Digital Illustrations (pixels n prints) Are Not Photographs!
lisa-...@xtra.co.nz
lazy. I just can't get over it. Photography is a craft, and everyone
is turning their backs on it for convenience. Do pixels really move
you? Is that what your photography has become? Pixels, 1's and
0's??? It's so sad. I love crafting my negatives, seeing the marks
burned by the light, then projecting that onto photographic paper and
crafting a final image. These digital bozos fill up a few memory
cards, open their pixels in photoshop, then click print. Wow! Isn't
that special. It's heartless, digital photography has no soul. And
nothing makes me more sick than the digiheads trying to justify it by
saying photography is only about the final image,,, not true -they are
kidding themselves, trying to justify their laziness. I'll never go
digital, it means nothing to me. I feel sorry for all those who are
going to digital for all the wrong reasons. Nothing in life worth
having is easy, and digital photography is fast food pixelography,
taking the easy way out. It should always be labelled as such, photo
illustrations, not photographs.
Brian Williams
I'm not sure why you think there can be no craft in creating a digital
photograph. And I do mean "photograph", an image created by light
reacting with a sensitive medium. From your tone it is pretty clear you
have never tried digital, and that's OK, but you have no basis for
comparison.
Of course it's possible, even common, to snap some bits and spew them
onto paper. On the other hand, that's what most people do with film.
They run it through their P&S or even a disposable camera, then send it
to the lab for prints. It's also possible to spend hours working on a
digital image, just as it can take hours to get the print you want to
see from a negative.
Yours is essentially a Luddite view. A new process is not bad or
wrong, just different. Do you still wet-coat your own glass plates,
coat your own paper, and mix all your chemistry? Or have you succumbed
to the "heartless" innovation of dry emulsion, commercially available
films and papers and pre-mixed chemistry? How can you say you craft
your own negatives if you buy commercial film?
Disclosure: my personal preference is for silver, but I have seen many
digital photographs I admire. You don't have to take up digital
photography, but please don't try to tell those who choose it that they
are not photographers.
-----
Brian Williams
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.
<lisa-...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4tpllu4fpr7b6uqot...@4ax.com...
Melissa
photo paper in developer. I envy people who can create beautiful art in the
darkroom. I especially admire talented photographers who can capture beauty
in their box, whether it be on film or memory card.
Many newspapers, especially large and mid-sized newspapers, are going to
digital SLR cameras. Would you also call these photographers Bozos? Would
you say they are lazy? I wouldn't. It's a photojournalist job to be in the
thick of the action, capturing the heart-wrenching grief at a funeral, the
exhilaration of winning a competition and the defeat when a prisoner
sentenced to death. Next time you pick up a newspaper, look for the joy,
sadness, anguish, elation, fear and innocence in the faces of the
people...and then consider that it might have been taken by a someone with a
digital camera.
I don't think it's going to be long before we start seeing Pulitzer Prize
winning photographs taken with digital cameras, if we haven't already.
It's nice to see that people are still interested in film and darkroom
creation, but I think it's way uncool to be name-calling just because
someone doesn't do what you do.
Melissa
<lisa-...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4tpllu4fpr7b6uqot...@4ax.com...
Dana H. Myers
lisa-...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> All this digital hoopla makes me sick. It's an excuse to be 100%
> lazy. I just can't get over it. Photography is a craft, and everyone
> is turning their backs on it for convenience. Do pixels really move
> you? Is that what your photography has become? Pixels, 1's and
> 0's???
I guess little clumpy silver crystals are somehow different that
little matrices of pixels... or this is a blatant troll.
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
DanKPhoto
Dan Kapsner
ph
and wait patiently until the future has passed you by.
Your ramblings are just so typical of someone who has lost a competition to
a digital Image, and just cannot accept that the digital picture was just
plain better.
"These digital bozos fill up a few memory
cards, open their pixels in photoshop, then click print."
What's up! your exposure / development technique so bad you cannot get a
good straight print, without lots of burning and dodging.
"It should always be labelled as such, photo illustrations, not
photographs."
What's next the old photographs are not Art war again.
"All this digital hoopla makes me sick. It's an excuse to be 100% lazy."
Obviously hasn't got a clue about how much work goes into making a winning
digital print
"It's so sad. I love crafting my negatives, seeing the marks burned by the
light, then projecting that onto photographic paper and crafting a final
image."
