prints has a different reflectance than
B/W inkjet prints, meaning that they will always appear different. True B/W
prints could become more of an artist choice, rather than a commercial
photographer choice.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Michael
you could photograph a MacBeth color chart on the first frame of film.
>From what I understand, the processing machines use the first frame as
an aggregate representation of the color range of the rest of the roll.
Michael
Gordon Moat
> In article <1118906270.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The other thing that should be troubling is that Kodak said that the
> >B/W paper sales have been falling at a rate of 25% per year, if that
> >rate were to continue in 10 year the market for B/W paper would be less
> >then 6% of its current levels and in 20 years it would be about 0.3%.
> >This is not a industry that most people would want to invest in.
>
> This is of course just the sales of Kodak B/W paper. If their paper is not
> very popular one way or another, they may see bigger drops in sales than the
> market as a whole.
I agree with that view. I have rarely heard of anyone using Kodak B/W papers,
though I here lots of people using Ilford.
>
>
> I sort of don't understand where the drop in volume comes from. There has
> been a lot of darkroom equipment in recent years, but I don't see how
> digital B/W is better. Messing around with inkjet printers doesn't sound
> like fun to me.
Kodak introduced a B/W Portra paper a few years ago. Actually, a few, since
different tones like Sepia were also possible. These are geared towards
commercial labs, with the prints being colour prints, using colour chemicals.
The advantage for the lab is that automated equipment gets the prints done
faster. If wedding photographers used this type of service, the colour and B/W
prints could be done in back to back runs at the lab, so faster turnaround of
prints.
>
>
> For color it is easy: grain in color images is ugly, lots of film was scanned
> (for offset, etc. printing) anyhow, traditional darkroom color printing is
> no fun at all, digital output at the same level (certainly for RA-4 paper)
> as traditional prints from negatives. Once you can get enough resolution in
> a digital system, switch is more or less obvious.
>
> For B/W the situation is mostly reversed: grain can be used effectively in
> B/W images. Traditional darkroom prints provide a quality that is hard to
> match with other media. And finally, sensors are designed for color and not
> for B/W imaging.
I think the problem comes from commercial labs doing machine prints. The
turnaround of hand prints, and lack of many choices in labs, means higher costs
to the end users, and slower turnaround, sometimes with inferior results. While
RA-4 style B/W does not look as good, it is at least a little consistent.
>
>
> And in cases where B/W film was scanned, you would not notice a drop in
> paper sales when a switch is made to digital capture.
Absolutely true for those using B/W for publishing. I doubt many of the
negatives would ever produce a traditional silver print, though a book full of
B/W images might be more likely. Commercial printing has an advantage over
inkjet in that metallic inks can be used, which provides results substantially
closer to that of true silver prints.
Michael
of Kodak black-and-white paper; I will find a replacement. What
worries me is that Kodak will stop producing Tri-X film, my film of
very deliberate choice. I mean, if you'd have told me before the story
broke that Kodak was to halt production of black-and-white paper, I'd
have considered you a doomsday nay-sayer. Now, it seems anything is
possible with regard to the accelerated elimination of the traditional
photo processes.
Michael
Scott W
I do reprints of B/W from time to time and I have found that I get a
very good looking output from Costco. I often have a print that was
done on paper and the Costco prints will normally look better then the
B/W paper ones. But then these are prints that were made 50 years ago
and were not perhaps the best prints even then. I only use an ink jet
printer for a quick look at a photo, if it is a print that I am going
to want to keep it gets printed at Costco.
Over the last 10 years I have seen huge improvements in ink jet
printers, both in the quality of the prints and in the stability of the
inks, in another 10 years perhaps there will be no reason not to use
one for all my printing.
Scott
Scott W
Kodak could fix this if they made a public commitment to keep producing
given films for some period of time. A statement from Kodak saying
that they would produce Tri-X until at least 2015 is the kind of thing
I am thinking of. Or a simple statement that they will not discontinue
any film without at least a two year warning would be good. None of
this is Kodak likely to do, what we are left with is an uncertainty
about when they will pull the plug on any given product.
Scott
Gordon Moat
The RA-4 B/W prints are not bad, but not the same thing as traditional B/W prints.
There is also an issue that variable contrast papers don't get output from machine
prints, so some images just will not look as good as they could. I have seen good
looking RA-4 B/W prints, so I don't think it is a bad choice.
>
>
> Over the last 10 years I have seen huge improvements in ink jet
> printers, both in the quality of the prints and in the stability of the
> inks, in another 10 years perhaps there will be no reason not to use
> one for all my printing.
>
> Scott
I hope it is sooner than 10 years. In commercial printing, metallic inks have been
available for a long time, and produce nice results. Take a look at any good book
of B/W photography, and you will see duotone, tritone, or quadtone prints of B/W
images that look quite nice. Eventually, inkjet should be able to emulate closer
what is possible in commercial printing.
