Re: Which will disappear first: color or B&W
Gregory Blank
PGG <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote:
> With Kodak ceasing production of B&W paper, I wonder which 4x5 they will
> produce longer: B&W (TMX), E-6 (E100), or C-41 (Portra 160)??
>
> I figured that the only users of 4x5 will eventually be the fine-art folks
> who like B&W.
>
> But with the trend towards digital printing, why bother with B&W film when
> you can just desaturate in Photoshop?
Really rather needless all this hand wringing, it is what it is.
The question is what do you like to shoot? Not what will be left.
Several months ago, when the Ilford flap happened I bought
$600 worth of Delta 100 4x5 and eight by ten. If I really liked a
partucular Kodak film I might be inclined to do the same at any time,
I really got pissed off when Kodak discontinued VPS which I liked
far better than than the current C41 films, If I could turn back time
I would have bought a lifetime supply of VPS & Delta 400. Water under
the bridge.
However the film purchased will only last so long, being that I earn my
present living doing photo I have taken up shooting with a D70 now for
the last year, in some ways the camera is quite liberating in others
quite annoyingly deficient. If the industry in general survives its self
imposed changes and produces affordable pro end cameras my take is this:
lighter equipment is better. End of story it makes it all the easier to
handle getting compelling one shot images. After all photo is about the
picture, and not the struggle. Produce the goods and the crowd will
follow. Now to make the big camera a non struggle is mastery :-)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
David Nebenzahl
From the sound of it, you're now embracing digital as inevitable. Am I right?
--
Bumper sticker of the week (spotted in Bezerkeley):
Visualize Using Your Turn Signals
- especially fitting for Northern California
Frank Pittel
: On 6/15/2005 4:21 PM Gregory Blank spake thus:
It is inevitable.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
Stacey
> If the industry in general survives its self
>> imposed changes and produces affordable pro end cameras my take is this:
>> lighter equipment is better. End of story it makes it all the easier to
>> handle getting compelling one shot images. After all photo is about the
>> picture, and not the struggle. Produce the goods and the crowd will
>> follow. Now to make the big camera a non struggle is mastery :-)
>
> From the sound of it, you're now embracing digital as inevitable. Am I
> right?
>
If they produce ANY technology that gives equal results with a smaller,
lighter, easier to use camera, I'm all for it. Be it grainless film with
high resolving zoom lenses or digital capture.
--
Stacey
Frank Pittel
: David Nebenzahl wrote:
I'll settle for inks that will give me the quality of B&W prints. When that
happens I'll have made my last print with an enlarger!!
That's already the case with color printing.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> : On 6/15/2005 4:21 PM Gregory Blank spake thus:
>
> : > In article <pan.2005.06.15.22.32.16.732000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com>,
> : > PGG <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote:
> : >
> : >> With Kodak ceasing production of B&W paper, I wonder which 4x5 they will
> : >> produce longer: B&W (TMX), E-6 (E100), or C-41 (Portra 160)??
> : >>
> : >> I figured that the only users of 4x5 will eventually be the fine-art folks
> : >> who like B&W.
>
[...]
>
> : From the sound of it, you're now embracing digital as inevitable. Am I right?
>
> It is inevitable.
"Inevitable"? Whoa--what happened to the "damn the torpedoes", "I have not yet
begun to fight", "don't fire 'til you see the whites of their eyes" defense of
"traditional" photography? Don't tell us you're all wussing out on us now.
[Oh, that was Tom whatshisname, wasn't it?]
Gregory Blank
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
Lets put it this way; my desire is to shoot for more print media
and maybe online publications. In the last 6 months I have been doing
more of this type of work and foresee doing more. Its clearly an
advantage to be able to shoot straight to digital for editorial work
with regard to certain publications I am working with.
Do I like film, yes I do. Do I like big sheets of film- yes. And given a
choice of shooting a large sheet of film that would be used in print
with my name attached versus a dinky little shot I would certainly
use the 4x5, and I do when its appropriate. I am also impressed with
how far digital "SLRS" have come in several years since my original P&S.
Do I in general like inkjetted prints - not so far, but again certain
things I do are making utilizing them more attractive Epson now has a
number of printers "Rating out at 100-200 plus years"
But I Intend to keep my wet darkroom as long as I can. I am just
practical about not limiting options.
Gregory Blank
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
The newer Epsons, 4800, R1800, R2400 are supposed to be really good with
that regard.