Next you will be telling us, you make you own emulsion, coat your own film
base, mix your own formulae developer. Produce your own printing paper with
your own unique emulsion coated with you own unique emulsion and developed
in your own formulae developer.
No like the true first class hypocrite that you are. You use film made by
Kodak or Ilford, you probably expose it with you camera set to program mode,
your films are developed in a stock developer. You print onto bog standard
stock paper, you have to spend hours in the dark ( just like your views on
life) trying to salvage a print from one of your badly exposed/developed
negatives And then when you once again lose out to someone who uses
digital, all we get from you is " Its Digital, its cheating"
PH
A Photographer who can hold his own, amongst my peers , with both Digital
and Darkroom produced Prints
ph
"Dana H. Myers" <da...@dioxine.net> wrote in message
news:3D5B3AAF...@dioxine.net...
Not only a Troll, but looking at the e.mail address a New-Zealand Troll
Jon Judson
vs. film photography that confounds me. This is the propensity of some
digital artists to "invent" material from thin air, and insert it into their
images. Although I consider this a perfectly acceptable form of artistic
expression, to compare it evenly to film photography -- where the
photographer must capture an actual subject -- is wrong.
I do think that the artistic senses in film photography are a little more
attuned to the enviroment they photograph, due to the need to capture the
image they seek in the end. What you see through the ground glass is
ultimately what you will end up with, aside from manipulations of light and
dark. Using straight film as a medium, a photographer cannot take an image
with the intent of inserting a "designer" image made up from whole cloth
later on for artistic embellishment. I think this also includes, to a
lesser extent, digital manipulation of photographic images, such as the
imfamous moving around of the pyramids on the National Geographic cover a
few years back. This can also be done in film, of course, using multiple
imaging, so the line is a little fuzzy here. The line becomes further
blurred when you compare digital artists who color existing images without
added digital image invention, much in the same way a film artist handcolors
photos.
There are some similarities between the two ideas of digital vs. film, but I
think the differences are enough to justify those who would like to see it
as a separate catagory of art. I guess in my mind, for what it's worth, I
view most digital imaging as a wonderful work of expression, but something
more along the lines of computer generated animation rather than outright
photography.
John
<da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>... or this is a blatant troll.
Pretty blatant IMO. Particularly as digital imaging has
absolutely nothing to do with the darkroom.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
Mike King
do you?
--
darkroommike
----------------------
<lisa-...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4tpllu4fpr7b6uqot...@4ax.com...
Mike King
Schweitzer series for life there's supposedly a saw that the made in the
darkroom. Many of his best shots were terrifically difficult to print and
were sometimes composite images, he would make a master print and then make
a copy negative for reproductions.
--
darkroommike
----------------------
"Jon Judson" <jon.j...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:v7N69.34$Jj...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Mike King
profanity. Lighten up.
--
darkroommike
----------------------
"ph" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:jtJ69.1147$WC3.8...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Jon Judson
"Some of Gene Smith's best photos had created elements, in his Albert
Schweitzer series for life there's supposedly a saw that the made in the
darkroom."
There are certainly many examples of crossover art in photography. Perhaps
this is similar to sculptors who paint their work, or painters who include
dimensions of sculpting. Still, however, the two categories are generally
viewed as separate categories of art. I think that even artists who live in
these conjoined mediums would still identify themselves as either painter or
sculptor, but are not necessarily desirous of a melding of the two forms of
expressions into one.
Of course, like art itself, folks view themselves as they wish. If digital
artists want to be called photographers, I am certainly not the one to bar
them from this identity. I do wish, however, that publications that cater
to the art forms would decide which form of expression they fall under.
This is especially true because digital expression and photography are
vastly separate in the way the images are ultimately produced. There is
great art and craft in the work of the darkroom, just as there is great art
and craft in the work of the digital image. But the two forms of art are
not even close in the methods and techniques used to produce the end result.
More than enough to justify the separate designation in my opinion.
Just my two cents...
John
<mike...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Digital is just another tool, you don't happen to coat your own glass plates
>do you?
Ummmmm, yeah ? Now if I just had a camera to use them in !
John Costello
twisting everyone's tails to get a reaction., which certainly seems to have
worked.
But if you are serious I think you might learn a lot from reading, or just
scanning, John Paul Caponigro's book "Adobe Photoshop Master Class". Then
let us know how you still feel about things like laziness, heart, soul, and
craft.