Matt Clara
news:1118949819.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael
>
Philip Homburg
The interesting thing is that for a while, the Kodak lab in .nl really
got it right. Often I would scan a difficult frame only to find out that
just getting a result that was as good as their print was tricky.
Unfortunately, Kodak decided a long time ago that prints where supposed to
have much more contrast than I consider acceptable. When old system was
finnaly closed, I switch to having no prints at all. Either Kodak or the
store decided that for just developement, an other lab was to be used,
and soon afterwards I discovered that I like Superia Reala.
It looks like Kodak can now also do poster sized prints. Unfortunately
they are three times more expensive than the alternative. I wonder if
they are really that much better.
King Sardon
>
>This move also shows Kodak's willingness to drop a produce once it no
>longer is bringing in the revenue that Kodak wants.
Well, it is not Kodak's hobby!
K.S.
Philip Homburg
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> I sort of don't understand where the drop in volume comes from. There has
>> been a lot of darkroom equipment in recent years, but I don't see how
>> digital B/W is better. Messing around with inkjet printers doesn't sound
>> like fun to me.
>
>Kodak introduced a B/W Portra paper a few years ago. Actually, a few, since
>different tones like Sepia were also possible. These are geared towards
>commercial labs, with the prints being colour prints, using colour chemicals.
>The advantage for the lab is that automated equipment gets the prints done
>faster. If wedding photographers used this type of service, the colour and B/W
>prints could be done in back to back runs at the lab, so faster turnaround of
>prints.
And did that become popular?
>> For B/W the situation is mostly reversed: grain can be used effectively in
>> B/W images. Traditional darkroom prints provide a quality that is hard to
>> match with other media. And finally, sensors are designed for color and not
>> for B/W imaging.
>
>I think the problem comes from commercial labs doing machine prints. The
>turnaround of hand prints, and lack of many choices in labs, means higher costs
>to the end users, and slower turnaround, sometimes with inferior results. While
>RA-4 style B/W does not look as good, it is at least a little consistent.
That is true. But I have no idea where the volume is in B/W prints. Is it
in labs doing machine prints?
Hmm, I just noticed that at the end of last year (the datasheet lists
November 2004) Kodak introduced a B/W paper for digital exposure. I
wonder what is going to happen with that.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
too much and stifle creativity and within your organization and refuse
to compete....what do you expect?
he people who are now in control at Kodak simply do not want to be
involved in conventional photography.
Kodak once made view cameras. View cameras (very expensive ones!) are
still being made, but not by Kodak.
Kodak once made high-quality lenses. Such lenses are still being made,
but not by Kodak.
Kodak once made enlargers. Enlargers are still being made, but not by
Kodak.
Kodak once made projectors. Projectors are still being made, but not by
Kodak.
Practically everything Kodak used to make is still being made, but by
someone else. So it's false to say that it's the market. Kodak is just
so idiotic and inflexible that they can't do anything anymore...
James Of Tucson
being the 1970s,
that all the papers that had samples in the databook I had were already
long discontinued.
Not that I ever used anything except "Polycontrast RC" if my memory is
not playing tricks on me.
I always resented being a generation too late to do the "glossy" thing
where you dried your print against a plate. (What were those called?)
Anyone here ever make a platinum print?
Scott Schuckert
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Practically everything Kodak used to make is still being made, but by
> someone else. So it's false to say that it's the market. Kodak is just
> so idiotic and inflexible that they can't do anything anymore...
With a public corporation the size of Kodak, the only answer for any
question is money. Which is as it should be, because of their
responsibility to their stockholders.
There's no such thing as tradition, there's no such thing as loyalty to
customers, and there's certainly no such thing as producing a proiduct
because it fills a public need.
With the documented rapid decrease in the total market, there's
literally no choice in the matter. That doesn't mean we have to like
it. I don't even USE Kodak paper, and I felt like selling my enlarger
when I heard this.
Scott Schuckert
James Of Tucson <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always resented being a generation too late to do the "glossy" thing
> where you dried your print against a plate. (What were those called?)
Ferrotype plates. Expensive, and had to be cared for properly. Scratch
one and every print made thereafter would show the scratch. I remember
carefully cleaning mine, and buffing the surface with a special liquid
wax made for just that purpose.
In retrospect, a real pain in the ass, but a true craft that could
produce a B&W print you'd swear you could fall into, far superior to
any current process. I still tend to thing of resin-coated paper as
"that cheap stuff for quick and dirty jobs".
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
>some reason, I didn't expect the ancillaries to go away. I figured I'd
>always be able to print my old negatives in the darkroom, but first Ilford
I agree. Particularly because, where there's expensive digital
technology that comes pretty close to film color printing, nothing
digital comes close to B/W (to say nothing of the fact that B/W
darkroom work is so much fun).
-Joel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Browne
I would hazard the guess that most serious Tri-X shooters print on
non-Kodak paper products, so Kodak will continue to produce the film for
a while yet.
I would also guess that Tri-X 320/400 will keep in a freezer for upwards
of 5-7 years with little degradation. The dry chemicals can be mixed a
long time down the road. So begin planning a shopping spree.