I am still weighing whether to buy the 4800 versus the R2400 or R1800
mainly because I need a printer for outputting digital shots and and
scanned retouched negative generated prints.
Stacey
>
>
> I'll settle for inks that will give me the quality of B&W prints. When
> that happens I'll have made my last print with an enlarger!!
>
I'm pretty impressed with the B&W prints I tried at my local lab from
digital files printed on their agfa color printing RA4 machine. Way better
than any inkjet B&W I've seen and close to "normal" B&W with none of the
hassles.
--
Stacey
Frank Pittel
: In article <a92dnfSSJJQ...@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : David Nebenzahl wrote:
: >
: > : > If the industry in general survives its self
: > : >> imposed changes and produces affordable pro end cameras my take is this:
: > : >> lighter equipment is better. End of story it makes it all the easier to
: > : >> handle getting compelling one shot images. After all photo is about the
: > : >> picture, and not the struggle. Produce the goods and the crowd will
: > : >> follow. Now to make the big camera a non struggle is mastery :-)
: > : >
: > : > From the sound of it, you're now embracing digital as inevitable. Am I
: > : > right?
: > : >
: >
: > : If they produce ANY technology that gives equal results with a smaller,
: > : lighter, easier to use camera, I'm all for it. Be it grainless film with
: > : high resolving zoom lenses or digital capture.
: >
: >
: > I'll settle for inks that will give me the quality of B&W prints. When that
: > happens I'll have made my last print with an enlarger!!
: >
: > That's already the case with color printing.
: The newer Epsons, 4800, R1800, R2400 are supposed to be really good with
: that regard.
I've seen prints from a 2200. The new 2400 puts it to shame!
: I am still weighing whether to buy the 4800 versus the R2400 or R1800
: mainly because I need a printer for outputting digital shots and and
: scanned retouched negative generated prints.
I'm thinking small and expect to replace my 2200 with a 2400. The driving
factor is a lack of physical space and the lack of need to print larger
then 11x14.
Frank Pittel
: In article <domdnSHe9sO...@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
For the most part I shoot B&W for prints and when I want color I shoot E6.
When looking at images I prefer looking at slides. None of my work is for
sale or publication.
: Do I like film, yes I do. Do I like big sheets of film- yes. And given a
: choice of shooting a large sheet of film that would be used in print
: with my name attached versus a dinky little shot I would certainly
: use the 4x5, and I do when its appropriate. I am also impressed with
: how far digital "SLRS" have come in several years since my original P&S.
In my never humble opinion they're already capable of doing better then
35mm.
: Do I in general like inkjetted prints - not so far, but again certain
: things I do are making utilizing them more attractive Epson now has a
: number of printers "Rating out at 100-200 plus years"
While inkjets are fine for color they leave a lot to be desired for B&W.
: But I Intend to keep my wet darkroom as long as I can. I am just
: practical about not limiting options.
I hope to be able to move over to digital printing and out of the darkroom
in the next 3-5 years. I've already done so for the little bit of color
printing that I do.
Frank Pittel
: On 6/15/2005 7:51 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
: > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
: >
: > : On 6/15/2005 4:21 PM Gregory Blank spake thus:
: >
: > : > In article <pan.2005.06.15.22.32.16.732000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com>,
: > : > PGG <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : >> With Kodak ceasing production of B&W paper, I wonder which 4x5 they will
: > : >> produce longer: B&W (TMX), E-6 (E100), or C-41 (Portra 160)??
: > : >>
: > : >> I figured that the only users of 4x5 will eventually be the fine-art folks
: > : >> who like B&W.
: >
: [...]
: >
: > : From the sound of it, you're now embracing digital as inevitable. Am I right?
: >
: > It is inevitable.
: "Inevitable"? Whoa--what happened to the "damn the torpedoes", "I have not yet
: begun to fight", "don't fire 'til you see the whites of their eyes" defense of
: "traditional" photography? Don't tell us you're all wussing out on us now.
It has nothing to do with "wussing" out. It's about moving to the better technology.
My concern is with the final image not the process I use to get it.
: [Oh, that was Tom whatshisname, wasn't it?]
Jones?
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
I'll look into giving that a try. With the price of ink for the ink jet I'll
bet it's cheaper as well!!