John Costello
<lisa-...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4tpllu4fpr7b6uqot...@4ax.com...
Green, Jeffrey William
Yawn.
DanKPhoto
scanning, John Paul Caponigro's book "Adobe Photoshop Master Class". >>
Scanning the book? Sounds like a digital trick to me!
Sorry, couldn't resist, :P
Dan Kapsner
John
not time for a "digital.darkroom" group. Otherwise a few people
seem to be determined to keep crossposting to 4 groups at a
swipe.
BTW, HP, Epson et.al. do not have a single piece of
equipment in my darkroom.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.com
HypoBob
> Actually all of this digi-junk is making me wonder if it's
> not time for a "digital.darkroom" group. Otherwise a few people
> seem to be determined to keep crossposting to 4 groups at a
> swipe.
>
> BTW, HP, Epson et.al. do not have a single piece of
> equipment in my darkroom.
>
> Regards
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer
> http://www.darkroompro.com
>
John,
I agree. The two methods of imaging should always be explicitly separated. There are no
photographic processes at all involved in moving an image from a CRT to an ink jet printer.
Other disciplines, without being considered Luddites, maintain their traditions. There are no
motorcycles in the Tour de France, and major league baseball players still use wooden bats.
Digital images are to photography as steroids are to sport,
Bob
Dana H. Myers
HypoBob wrote:
> I agree. The two methods of imaging should always be explicitly separated. There are no
> photographic processes at all involved in moving an image from a CRT to an ink jet printer.
What about the photographic processes involved in capturing on film, scanning,
editing (the equivalent of 'printing') and then printing to photographic paper?
This hybrid process takes advantage of the benefits of each respective
technology.
Wake up, smell the coffee. Digital is part of our workflow now.
dr bob
"HypoBob" <hyp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3D5D712B...@pacbell.net...
form and the only really new art form immerging during the 20th century. I
also would prefer a news group dedicated to the digital artists. However, I
find the technologies to be quite compatible. As an example, I recently
made some color separation negatives of a contrived still life using TX film
and a Mamiya C330f. It was quite satisfying seeing the "combined" color
image on my crt following scanning of the contact prints. I will print the
result later when I get rich enough to purchase a pack of really good paper.
Compared to the "traditional" technique involving lots of
registration = frustration, enlarging, et c., et c., et c....it was a
pleasure. I will never go completely over to digital for personal
reasons, until it becomes necessary due to ill health or other. Even then I
will probably do black and white or some alternate process. I require no
instant gratification nor do I wish to spend hours in front of my crt. I
had a sufficient exposure to that technology during my real life and now I
only want that which is required to supplement my low-tech hobbies.
Truly, dr bob.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
separate groups. People who are interested in both, post and read both. Why are
the digital folks invading traditional photography clubs. Photographers don't
go to painting clubs.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
dr bob
painter's group. In November I am scheduled to give a course in elementary
traditional photography with hands-on exposure to darkroom techniques. So
at least one photographer goes to a painting club. OTOH I am _not_ welcome
in my wife's "Annapolis Watercolor Club" meetings :-) There is a lot of
good artistic technique information available in art clubs which apply
directly to good visualization and camera technique.
Truly dr bob.
"Ralph W. Lambrecht" <RalphLa...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:3D5E4496...@t-online.de...
Ralph W. Lambrecht
photography meetings, without success. There are a lot of parallels when it
comes to composition. We could propably learn from each other. But aren't they
lucky, that the digital folks haven't gotten ahold of them yet? There is
digital software for painting, but is it discusse at their club evenings?
Camclicker
>lucky, that the digital folks haven't gotten ahold of them yet?
There is 'Paint By Numbers', You can copy many of the Great Masters, isn't that
digital enough?
HypoBob
> Reading all the posts above, it seems obvious that there is room for two
> separate groups. People who are interested in both, post and read both. Why are
> the digital folks invading traditional photography clubs. Photographers don't
> go to painting clubs.
>
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
Ralph,
Actually, digital imagers should be right at home at a painting club, at least in the water
color section. After all, their technology, i.e., applying water soluble colors to plain paper
is the same technology used by water colorists. Maybe the painting clubs could form special
interest groups for digital imagers and for people using the water color version of "paint by
numbers".