If you wrap the film in heavy polystyrene|polyethelyne and place in a
thick aluminum box (say 5mm walls), then into the deep freezer, most
gammas will be stopped as well and the film would last much longer.
Cheers,
Alan
death skunk five
they went
official with it.
"PGG" <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.15.22.32.59.624000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com...
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
uselessness....
Bill Tuthill
> Kodak introduced a B/W Portra paper a few years ago. Actually, a
> few, since different tones like Sepia were also possible. These are
> geared towards commercial labs, with the prints being colour prints,
> using colour chemicals. The advantage for the lab is that automated
> equipment gets the prints done faster. If wedding photographers
> used this type of service, the colour and B/W prints could be done
> in back to back runs at the lab, so faster turnaround of prints.
These are the papers that Kodak should not have discontinued:
Portra B&W / Sepia RC Base for Optical and Digital Exposure RA-4.
They are useful for Kodak-based wedding labs, and Ilford does not
offer an alternative AFAIK.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Can you say what it is about Ilford B&W paper that caused it to be
>> the preferred choice of the Community Darkroom? Better quality,
>> ease of use, lower cost, what?
>
> Do you really have to ask?
Yes, I don't really like B&W and do not use a wet darkroom.
Gordon Moat
> In article <42B1CFF8...@attglobal.net>,
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> I sort of don't understand where the drop in volume comes from. There has
> >> been a lot of darkroom equipment in recent years, but I don't see how
> >> digital B/W is better. Messing around with inkjet printers doesn't sound
> >> like fun to me.
> >
> >Kodak introduced a B/W Portra paper a few years ago. Actually, a few, since
> >different tones like Sepia were also possible. These are geared towards
> >commercial labs, with the prints being colour prints, using colour chemicals.
> >The advantage for the lab is that automated equipment gets the prints done
> >faster. If wedding photographers used this type of service, the colour and B/W
> >prints could be done in back to back runs at the lab, so faster turnaround of
> >prints.
>
> And did that become popular?
Locally, those B/W Portra paper prints are becoming much more common. I would
expect Fuji to have something similar at some point. This might be something bigger
in North America.
>
>
> >> For B/W the situation is mostly reversed: grain can be used effectively in
> >> B/W images. Traditional darkroom prints provide a quality that is hard to
> >> match with other media. And finally, sensors are designed for color and not
> >> for B/W imaging.
> >
> >I think the problem comes from commercial labs doing machine prints. The
> >turnaround of hand prints, and lack of many choices in labs, means higher costs
> >to the end users, and slower turnaround, sometimes with inferior results. While
> >RA-4 style B/W does not look as good, it is at least a little consistent.
>
> That is true. But I have no idea where the volume is in B/W prints. Is it
> in labs doing machine prints?
Sure, though mostly for wedding photographers. The minilabs and one hour places
doing C-41 and RA-4 will take you B/W C-41 film, and make prints on the paper they
have loaded in the RA-4 machine. Sometimes those prints look like they have a
colour cast, though a good operator can make them appear more neutral. I usually
only see those when I have digital RA-4 contact sheets made on rare occasions that
I use C-41 B/W film.
>
>
> Hmm, I just noticed that at the end of last year (the datasheet lists
> November 2004) Kodak introduced a B/W paper for digital exposure. I
> wonder what is going to happen with that.
That might be one of the Portra family variations. The B/W market is still good
amongst wedding photographers in some areas, so that would be an obvious customer
base. People never really get tired of seeing B/W images, though how those are
printed might change more in the future.
Gordon Moat
I have made a few. Very expensive, and slightly toxic. The results are
nice, but costs keep me from doing more. Bostick & Sullivan still sell
kits with the chemical to do your own.
James Of Tucson
>question is money.
Sometimes, ethics and liability also factor into the answer, and not
always
in a direct correlation with money.
>There's no such thing as tradition, there's no such thing as loyalty to
>customers, and there's certainly no such thing as producing a product
>because it fills a public need.
True, except when you can quantify these things in concrete terms of
impact to the bottom line, and/or in measurable effects on public
perception.
Decisions are sometimes made in board meetings that differ from your
absolute ideals. People who complain about the behavior of
corporations, usually are not themselves on the board of directors or a
major stockholder in a corporation.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
almost impossible to get anything done right. The fucking unions and
environmental bullshit!
Skip M
> Mark Roberts <ma...@robertstech.com> wrote:
>>
>> BTW: When I lived in Rochester, NY (until 3 years ago) I used to
>> frequent the Rochester Community Darkroom. Even in the heart of Kodak
>> country they used Ilford products almost exclusively.
>
> the preferred choice of the Community Darkroom? Better quality,
> ease of use, lower cost, what?
I don't know the whole answer, but Ilford was one of the last suppliers of
fiber based graded, rather than resin coated multi grade, paper. I always
found it had better tonal qualities than Kodak, and the texture of both the
matte and glossy was superior, too. The glossy Ilford Gallerie FB has the
texture of fine grained leather, as a matter of fact. The blacks are
excellent without the whites appearing too cold.