Gregory Blank
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> : >
> : >
> : > I'll settle for inks that will give me the quality of B&W prints. When
> : > that happens I'll have made my last print with an enlarger!!
> : >
>
> : I'm pretty impressed with the B&W prints I tried at my local lab from
> : digital files printed on their agfa color printing RA4 machine. Way better
> : than any inkjet B&W I've seen and close to "normal" B&W with none of the
> : hassles.
>
> I'll look into giving that a try. With the price of ink for the ink jet I'll
> bet it's cheaper as well!!
The problem I see with RA color papers is your right back to
a print that lacks proven life span. One of the reasons we do B&W
besides the liking of B&W images IS the proven life span. I am very
skeptical when it comes to someone trying to molest B&W's
proven record. Anytime you have lab personal mixing chemicals
you don't know whether they were mixed correctly, and in my OP
potentially could have unstable results.
Gregory Blank
Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
For me it the ability to gang as many images on one sheet
as possible, if I do get that 4800 I probably will get some sort of
calibration system as well. Currently I have a good digital analyzer
for darkroom work which makes day to day process monitoring
for the wet side a snap.
babelfish
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3hck9jF...@individual.net...
>
> I'm pretty impressed with the B&W prints I tried at my local lab from
> digital files printed on their agfa color printing RA4 machine. Way better
> than any inkjet B&W I've seen and close to "normal" B&W with none of the
> hassles.
Glad to hear you say that. We use an Agfa digital lab at our place to do
both B&W and color printing. The results are quite good with a Dmax and
brightness range that actually exceed what I can get on traditional fiber
based paper. Of course any serious manipulation must be done to the scan in
Photoshop as even simple burning and dodging can't be done on the equipment.
The biggest problem, however, is the fact that it's a dye image that appears
to be a different color under different light sources. Some papers show this
more than others. Even the larger prints that we make on inkjet equipment
with pigment inks have this problem. True silver halide prints don't exhibit
this metamerism failure and they retain their neutrality under all light.
john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
babelfish
"Gregory Blank"
>
> The problem I see with RA color papers is your right back to
> a print that lacks proven life span. One of the reasons we do B&W
> besides the liking of B&W images IS the proven life span. I am very
> skeptical when it comes to someone trying to molest B&W's
> proven record. Anytime you have lab personal mixing chemicals
> you don't know whether they were mixed correctly, and in my OP
> potentially could have unstable results.
This is true of any print that someone else makes for you, whether it's on
traditional B&W silver paper or RA4 color. One has to ask if it's wise to
trust the drug store or Wal-Mart for prints that you might treasure, or
would you sooner do it yourself or at least trust that a career technician
at a professional lab at least looked at a control strip before running your
film through the processor.
As for the process, modern RA4 prints have a proven life expectancy of fifty
years or more. Fuji claims fifty years on display and Kodak over 100 years
in an album. At the same time, I wouldn't trust any modern RC B&W paper for
even a year without getting it toned in either Agfa's neutral Sistan toner
or selenium toner. Times have changed.
babelfish
doesn't appear to be anything that's sacred any more. Everything is on the
table, even digital products are getting cut, and there's no marketing
strategy at all. Kodak products live or die based on their profitability
alone.
Management hasn't got a clue that photography is more than the sum of the
parts. It's like a car manufacturer deciding one day that they don't make
enough money on tires, so they stop supplying them. Does anyone doubt that
all chrome films lost a good part of their value when internegative film was
discontinued? Can B&W film remain viable if there's no paper to print it on?
Must everything get scanned and printed on a Lambda or Epson?
john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
"PGG" <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.15.22.32.16.732000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com...
> With Kodak ceasing production of B&W paper, I wonder which 4x5 they will
> produce longer: B&W (TMX), E-6 (E100), or C-41 (Portra 160)??
>
> I figured that the only users of 4x5 will eventually be the fine-art folks
> who like B&W.
>
johnboy
news:9IRve.4406$Bn6.2503@trndny08...
> This decision will be made entirely by the money people in Rochester.
While film and paper making in Eastern Europe will thrive. Fear not.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> ... products live or die based on their profitability
> alone ...
One can turn this on its head:
If a company can't make a profit manufacturing a product then it
isn't competent enough to be manufacturing it.
A company that doesn't make money isn't.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Gregory Blank
"johnboy" <oka...@nospam.no> wrote:
Lots of issues with that, like importation- inspections by customs
x-raying and just plain quality control.