Bob
Dana H. Myers
HypoBob wrote:
> Actually, digital imagers should be right at home at a painting club, at least in the water
> color section. After all, their technology, i.e., applying water soluble colors to plain paper
> is the same technology used by water colorists.
So - what if I'm a film imager (i.e., take pictures with a camera onto
conventional film) that uses digital tools in the intermediate steps
but ends up with a conventional photographic print? We're all
sneeches, do I have a star on my belly?
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
fotocord
> All this digital hoopla makes me sick. It's an excuse to be 100%
> lazy. I just can't get over it. Photography is a craft, and everyone
> is turning their backs on it for convenience.
I don't think capturing and printing digitally is "digital art" until it is
manupulated beyond what actually existed when the image was captured. When
people clone out "problems" and add things that weren't there to make it
"interesting", it's no longer a record of that slice of time that a
photograph is. It isn't the capture or output but what happens inbetween.
And there isn't anything wrong with "digital art" but it is different from
photography.
--
Stacey
fotocord
> I normally shun these frays of preference, but there is one area of
> digital
> vs. film photography that confounds me. This is the propensity of some
> digital artists to "invent" material from thin air, and insert it into
> their
> images. Although I consider this a perfectly acceptable form of artistic
> expression, to compare it evenly to film photography -- where the
> photographer must capture an actual subject -- is wrong.
>
>
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with doing this, but it's not the same
thing.
--
Stacey
fotocord
>
> Wake up, smell the coffee. Digital is part of our workflow now.
Your work flow..
--
Stacey
John
<da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>HypoBob wrote:
>
>> I agree. The two methods of imaging should always be explicitly separated. There are no
>> photographic processes at all involved in moving an image from a CRT to an ink jet printer.
>
>What about the photographic processes involved in capturing on film, scanning,
>editing (the equivalent of 'printing') and then printing to photographic paper?
This system works well for many and I think it will
actually thrive for some time as film is still far superior to
digital capture. Still, this has nothing to do with darkroom work
on an amateur scale and has little interest to the traditional
darkroom practitioner.
>This hybrid process takes advantage of the benefits of each respective
>technology.
Yep, but the end result is very, very rarely an analog
image that is printed in a darkroom.
>Wake up, smell the coffee. Digital is part of our workflow now.
My coffee is just fine. H.G. Hills. I highly recommend it !
Dana H. Myers
You ever take some C-41 film to a lab where there process it in
soup, then print it in a digital printer? Guess what - you're
using digital tools and don't even know.
Within a few years, most minilabs will feature a printing
machine that happens to scan, process, then print onto photo
paper. Even the pro labs will go there. 98% of film will
run through this hybrid process (it's probably more than 1/3
of all film in the US today).
It's here.
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
John
wrote:
FWIW, my wife has a scanner for her sewing machine that
allows her to scan to CDROM, separate the colors and then "sew"
them onto fabric. for some reason my grandmothers hand-made
quilts are all the more valuable now ;>)
John
<da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>So - what if I'm a film imager (i.e., take pictures with a camera onto
>conventional film) that uses digital tools in the intermediate steps
>but ends up with a conventional photographic print?
It's a digital image and belongs to either
rec.photo.equipment.films+labs (i.e. commercial) or in
rec.photo.digital where digital imaging is discussed unless one
is writing the image to print in a darkroom using an enlarger
such as those by ESECO-Speedmaster which digitally project an
image using a LCD projection system.
John
wrote:
>Dana H. Myers wrote:
>
>>
>> Wake up, smell the coffee. Digital is part of our workflow now.
>
>Your work flow..
Exactly my point. Many of us do not bother with digital or
if we do it's in a very, very limited way. And it certainly is
_not_ part of the work flow in any darkroom that I know of.
John
<da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>You ever take some C-41 film to a lab where there process it in
>soup, then print it in a digital printer?
Nope. These are not common and have nothing to do with the
darkroom anyway.
>Guess what - you're
>using digital tools and don't even know.
If you don't know how your film is being handled, I would
suggest a different hobby/profession.
>Within a few years, most minilabs will feature a printing
>machine that happens to scan, process, then print onto photo
>paper. Even the pro labs will go there. 98% of film will
>run through this hybrid process (it's probably more than 1/3
>of all film in the US today).