Skip M
news:42B1CDE3...@attglobal.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> I find this depressing. I knew that film had a finite lifetime, but, for
>> some reason, I didn't expect the ancillaries to go away. I figured I'd
>> always be able to print my old negatives in the darkroom, but first
>> Ilford
>> get
>> that film scanner, but inkjet b&w still sucks, and I don't really want to
>> trust someone else to print my stuff like I'd like it printed.
>>
> sellers, nor very desirable, for at least the last ten years. I think this
> opens up the market for other companies. Bergger still makes some
> impressive
> papers, as do Ilford and some other companies. Small market perhaps, but
> not
> down to no choices.
>
> This stuff stores quite well, and can last many years. I still have
> Oriental
> Seagull Baryta paper from over ten years ago, and it is all still usable.
>
> Inkjet B/W prints are getting closer to being figured out. However, colour
> casts are often an issue with lower to mid price inkjet systems. The other
> issue is that the silver in true B/W prints has a different reflectance
> than
> B/W inkjet prints, meaning that they will always appear different. True
> B/W
> prints could become more of an artist choice, rather than a commercial
> photographer choice.
>
the way the market will go. If the board members and the banks perceive the
market to be unsustainable, then the pressure to withdraw may be
irresistible. It seems that Kodak would be better served by partially
withdrawing from the consumer color paper market, with the influx of inkjet
home printing, and digital lab printing.
I really need to order some Bergger from B&H for my next sojourn into the
darkroom. Calumet is still keeping my one package of Ilford Gallerie FB
grade 2 on the shelf, waiting for me...
That difference in silver content is what keeps me going back to the
darkroom, I just can't get the look I want from either an inkjet or from a
digital lab print.
Gordon Moat
There is also Bergger, who still make fibre papers. Another one I was just
reading about is Kentmere papers. Gene Nocon of In House Custom Lab (on Kettner
near Chrome) is a proponent of Kentmere papers.
So are you doing any B/W prints lately? Did you hear about the "One Week, One
Camera" project at PAG?
Gordon Moat
The digital minilabs are well supported with RA-4 papers, and Kodak has the
largest chunk of that market. It is still profitable, and something they are
still working on. What has hurt them is Fuji gaining lots of their market
share. Kodak have a couple of RA-4 B/W printing papers, though in my opinion
nothing like a true B/W print on silver paper.
Kodak is already in the inkjet paper market, though the bigger money is not
selling to consumers. That might sound strange, but they did purchase Encad (a
San Diego company) a few years ago, and those inkjet products are intended for
the business and professional markets.
Kodak has made more moves towards professional markets lately than towards
anything consumer oriented. That is were the steady and good revenues exist,
and many of the profits. Film remains the higher single profit margin product
they make, and direct digital imaging cameras remain the lowest profits margin.
Kodak is actively repositioning itself to bias medical imaging and commercial
printing, areas that already bring in more than half their total revenues.
Their acquisition of creo was just completed.
>
> I really need to order some Bergger from B&H for my next sojourn into the
> darkroom. Calumet is still keeping my one package of Ilford Gallerie FB
> grade 2 on the shelf, waiting for me...
What happened to Calumet? When they first took over North County Camera, it
seems not much changed. Now it looks like Best Buy, or CompUSA, with lots of
inkjet stuff, and many cheap P&S digital cameras. I don't see how they can
compete with the larger discount places, like Fry's, CompUSA, Best Buy, et al.
I tried to go in their recently to find some tripod parts, and they had hardly
anything of items that use to be easy to find in the old North County Camera.
>
> That difference in silver content is what keeps me going back to the
> darkroom, I just can't get the look I want from either an inkjet or from a
> digital lab print.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
I am hoping that metallic inks will eventually make it to inkjet printers.
Pantone just started to test the waters a bit by offering ink for a few Epson
printers, though nothing really beyond what Lyson or others sell. Some dye sub
systems offer metallic inks, though the results don't look like commercial
printing nor like silver prints.
Alan Browne
> There is also Bergger, who still make fibre papers. Another one I was just
> reading about is Kentmere papers. Gene Nocon of In House Custom Lab (on Kettner
> near Chrome) is a proponent of Kentmere papers.
If you buy a magazine like Photo Techniques and other 'serious'
photography magazines, they carry a lot of specialty product adverts.
Unfortunately, B&W paper is now entering the "specialty product" category.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
> > There is also Bergger, who still make fibre papers. Another one I was just
> > reading about is Kentmere papers. Gene Nocon of In House Custom Lab (on Kettner
> > near Chrome) is a proponent of Kentmere papers.
>
> If you buy a magazine like Photo Techniques and other 'serious'
> photography magazines, they carry a lot of specialty product adverts.
>
> Unfortunately, B&W paper is now entering the "specialty product" category.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
I don't see anything wrong with that. There is little need to have something in most
consumers hands just to validate it's usage. Small speciality firms can make some
quite nice products, though some people on news groups would have us believe that is
not possible.
