The fine prints ... and "shooting images"

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by dried_squid, Aug 20, 2009.

  1. From a thread in another forum, kind of red and yellow -
    ... an interesting article for Kodachrome (and film in general) fans by Sunil Gupta, the visiting professor of photography at the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad:
    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/19750/fine-prints.html
    I hope this is the appropriate location for this. If not, move or remove it.
    The closing paragraph is casual. I hope so. I hope so.
     
  2. Interesting indeed........Seems I shot miles of Kodachrome in all its various forms. Good as it was though, I wouldn't want to go back to these times..........like it or not, progress has been made.
     
  3. What many miss: print (negative) film to print is still the standard.
    Even venerable Kodachrome had to make an extra step to get to print.
    When print to print is finally dead, I'l certainly misss the visual, visble and tactile textural experience. Taking Portra for example to a 20 x 30 print is that "print" experiece which will disappear.
     
  4. I thought the article was okay, but I would have liked to see some more links to have a better look at his overall work. I did a brief search, was able to find some of his stuff up at a ministry website, but I kind of felt like I was somehow missing a better overall view of his career.
     
  5. jtk

    jtk

    "Even venerable Kodachrome had to make an extra step to get to print."
    No, I'm looking at a Kodachrome PRINT of myself, the original (lost) slide made by my father over 60 years ago. My own Cibachromes from E4 look good, were very accurate color-wise and were better than standard Ciba tonally (because I used Dektol rather than Ciba developer).
    Further, "that extra step" (internegative) was done exquisitely well (on 4X5 or larger internegs) by a few (eg labs in San Francisco during the peak of interneg: Pro Color, Faulkner, Imperial). The prints easily beat the potential of color negative film, and absolutely trounced Ciba for control/subtlety...and C41 film has a very short lifespan by comparison to E3, E4, E6, and even C22 according to the evidence in my own files. I suspect the current C41 will be usable for 10-20 years at most from some real labs (dip/dunk), but not from many minilabs.
     
  6. Bob Cossar - ".... Good as it was though, I wouldn't want to go back to these times..........like it or not, progress has been made."
    From my viewpoint, because I believe a major proportion of today's camera users care little about prints from their images, the "progress" is debatable.
    For me, a slide, a color positive was a "final", unlike negatives color or B&W where both the development and printing were beyond my interest. I selected transparency film and transparency processing based on my experiences with their consistency. Back in those days, I took notes, so between the constants of metal and glass (camera and lens), and the process (film manufacture and film processing), variations from my intentions in an image were always related to the finger on the shutter. And it was much easier to learn light and shade and the colors of Mother Nature.
    Ed Greene - "... Even venerable Kodachrome had to make an extra step to get to print."
    I disagree about the "extra step". Between camera and print, film positive and film negative are the same number of "steps". Time and cost did, and still do, vary. Polaroid film was a step less, where the "printer" and "camera" were combined.
    Although I have had prints made via transparency -> color internegative -> color print, many of my 8x10's were Kodak "positive" prints. And I do have my one and only 8x10 Cibachrome, from the 80's. And the Cibachrome remains stunning.
    John Kelly - "No.... Further, 'that extra step' (internegative) was done exquisitely well (on 4X5 or larger internegs) by a few (eg labs in San Francisco ...."
    I agree profoundly. I had a few "fine prints" done by pro labs, in Hawaii, at cost differentials of more than a factor of 10, and sometimes 20. I still believe it's worth it, but I know these "services" are harder and harder to find. It's a shame to me to see these skill sets and craftsmen disappearing from our urban marketplaces. Like other skill sets and craftsmen .... Like live music.
    And then there's the irony of those beautiful 4x5 foot transparencies at malls and airports. Those often are "fine prints".
    Guess it's another consequence of the '70's information glut and technology where the cheap is still cheap, high-quality expensive has become stratospheric, and the middle struggles or disappears.
    Guess I need to try and do something - I wiil reallocate my photo expenses from equipment to custom enlargements.
    Guess I will have some 2009 Kodachromes rescanned for 16 x 20. I'll start saving now.
    Have a nice weekend.
     

Share This Page