No, it is on fact far, far less. Remember that you live in
a high tech area. Many production labs are still quite happy with
their older equipment and digital imaging will have to be forced
upon them as the process and materials has not changed in nearly
20 years. Of course there is always "planned obsolescence".
Mxsmanic
t5gulu0l1fp3jtoq6...@4ax.com...
> Nope. These are not common and have nothing
> to do with the darkroom anyway.
They are where I live. The few holdouts are generally just waiting for
their own Frontiers to arrive.
> Many production labs are still quite happy with
> their older equipment and digital imaging will
> have to be forced upon them as the process and
> materials has not changed in nearly 20 years.
The increment in quality with the digital minilabs is so great that only one
in an area need adopt such a minilab, and the others are virtually forced to
do the same in order to compete. Output from a Frontier blows the old
analog minilabs away. In theory, you can get the same results from
both--but only with expert operators and lots of time to test, verify, and
experiment.
Dana H. Myers
John wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 05:38:23 GMT, "Dana H. Myers"
> <da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>>You ever take some C-41 film to a lab where there process it in
>>soup, then print it in a digital printer?
> Nope. These are not common and have nothing to do with the
> darkroom anyway.
These are too common and increasingly so, especially among
volume processors.
>>Guess what - you're
>>using digital tools and don't even know.
> If you don't know how your film is being handled, I would
> suggest a different hobby/profession.
Well, that's gratuitously condescending, John, and completely
skirts the real issue - when one captures on film and ends up
with a photographic print, why is the inclusion of digital in
the workflow such a contentious issue?
>>Within a few years, most minilabs will feature a printing
>>machine that happens to scan, process, then print onto photo
>>paper. Even the pro labs will go there. 98% of film will
>>run through this hybrid process (it's probably more than 1/3
>>of all film in the US today).
> No, it is on fact far, far less. Remember that you live in
> a high tech area. Many production labs are still quite happy with
> their older equipment and digital imaging will have to be forced
> upon them as the process and materials has not changed in nearly
> 20 years. Of course there is always "planned obsolescence".
My guess is that majority of volume processors, all the way from
Wal-Marts and Costcos up to Qualex and so on, will soon be using
digital printing machines for film, and this is why I suggest
the vast majority of film will be processed this way.
I life in a high-tech area? Heavens, I've been to low-tech
backwater places like North Carolina and Tennessee, and, frankly,
they're not as behind the times as they'd like to think. Some
folks think I live in a backwater, 10 miles from Napa...
Dana K6JQ
da...@dioxine.net
Tony Spadaro
is got teevee an everthin.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Dana H. Myers" <da...@dioxine.net> wrote in message
news:3D5FE030...@dioxine.net...
Cliff
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:lr7qluc4tafdbqaqt...@4ax.com...
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
<g>; "Gregory W Blank" <"-)b?????????????????? wrote in message
news:g;-)blank-19080...@pool-151-196-176-142.balt.east.verizon.net..
.
> Huh? the Research Triangle. :-)
>
> In article <Br089.11515$5b.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Tony
> Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Heck thar Gomer, us'n hwar in Noth Calina is jes as high tech as yew.
We
> > is got teevee an everthin.
> >
> > --
> > http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> > Photography ... the hard way
> > and partial home of
> > The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> > a Radical approach to photography.
> > The Links are at
> > http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
>
> > "Dana H. Myers" <da...@dioxine.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D5FE030...@dioxine.net...
>
> > > I life in a high-tech area? Heavens, I've been to low-tech
> > > backwater places like North Carolina and Tennessee, and, frankly,
> > > they're not as behind the times as they'd like to think. Some
> > > folks think I live in a backwater, 10 miles from Napa...
> > >
> > > Dana K6JQ
> > > da...@dioxine.net
> > >
>
> --
> Photographic website @
> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
John
<da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>John wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 05:38:23 GMT, "Dana H. Myers"
>> <da...@dioxine.net> wrote:
>
>>>You ever take some C-41 film to a lab where there process it in
>>>soup, then print it in a digital printer?
>
>> Nope. These are not common and have nothing to do with the
>> darkroom anyway.
>
>These are too common and increasingly so, especially among
>volume processors.
Only in the really high volume labs such as those the pro's
use. Labs like Burrell, CPQ Colorchrome and The Pro-Lab. Your
smaller mini-labs have good, working Fuji and Noritsu printers.
They don't need to be replaced as the process and materials
haven't changed.