It is interesting that Kodak are not willing to license out, nor sell off, their
formulas and machines for making B/W papers. If there is no future, why should that
matter to them.
Skip M
> Skip M wrote:
>
I've known about Bergger for some time, I guess I should have put "readily
available" in the phrase about why Ilford came to be so (relatively)
popular.
I've though about using In House for some printing when I don't have time to
do it myself, which right now, is never. I heard about the project, but for
me, one week, one camera gets expanded to this week, this camera, this
wedding. I don't have the time to shoot anything for myself until sometime
in the middle of July. I just turned down a wedding for Sept. 4th, because
H and I will be on the beach at Pismo for a week, starting that very day.
We NEED that time!
Skip M
> Skip M wrote:
>
I've wondered that myself, since Calumet never had the reputation of being
overly low level consumer oriented...
Maybe it's just a glitch in the current system. I was looking, too, at some
tripod accessories, and there does seem to be fewer, and less variety, than
before.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>Unfortunately, B&W paper is now entering the "specialty product" category.
>>
>
> I don't see anything wrong with that. There is little need to have something in most
> consumers hands just to validate it's usage. Small speciality firms can make some
> quite nice products, though some people on news groups would have us believe that is
> not possible.
I would imagine that the main problem is having batch to batch
consistency. Quality systems that maintain consistency within a chosen
bound are easy enough to implement ... if the company has the will and
resources to do so. A company like Kodak has such discipline in place.
From a basket of small paper makers, it would be less certain to
identify which were most consistent in this regard.
>
> It is interesting that Kodak are not willing to license out, nor sell off, their
> formulas and machines for making B/W papers. If there is no future, why should that
> matter to them.
Perhaps a misguided notion that it will drive people towards their
digital products. This has been Kodak's weak strategy for decades.
Inertia is a terrible thing to overcome.
Gordon Moat
Very true. I think I used more AGFA B/W papers than Ilford, though it does seem
that Ilford has been dominant. I have not tried Bergger, though I have seen
some nice printed works from others using those papers. They also make a
bromide paper, which is a look very different from other types, and compliments
some images.
>
> I've though about using In House for some printing when I don't have time to
> do it myself, which right now, is never.
Gene does excellent work. I think he is truly one of the world's master
printers. Unfortunately, I just don't get to make as many B/W prints as I would
like. My last paid B/W project ended up all scanned and commercial printed,
without one true silver print. I might try to print a few later . . . . I hope.
> I heard about the project, but for
> me, one week, one camera gets expanded to this week, this camera, this
> wedding. I don't have the time to shoot anything for myself until sometime
> in the middle of July.
That might actually work. We are still arranging the details, and this project
is progressing slowly. The time is not really a strict one week of actual time,
though you need a TLR square format camera to do this. The end results are
three images B/W, and three images of anything else, or six images total. The
end display would be one of each, or only two images. July is soon enough, so
maybe keep it in mind for later.
> I just turned down a wedding for Sept. 4th, because
> H and I will be on the beach at Pismo for a week, starting that very day.
> We NEED that time!
A break would be good. It was nice to see both of you at the last opening
exhibit. Maybe the next time there will be some more time.
Gordon Moat
Okay, here is an even stranger thing. I just got a Calumet newsletter in my
company mail box, and there is no mention of the Calument in Escondido. This
newsletter also is for their professional in store seminars, and none of those
are in San Diego.
I have been to Calumet in other cities, and it is very different. Most of the
other stores seem to have more professional orientation. The one in Escondido
seems more like Ritz. Strange.
Skip M
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42B5D48A...@attglobal.net...
Yeah, it was good. Sorry we had to rush off like that, we discovered a
minor missing piece of equipment, and had to run back to the church to
retrieve it!
Skip M
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:42B46B0A...@attglobal.net...
>> > Skip M wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >>
>> >> I really need to order some Bergger from B&H for my next sojourn into
>> >> the
>> >> darkroom. Calumet is still keeping my one package of Ilford Gallerie
>> >> FB
>> >> grade 2 on the shelf, waiting for me...
>> >
>> > What happened to Calumet? When they first took over North County
>> > Camera,
>> > it
>> > seems not much changed. Now it looks like Best Buy, or CompUSA, with
>> > lots
>> > of
>> > inkjet stuff, and many cheap P&S digital cameras. I don't see how they
>> > can
>> > compete with the larger discount places, like Fry's, CompUSA, Best Buy,
>> > et
>> > al.
>> > I tried to go in their recently to find some tripod parts, and they had
>> > hardly
>> > anything of items that use to be easy to find in the old North County
>> > Camera.
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> I've wondered that myself, since Calumet never had the reputation of
>> being
>> overly low level consumer oriented...
>> Maybe it's just a glitch in the current system. I was looking, too, at
>> some
>> tripod accessories, and there does seem to be fewer, and less variety,
>> than
>> before.
