Please help me out here

<p>Please help me out here and tell me who am I? It's 2014 and I'm still using film and print analog on photographic paper. Don't be affraid to use names like stupid or idiot or any other names you can think of, you are not gonna hurt me or get me down at all. But I do wanna know. LoL</p>

<p>Well, I can only say, hat of you brave man. Photography was an art form, when you played with material chemical, light, the camera and lenses, you know what is the relation with aperture and departure, so many today has no idea, using a 1000 to 5000 dollar camera, as a P&S camera, using a most expensive lenses ( 14-24/2.8) and they complaining the lens is not sharp and so on and so on.<br>

I using a digital camera, occasionally film, lately, B&W only. Sold my darkroom, but I know, the real artistry and the visual quality is still film. You are not one of the name you thing, others my say. You are an artist and not a digital P&S er, shooting gigabits of images, you using your artistic and technical talent, so many todays photographers no idea.<br>

Visual art has value, because they hand made of talented persons. Being as a sculptor, a painter of any medium, graphic artist and photographers, whom creating they work by hand, not machine with tricky programs , etc. Real photography never going to die out, it going to exist and become more and more expensive. Unfortunately, real artist will always suffer, specially financially. I know, I have a couple of artist friend. <br>

I hope, you going to figure out what I like to say here, with my pure english.</p>

You are Frank Menesdorfer.

 

And Bela, photography is still an art form, only the tools and the craft they demand have changed, the "Art of

Photography" is merely doing what all genuine living art forms do, evolving. Why imprison it in the dungeon of nostalgia?

Sure there's lots of crapalicious, ugly work being done today, but there was such as big a percentage of that being done

back in the "good ole' days" when Tri-X, HC-110 dilution B, and Agfa Portrega ruled; we just don't see it because it's in the

trash. Time has a way of culling out the crap.

 

The King is dead, long live the King.

<p>Wimp! Real photographers use wet plates, silver nitrate and make our own albumen or platinum paper. We even raise our own chickens so we have a supply of fresh eggs. Come join the 19th century. </p>

<p>:)</p>

 

<p>You are still using silver paper in 2014 -- you need to branch out and do some alternative process stuff: platinum or palladium or at least cyanotypes !<br>

Now go to Bostick & Sullivan for some therapy !!!<br>

:D</p>

<p>You are not alone...! The question of your sanity is another matter, however. </p>

<p>Most of us hang out at http://www.largeformatphotography.info and http://www.apug.org.<br /> Quite a few of us use a hybrid workflow, sheet film (or paper) in camera, scan, and digital 'darkroom' work and printing. From there, some print digital negatives to use with alt processes. But there are quite a few of us who have darkrooms also, even if (IMHO) it's easier to use Photoshop than traditional enlarging techniques.</p>

<p>I have no desire to smell the chemicals (left all that in the 70's), but I may develop my film and do the rest on scanner/computer.</p>

<p>Anyway, it's not about me and I admire those that have the darkroom and can use it appropriately. Well you either have a strong stomach or good ventilation.</p>

<p>Yes, and do continue and plow through all the digital stuff out there....</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>I thought you wanted help carrying the camera in the field. Sorry, I have a bad back, and limit myself to 4 x 5s. And then, bring a digital to record the details of the shoot.</p>

<p>Frank, you are a photographer in the true sense of the word.</p>

<p>Never forget that pictures made out of out of light-sensitive materials offer some unique qualities that digital will never match, not even in principle, no matter what advances occur in technology, no matter how much time passes.</p>

You still believe that digital photography does not use light to paint a picture, Maris?