>>>Guess what - you're
>>>using digital tools and don't even know.
>
>> If you don't know how your film is being handled, I would
>> suggest a different hobby/profession.
>
>Well, that's gratuitously condescending, John, and completely
>skirts the real issue - when one captures on film and ends up
>with a photographic print, why is the inclusion of digital in
>the workflow such a contentious issue?
It isn't. Just the details of printing the image using
commercial labs has nothing to do with the darkroom. The scanning
of said films has nothing to do with the darkroom. The processing
of the print has little if anything to do with the darkroom.
IOW, it's not a darkroom issue.
>>>Within a few years, most minilabs will feature a printing
>>>machine that happens to scan, process, then print onto photo
>>>paper. Even the pro labs will go there. 98% of film will
>>>run through this hybrid process (it's probably more than 1/3
>>>of all film in the US today).
>
>> No, it is on fact far, far less. Remember that you live in
>> a high tech area. Many production labs are still quite happy with
>> their older equipment and digital imaging will have to be forced
>> upon them as the process and materials has not changed in nearly
>> 20 years. Of course there is always "planned obsolescence".
>
>My guess is that majority of volume processors, all the way from
>Wal-Marts and Costcos up to Qualex and so on, will soon be using
>digital printing machines for film, and this is why I suggest
>the vast majority of film will be processed this way.
So ? What does this have to do with 35mm cameras, darkrooms
and medium format cameras ? Nothing.
>I live in a high-tech area? Heavens, I've been to low-tech
>backwater places like North Carolina and Tennessee, and, frankly,
>they're not as behind the times as they'd like to think. Some
>folks think I live in a backwater, 10 miles from Napa...
They are not "back-water" but they are also a very
conservative people when it comes to laying out money for
cutting-edge equipment. Particularly when there is no need to
"upgrade" to equipment that is both more expensive and more
complicated and yet doesn't produce better results.
Mxsmanic
> Your smaller mini-labs have good, working Fuji
> and Noritsu printers. They don't need to be replaced
> as the process and materials haven't changed.
The results from a Frontier are so superior to older minilabs that once
anyone in town has one, everyone else must consider getting one, or risk
losing business.
> Particularly when there is no need to "upgrade"
> to equipment that is both more expensive and more
> complicated and yet doesn't produce better results.
Digital minilabs _do_ produce better results.
John
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Your smaller mini-labs have good, working Fuji
>> and Noritsu printers. They don't need to be replaced
>> as the process and materials haven't changed.
>
>The results from a Frontier are so superior to older minilabs that once
>anyone in town has one, everyone else must consider getting one, or risk
>losing business.
In your opinion. There have been posts to the contrary and
they were posted in the correct group which yours , as usual, is
not.
>> Particularly when there is no need to "upgrade"
>> to equipment that is both more expensive and more
>> complicated and yet doesn't produce better results.
>
>Digital minilabs _do_ produce better results.
Again, in your opinion. And yet again what does this have
to do with the darkroom or your need to keep crossposting ?
BTW, all that needs to be done to increase the quality of a
mini-lab is to use a good paper such as Kodak Portra.
Camclicker
>The results from a Frontier are so superior to older minilabs that once
>anyone in town has one, everyone else must consider getting one, or risk
>losing business.
>
A major pro lab here in NY switched their entire C41 line to Frontier. I've
been using them for "snaps" and wanted an enlargement to 16 X 20 -- can't do.
8X10 no problem. 11X14, well, they gotta retool the machine and that's an extra
fee. OK.
The 11X14 looks computer generated with digital decay in place of contrast. A
real dissapointment and contrary to my use of Zeiss glass.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt and lost it. Never again.
Additionally, the photographer in front of me gathered up her 50 rolls of 120
and left when she learned they only did Frontier processing.
>Digital minilabs _do_ produce better results.
Bull S***
Regards, Bruce
Larry Lynch
ma...@xtra.co.nz says...