>
> Okay, here is an even stranger thing. I just got a Calumet newsletter in
> my
> company mail box, and there is no mention of the Calument in Escondido.
> This
> newsletter also is for their professional in store seminars, and none of
> those
> are in San Diego.
>
> I have been to Calumet in other cities, and it is very different. Most of
> the
> other stores seem to have more professional orientation. The one in
> Escondido
> seems more like Ritz. Strange.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
>
What I heard during the days immediately after Calumet's purchase of NCC was
that the buy was made because of NCC's consumer orientation, as distinct
from Calumet's high end/pro slant. There were other candidates for purchase
in San Diego, but that was the deciding factor...
Gordon Moat
Okay, so in this case Calumet is not Calumet. Maybe they are testing the
waters, or they might go the Ritz direction in the future. Guess I will stick
with Nelson's and Camera Exposure. I miss all the great camera gear at the old
North County Camera.
Ciao!
Robert Chin
news:bbOse.380$SF5.275@fed1read07...
>
> That difference in silver content is what keeps me going back to the
> darkroom, I just can't get the look I want from either an inkjet or from a
> digital lab print.
I had a darkroom when I was a teenager. That was some 30 years ago. I the
last few years, I picked up photography again. The thought being that if I
got "good enough", I might be able to transition into this part time at
least.
After practicing it more and more these last few years, the thought had
crossed my mind to set up a nice darkroom again. The reason was to relearn
what I knew before and have greater creative control.
This thing about Kodak ceasing paper production has given me pause to
reconsider. On the one hand, experience tells me that paper should be
available from somewhere in some form for the rest of my life. On the
other, I wonder if that is necessarily true.
The pace of technology is such that I do not doubt that digital black and
white printing will someday be at least the equal of what can be gotten from
a decent darkroom set up. If one of the big companies is working on it, it
will happen. And seeing how far digital cameras come with each successive
generation, how far off can that day be?
The availability of B&W paper depends on whether or not there will be enough
people over the next 25 or 30 years that will continue practicing B&W
printing to make it profitable for someone. Is that a safe assumption? I
don't know. I figure a lot of people who do B&W printing now are going to
bail out or die over the next 25 or 30 years. I also figure there will be
fewer and fewer people taking this up as a profession or hobby the next 25
or 30 years. The "convenience" of doing things via a computer is just too
high. Sustaining profitability could be a problem in the near future for
anyone in this business.
The other problem with sustaining B&W paper into the future is the
technology required to make it. Unlike materials needed for oil painting,
which are pretty low tech and much of which can be done by the artist as
part of the process, a photographer is not likely going to whip up his own
batch of B&W paper. At least not economically.
I am perfectly comfortable with manipulating images in on my PC with
Photoshop. I'm not computer phobic at all. In fact, computers are my
profession. However, while I enjoy the convenience and the power available
doing things digitally, I also find some negatives with it. The first is
that doing this on a PC is like doing anything else I do on a PC. It FEELS
like work rather than a creative process. The second thing I dislike about
digital image work is that there is a certain detached feeling about it.
For me at least, there is a little too much of a physical and emotional
disconnect when working images via Photoshop.
Can someone convince me that going setting up a darkroom in the next couple
of years will not be an exercise in futilty? Are we sure that paper and
chemistry will be around for the next 25 or 30 years?
Ken Nadvornick
> Can someone convince me that going setting up a darkroom in
> the next couple of years will not be an exercise in futilty?
Oh good grief...
Ken
Peter
> After practicing it more and more these last few years, the thought had
> crossed my mind to set up a nice darkroom again. The reason was to relearn
> what I knew before and have greater creative control.
It is a lot of fun.
> This thing about Kodak ceasing paper production has given me pause to
> reconsider. On the one hand, experience tells me that paper should be
> available from somewhere in some form for the rest of my life. On the
> other, I wonder if that is necessarily true.
Kodak stopped being a major player in the B&W paper market years ago.
I suspect that Panalure and Azo will be sorely missed, if they are
also being discontined, but the rest of the line is no great loss.
> The pace of technology is such that I do not doubt that digital
> black and white printing will someday be at least the equal
> of what can be gotten from a decent darkroom set up.
You can do ok with quadtone inkjet. It isn't the same, but it
is definitely good. I doubt if anything can really replace the
continual wonder of watching the print in the developing tray.
> The availability of B&W paper depends on whether or not there will
> be enough people over the next 25 or 30 years that will continue
> practicing B&W printing to make it profitable for someone.
> Is that a safe assumption?
I think it is. There is still a lot of interest from young people.
The fact that there are new ways of getting pictures doesn't alter
the recreational value in the old ways. Most people who enjoy
working in the darkroom are pretty good at it, but very few of us
are master printers. It will remain a really good hobby.
> The "convenience" of doing things via a computer is just too
> high.
Perhaps, but it is a different hobby, for many people part of the
appeal of the darkroom is that it can be a refuge from computers.