<p>Frank, you're a long-haired hippie and a genius, but most importantly you da' man! :) Tom</p>

<p>Hi Frankie: What are you? Not lazy. I have been one of the biggest advocates of film and even I haven't shot any in ages. I AM lazy. Digital makes photography less of a chore. What is wrong with that? I do not miss spending 2-3 evenings a week in the wet darkroom. As far as the quality issue goes, I do believe that digital has finally passed film, except for same size LF contact prints (heresy!). I just saw a 2012 French film called "The Artist and The Model". Great film and the most beautiful B&W film I have seen. I marvelled at the detail and quality. Am sure it was digital.</p>

<p>With the lousy economy and high gas prices the last 8-10 years, I haven't shot much. Disposable income for a serious hobby is hard. I still develop B&W film and print in the darkroom. For me the crisis is the dwindling range of film/paper/chemicals. I shoot 35mm, Med format, 4x5 and 8x10 film ...when I can find the money. For over 30 years it has been "Hi I'm Chris, a photographer" but the statement has less meaning to me now. The lack of focus has a lot to do with my income to mood index. When the money and time are there, I am happy and tend to shoot a lot. The love of film and paper to express the inner you has value whatever the wiz-bang digital only crowd has to say. Hang in there and keep shooting, it's bound to get better. Chris</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I marveled at the detail and quality. Am sure it was digital.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. Arri Alexa. (Source: IMDB)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Q.G. de Bakker <img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" />, May 16, 2014; 05:49 a.m.<br>

You still believe that digital photography does not use light to paint a picture, Maris?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Light is both universal and trivial in the understanding of image-making. The really decisive concepts are elsewhere. Remember, <strong> ALL</strong> pictures, paintings, drawings, photographs, digital, use light somewhere in the making or in the perception. The special qualities of photography lie much deeper in the comprehension and classification of picture-making processes.</p>

<p>There are two universes of picture-making. In one of these universes pictures are fabricated by a mark-making engine operating according to instructions based on data about the desired picture. The final picture is "coded information" made visible. This universe includes paintings and drawings and digital output. These information based pictures can produce any resemblance either of things existing or things imaginary. In modern times mere resemblance is cheaply and easily synthesised.</p>

<p>The other universe does not use data, coded information, or mark-making engines to produce images. It uses direct physical interaction. Items found here include death masks, life casts, wax impressions, graphite rubbings, foot prints, and photographs. These items, to borrow a legal analogy, constitute forensic evidence which carries credibility by virtue of how it came into being. The other stuff, paintings, drawings and digital pictures carry only the credibility of their maker should you wish to believe them.</p>

<p>At the risk of over-simplification one could assert that photographs are <em>evidence</em> while digital pictures are <em>testimony</em>. The authority of a photograph to describe subject matter comes not from resemblance but from direct physical causation.</p>

The mistake is in believing that the 'wet' photographic process (or casts, impressions, etc.) is 'evidence', Maris. It is full of interactions that are 'directed' by something that has started out as a direct reaction to something in the 'real world', but as artifical as mark making engine operations directed by the very same primary inout. No difference there. There is no truth, no greater truth, in photography. The camera does lie, whether film, digital, or of the Fred Flintstone type.

input, not inout. Should learn to use a keyboard...

<p>Whether we are mad or masters of the medium, or both, the more of us the better. For when we are too few, Kodak will pull the plug. Buy film and use it, .... or lose it.<br>

Pictured here is a recent acquisition, Linhof Super Technika V with Schneider Tele Arton 360mm. Both camera and lens being in such pristine condition, it appears they have not been used at all. The lubrication in the camera needs to be renewed. As mad as I may be, I am taking it to the Linhof Factory so they can give a complete overhaul. </p><div></div>

<p>Did you ever try digital? </p>

<p>Kevin, awesome cam and lens. Inspiring me to dig out my horseman fa for the weekend...</p>

<p>btw, what happened to the OP Frank? I'm calling him late for dinner.</p>

<p>Kevin: Just beautiful. Makes me miss my Master Technika, but if I had it I would shoot film that would never get processed. </p>

<p>If you do B&W then it's very common. I think only the color folks is much less common. Besides there are few B&W digital cameras. Leica has the monochrom and Kodak used to make a few but that's all. </p>

<p>whatever it is that you do, don't forget to have fun</p>

<p>I like your images, so I guess you're doing alright.Why fix it when its not broken and you like it.</p>