> All this digital hoopla makes me sick. It's an excuse to be 100%
> lazy. I just can't get over it. Photography is a craft, and everyone
> you? Is that what your photography has become? Pixels, 1's and
> 0's??? It's so sad. I love crafting my negatives, seeing the marks
> burned by the light, then projecting that onto photographic paper and
> crafting a final image. These digital bozos fill up a few memory
> cards, open their pixels in photoshop, then click print. Wow! Isn't
> that special. It's heartless, digital photography has no soul. And
> nothing makes me more sick than the digiheads trying to justify it by
> saying photography is only about the final image,,, not true -they are
> kidding themselves, trying to justify their laziness. I'll never go
> digital, it means nothing to me. I feel sorry for all those who are
> going to digital for all the wrong reasons. Nothing in life worth
> having is easy, and digital photography is fast food pixelography,
> taking the easy way out. It should always be labelled as such, photo
> illustrations, not photographs.
>
Having labored for hours at a time getting a digital photo just the way
I want it, I find your viewpoint to be un-informed at best and insulting
at the least.
I have taken pride in my photographic abilities for more than 30 years,
and I just consider the digital camera to simply be one more weapon in
the battle for the perfect photo.
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct
Al Denelsbeck
John <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:7f67muopgonph1att...@4ax.com...
> BTW, all that needs to be done to increase the quality of a
> mini-lab is to use a good paper such as Kodak Portra.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Good one, John! I needed a good laugh today.
- Al (who, at one point in his life, trained people to balance
channels, mix chemicals, maintain and repair machines, and learn how to
second-guess a field-metered exposure system - all for minilabs).
--
Remove 'block' for direct reply.
New online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
John
<blo...@wading-in.net> wrote:
> - Al (who, at one point in his life, trained people to balance
>channels, mix chemicals, maintain and repair machines, and learn how to
>second-guess a field-metered exposure system - all for minilabs).
Wal Mart ?
Regards,
John S. Douglas - Photographer, Webmaster & Computer Tech
Website --- http://www.darkroompro.net
Al Denelsbeck
John <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:j4jgnuo54vou0dtqh...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 18:58:07 GMT, "Al Denelsbeck"
> <blo...@wading-in.net> wrote:
>
> > - Al (who, at one point in his life, trained people to balance
> >channels, mix chemicals, maintain and repair machines, and learn how to
> >second-guess a field-metered exposure system - all for minilabs).
>
> Wal Mart ?
CPI Photo, actually, just after they bought out Fox, a couple years
before being assimilated by Wolf. What difference does it make? You just
said it was all the paper.
For what it's worth, CPI was horrendous, and it was because they thought
marketing was going to make up for the fact that they kept outdated,
decrepit machines and had a ridiculous training program.
If you find one out of a hundred people who use minilabs for their
photos, who could tell one paper from another, you'd be doing fantastic.
Unbalanced channels and an inability to judge exposure-compensation are what
produce most of the bad work from minilabs. Add in the fact that most 4x6
print enlargers (different from the ones used for 8x10s and so on) have
fixed-focus systems that no one ever, ever adjusts for accuracy.
- Al.
John
<blo...@wading-in.net> wrote:
> CPI Photo, actually, just after they bought out Fox, a couple years
>before being assimilated by Wolf. What difference does it make? You just
>said it was all the paper.
While I did say "all", that is to indicate that a
significant improvement will be realized by changing from
products such as Edge to Portra III. If this were not the case
then every major lab in the US would be using Edge as it's about
30% less than Portra III. Of course this is not the only
opportunity for improvement but it's certainly the most
significant.
>>> BTW, all that needs to be done to increase the quality of a
>>> mini-lab is to use a good paper such as Kodak Portra.
> For what it's worth, CPI was horrendous, and it was because they thought
>marketing was going to make up for the fact that they kept outdated,
>decrepit machines and had a ridiculous training program.
Outdated equipment isn't much of an issue today unless it's
in disrepair. The process and the films haven't necessitated an
upgrade since RA-4 was introduced 15 years ago.
> If you find one out of a hundred people who use minilabs for their
>photos, who could tell one paper from another, you'd be doing fantastic.
Try printing half a roll on Portra III and the other half
on Edge and see which one gets more favorable reviews.
>Unbalanced channels and an inability to judge exposure-compensation are what
>produce most of the bad work from minilabs.
I thought it was the poor treatment of film ;>)
Actually at the lab I ran we balanced most of the important
channels. Of course that was GA, GB and GC.
> Add in the fact that most 4x6
>print enlargers (different from the ones used for 8x10s and so on) have
>fixed-focus systems that no one ever, ever adjusts for accuracy.
>
Well the Copal, Fuji and Noritsu systems that I've worked
on have autofucusing lens stages. Not a lot of movement granted
but then were only talking about a 6X enlargement from 35mm.