> Sustaining profitability could be a problem in the near future for
> anyone in this business.
The main problem is that our economic system makes it very
difficult for companies to shrink. I bet Kodak made more
B&W enlarging paper in this year than Mawson & Swan did for
the first two decades that they made bromide paper.
> The other problem with sustaining B&W paper into the future is the
> technology required to make it. Unlike materials needed for oil painting,
> which are pretty low tech and much of which can be done by the artist as
> part of the process, a photographer is not likely going to whip up his own
> batch of B&W paper. At least not economically.
Most photographers did sensitize their own paper before the early
1890s. The big change happened in 1891 when Ilford POP was introduced.
The paper itself was not especially novel, similar gelatino-chloride
printing out papers had been on the market for half a dozen years,
but it was the first to be slightly cheaper than homemade albumen
papers. There are some good recipes for homemade englarging paper,
and while they won't save you money, it isn't an impossible task
for the hobbyist.
> Can someone convince me that going setting up a darkroom in the
> next couple of years will not be an exercise in futilty?
If you start buying B&W photographic paper, you will help
to make it possible for companies to continue to make it
profitably. There doesn't seem to be much point in worrying.
Paper lasts for two or three years at least, so when you hear
that your favourite is going to be discontined, you can stock up
and delay the pain by a few years.
> Are we sure that paper and chemistry will be around for the
> next 25 or 30 years?
I'm absolutely sure about the chemicals. Most of the chemicals
used in photography are used for something else as well.
This is true for all of the ingredients in Dektol. It is also true
for fixer. Don't worry about the chemicals: they aren't
going to go away unless something pretty serious happens to
modern civilization.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Chris Brown
Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <1118955420.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Practically everything Kodak used to make is still being made, but by
>> someone else. So it's false to say that it's the market. Kodak is just
>> so idiotic and inflexible that they can't do anything anymore...
>
>With a public corporation the size of Kodak, the only answer for any
>question is money. Which is as it should be, because of their
>responsibility to their stockholders.
If Kodak think they can compete in the future by targeting the mass market,
I suspect they are in for a nasty shock. The consumer electronics and
cellphone people will crush them. If making money is their concern, then it
would be prudent to restructure their operation to do well in the sort of
low-volume, high margin markets that the consumer electronics guys are
mostly not interested in. Kodak seem to be doing the precise opposite, which
makes me glad I'm not one of their shareholders.
Chris Brown
Matt Clara <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote:
>I think you're extrapolating a fact about a company that hasn't made a good
>business decision in years to the industry as a whole. Yeah, the market is
>getting smaller, but that doesn't mean it's going away.
I agree. If "ttraditional" photography businesses want to thrive in the
market of the future (and increasingly the present), then their niche
products, ones that appeal to people who are interested in *photography*
rather than snaps for their family albums, are the ones that they must take
refuge in, because the microelectronics and comms guys will crush them in
consumer imaging.
Kodak seems to be very bad at this - they all but lost the slide-film market
to Fuji, tried their hand in the high-quality digital market, and got thei
butts kicked by Canon and Nikon, and now appear to be losing yet anonter
niche.
Perhaps they think they can survive cranking out nasty 800 ISO C41 film for
disposables, and that shrinking (even in the 3rd world) part of the
snapshooter market that simply refuses to go digital (for whatever reason),
but I wouldn't bet on it personally.
Chris Brown
Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>PGG wrote:
>> They've been making it for 117 years. Yikes...
>
>there will be no problems in the future, which tells me that people can
>belive just about anything if they really want to.
Kodak have also just discontinued their digital SLR line as well. Perhaps
one or both of these incidents say more about Kodak than they do about the
future viability of either format?
Robert Chin
news:1119321311....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> It is a lot of fun.
Amen...I used to spend whole nights in hte darkroom as a teen and come out
of the session feeling exhilerated.
> Perhaps, but it is a different hobby, for many people part of the
> appeal of the darkroom is that it can be a refuge from computers.
Amen to that too. That was part of the motivation to set up a darkroom
again.
> Most photographers did sensitize their own paper before the early
> 1890s. The big change happened in 1891 when Ilford POP was introduced.
> The paper itself was not especially novel, similar gelatino-chloride
> printing out papers had been on the market for half a dozen years,
> but it was the first to be slightly cheaper than homemade albumen
> papers. There are some good recipes for homemade englarging paper,
> and while they won't save you money, it isn't an impossible task
> for the hobbyist.
I vaguely remember that photographers a hundred years ago had to cook up
their own materials. However, doing something like that, while it might be
fun to do once or twice, and definitely educational to do it a few more
times than that, it's just not something I want to get into.
> If you start buying B&W photographic paper, you will help
> to make it possible for companies to continue to make it
> profitably. There doesn't seem to be much point in worrying.
> Paper lasts for two or three years at least, so when you hear
> that your favourite is going to be discontined, you can stock up
> and delay the pain by a few years.
I had considered that if I did press forward with the idea of putting
together a darkroom again, I would definitely stock up and try to buy paper
in bulk. Something possibly on the order of 6 months to a years worth.