Al Denelsbeck
John <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:nu5knuo3cfvnisktb...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:20:26 GMT, "Al Denelsbeck"
> <blo...@wading-in.net> wrote:
>
> > CPI Photo, actually, just after they bought out Fox, a couple years
> >before being assimilated by Wolf. What difference does it make? You just
> >said it was all the paper.
>
> While I did say "all", that is to indicate that a
> significant improvement will be realized by changing from
> products such as Edge to Portra III. If this were not the case
> then every major lab in the US would be using Edge as it's about
> 30% less than Portra III. Of course this is not the only
> opportunity for improvement but it's certainly the most
> significant.
I won't argue at all about the low quality paper that is often used in
minilabs. I think 'profit margin' is the key factor. And side by side they
might show great differences, but I think a lot of people will still remain
unconvinced when the cost is involved (most minilabs wouldn't survive
otherwise). How many people can recognize a color cast to their pics?
In my experience, I'd have to disagree with 'most significant', but I
suppose that's all a matter of perspective. I had enough trouble getting the
crews to pay attention to the film borders ("That's Agfa you're printing on
the Kodak 100 channel, there").
> > For what it's worth, CPI was horrendous, and it was because they
thought
> >marketing was going to make up for the fact that they kept outdated,
> >decrepit machines and had a ridiculous training program.
>
> Outdated equipment isn't much of an issue today unless it's
> in disrepair. The process and the films haven't necessitated an
> upgrade since RA-4 was introduced 15 years ago.
Well, yes and no. We were competing against other labs very close by, in
some cases in the same mall, and newer machines with some of the better
metering options, easier loading, and so on, could give an edge to the
product (or turnaround). Again, we're talking unmotivated, low-wage workers
here. And frequent paper jams play hell with a one-hour turnaround rate.
Also, complicated teardown and cleaning meant longer hours for the
employees, unless they cut corners. This is, of course, more a matter of
discipline and not to be blamed on the machines, but it also lengthened
training times which, in a high employee turnover business like fast film
and fast food, also hurts production. I spent a lot of time where neither I,
nor the new employee, were able to produce anything, and for CPI, three
employees at the same time was a waste of money.
> >Unbalanced channels and an inability to judge exposure-compensation are
what
> >produce most of the bad work from minilabs.
>
> I thought it was the poor treatment of film ;>)
I saw the Winky, but I'll take it seriously just for a second. I think
ninety percent of the people that frequent minilabs don't know what their
negatives are for anyway, so noticing damage to them runs pretty low.
Myself, I haven't seen it half as much as rotten exposure control, but I
also have numerous rolls of film from years back where the emulsion is
simply crumbling away, I think because there was no hardener in the fixer.
But we all know that film damage *always* occurs in-camera, never in
processing. Cameras are dangerous things, causing diagonal scratches,
imbedded dust, and waterspots. That's why digital will take over :-).
> Well the Copal, Fuji and Noritsu systems that I've worked
> on have autofucusing lens stages. Not a lot of movement granted
> but then were only talking about a 6X enlargement from 35mm.
Hmmm, yeah, see above about 'outdated equipment' :-)
One Noritsu I worked with had this asinine system. A punch machine that
knocked a little hole in the edge of the paper at the time of exposure.
After the processing tanks, the cutter would find this hole and cut the
paper roll there. Great. Except that the punch was actually *in* the lens
box, with a crummy little catch-bin, and we *constantly* had to blow
confetti out of the machine because they would miss the bin and fall onto
the lens, producing a fuzzy white spot on the prints. Another great thing to
blame on the customer :-).
I remember one particular period, when I could not convince our enlarger
(The bigger one, not the 4x6) to produce consistent exposures. Beat my head
against the wall for three days, ensuring that it wasn't some mistake I was
making. Finally had the service tech in, who checked his records and saw
that it hadn't been overhauled in a looong time. Ripped it apart, and the
amount of things he found wrong with it were amazing. I saw a ring of blue
exposure filters, 12 in all I believe - five were heat-damaged, one had a
hole burned completely through it. Again, a maintenance issue, not really
the fault of the machines, but if you factor in down time and the service
tech's fees, what's the point you opt to replace the machines? CPI seemed
disinclined to address this.
Only took a few months to see what way the wind was blowing before I got
out of that career option.