It's a tough call. Intuitively, I think you are right. Thanks for your
help.
Gordon Moat
> . . . the thought had
> crossed my mind to set up a nice darkroom again. The reason was to relearn
> what I knew before and have greater creative control.
>
> This thing about Kodak ceasing paper production has given me pause to
> reconsider. On the one hand, experience tells me that paper should be
> available from somewhere in some form for the rest of my life. On the
> other, I wonder if that is necessarily true.
>
> The pace of technology is such that I do not doubt that digital black and
> white printing will someday be at least the equal of what can be gotten from
> a decent darkroom set up. If one of the big companies is working on it, it
> will happen. And seeing how far digital cameras come with each successive
> generation, how far off can that day be?
Commercial printing methods using duotone or tritones can get extremely close
to B/W silver print quality. Just look at a well printed book of B/W
photography to see what I mean. There are machines now that are about
refrigerator size that can do this, but they cost in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars. It would surprise me if these companies ever made something
smaller, since the commercial market gives far greater revenues than the
consumer market.
>
>
> The availability of B&W paper depends on whether or not there will be enough
> people over the next 25 or 30 years that will continue practicing B&W
> printing to make it profitable for someone. Is that a safe assumption?
Sure, people still make platinum and palladium prints, and there are no papers
for that. Basically, one needs to make their own papers by mixing their own
chemicals. This is an extreme, but it could be a worst case reality. I would
think some company in the world will make ready to use paper, and that with
easy shipping you will be able to get it.
> I don't know. I figure a lot of people who do B&W printing now are going to
> bail out or die over the next 25 or 30 years. I also figure there will be
> fewer and fewer people taking this up as a profession or hobby the next 25
> or 30 years.
People still make oil paintings. Some of them are very young, just in college,
or middle aged, but they still have an interest. Photography in 30 years could
become more of an artistic endeavour, much like painting is today. There is no
reason for the materials to disappear, though they might change, or require
more preparation.
> The "convenience" of doing things via a computer is just too
> high. Sustaining profitability could be a problem in the near future for
> anyone in this business.
Companies still do business with art products, including papers for drawing and
sketching. Pastels and oil paints are still made. Art stores still turn a
profit. Things could get much smaller, and only be made by smaller companies,
but as long as someone somewhere turns a profit, these things will be made.
>
>
> The other problem with sustaining B&W paper into the future is the
> technology required to make it. Unlike materials needed for oil painting,
> which are pretty low tech
You should try to get hold of a video from Windsor & Newton about the making of
oil paints. It is much more complicated than you might think. There are many
chemicals involved, and a certain level of precision.
> and much of which can be done by the artist as
> part of the process, a photographer is not likely going to whip up his own
> batch of B&W paper. At least not economically.
I have made my own oil paints, and they were not nearly as good, nor as
convenient as buying the tubes. I also have a choice of at least five companies
for oil paints, all available at my local art store. It might take a while for
photography to get to that level, but it could happen, and it would not bother
me.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> Can someone convince me that going setting up a darkroom in the next couple
> of years will not be an exercise in futilty?
Not if you will enjoy using it. The only issue might be the parts for the
enlarger, in case you needed to repair or replace anything.
> Are we sure that paper and
> chemistry will be around for the next 25 or 30 years?
>
>
Worst case, these guys, or someone like them, will have all you need:
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/>
They are not the only ones in the business either. I know this is the extreme
example, but these guys would not have this business without making a profit,
even if it is a small profit.
James Of Tucson
Intrepid pioneers were doing it at the end of the nineteenth century.
How can it really be more difficult today?
Gordon Moat
Only that it is easier to just buy a packet of paper than to mix
chemicals to make your own. Again that term "convenience" applies.
However, I agree with you that it really is not overly difficult.
Robert Chin
>
> Sure, people still make platinum and palladium prints, and there are no
> papers
> for that. Basically, one needs to make their own papers by mixing their
> own
> chemicals. This is an extreme, but it could be a worst case reality. I
> would
> think some company in the world will make ready to use paper, and that
> with
> easy shipping you will be able to get it.
That "worst case reality" is exactly where I do not want to be! I tend to
agree that SOME ONE, SOME WHERE will make this stuff.
> You should try to get hold of a video from Windsor & Newton about the
> making of
> oil paints. It is much more complicated than you might think. There are
> many
> chemicals involved, and a certain level of precision.
Well...relatively speaking. If we are talking about manufacturing, then
yes, it is requires a bit of effort to make, say, Burnt Umber, exactly the
way they want to make it. Creating paints for the sake of painting, some
oils could be whipped up a little more easily than a batch of paper could be
for printing.
Gordon, thank you for your help.
Doug Robbins
"Robert Chin" <bchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d980k...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>Amen...I used to spend whole nights in hte darkroom as a teen and come out
of the session feeling exhilerated.<<
Are you sure it wasn't just breathing too many fumes from the fixer?
Doug