Traditional darkroom,a dying art?

Does anyone have any insight on the fact of the matter that digital is steadily becoming the choice of creating prints. I will be investing in an enlarger and lens for personal use. I would like to stay with the traditional darkroom, and besides, the digital equipment is very expensive. John Sexton says he does traditional because its the best quality, but as he also says, and I agree, its only a matter of time till that changes. My question really is, will there be a supply and demand for the chemistry/paper? Enough to keep this art going? I work in the commercial photography field, and I see the change. Many business's are ditching the wet darkroom for digital. Also using digital backs in the studio instead of film, hence Polariod going bankrupt. The business I work for is having a tough time getting paper and chemistry. This is either because supply and demand is down or because of Sept. 11. I don't know. Opinions appreciated. Thank You.

As John Sexton is also reported to have said, we'll vote with our

dollars. If enough folks keep buying paper and chemistry, it'll

continue to be available, albeit in a narrower range of product

choices. If they don't, those diehards who want to stay "in the

dark" will be buying raw materials to coat their own. Get out and

vote!

After spending five years in college studying photography, and after

a career as a successful advertising photographer and editorial

photographer, with an room full of awards, I'll be damned if some

chick in a mini-skirt and high-heels, who happens to be a whiz at

photoshop is going to lessen the value of my wet-darkroom work. Oh,

yes, she can take a electronic stock photo off the internet, and whiz

it up, but she neither has the discipline or the talent to create

art. She (or he) only has the technology to play with images. Coming

out of a very nice early retirement to re-enter the world of

photography, some things have become quite clear to me.

1. Digital imagery may be the technique of the future, but right now

it is only affordable by large studios and corporations who deal in

great volume. It is not close to being the common technique of the

week end photographic warrior, or even the small shop professional.

2. As digital imagery becomes more commonplace, there will be a time

not too far off, where gallery images, on display will display a seal

that affirms, "This image is original silver process imagery produced

by the artist, and has not been digitally reproduced...in any form by

the author/artist."

If you are a serious artist/photographer....your slaving in the wet

darkroom must be valued for what it is....the labor of love, with

considerable skill, dedication and substantial artistic merit.

These qualities given and exercised in the production of your imagery

have considerable value, and that value will only increase over time.

 

<p>

 

True, digital imagery may become more the rule than the exception

over time, as the wold changes. But like the quality craftsmanship of

wood working in antique furniture of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th

century....original process photography will only increase in value

over time, and an image produced by some damned computer will never

eclipse the quality of an original silver print, lovingly produced by

the original artist,...in a wet darkroom,...by an artist whos hands

smell of hypo and acetic acid....and who has made something of value

with his/her hands and talents, for society to enjoy and treasure.

Photography is at a division point in the road. There is a fork in

the road ahead. Some commercial operations will take the digital road

for commercial expediancy, and rightly so as we live in a commercial,

cost conscious economy. Others, like me, will take the other fork, to

reclaim and forever establish the art and value of an original silver

image that is very collectable, beautiful and valuable. Just because

it's new, dose'nt mean it is of more value. For me,....I'll take the

artistry and craftsmanship and the smell of hypo on my hands...not

the worn out finger tips, on some damned computer keyboard.

When I started out in photography, it was a prestige profession

involving knowledge of chemistry, optical physics and the many

disciplines of the world of art and visual communications. I'm be

damned if some chick in high-heels and a mini skirt, who knows

Photoshop....is going to rain on my parade. I think our photographic

audience and clients will come to realize this...if they don't know

already! Richard Boulware - Denver

I believe there will always be demand for products used in the wet

darkroom. The problem is the choice of chemistry and paper will

decline dramatically over time. The good news is that as more people

move into digital, enlargers, light sources, lenses, and all the

other gear required is going to become available at less and less

cost. Also, most formulas for developers, toners, fixes etc can be

made from bulk chemicals. The problem will be with the availability

of papers and film. I forsee a day when Kodak will get out of B&W

entirely except for a couple of films. Ilford seems more commited

but I think one can expect their product line to be trimmed as demand

for products declines in the US. From other posts on the net I get

the impression that they are phasing out graded papers.

There will certainly be a supply of, and demand for, paper and

chemistry for the forseeable future. Even if the big names went

under, there are various small manufacturers that will keep going.

Look at places like Photographers Formulary- you can get any

developer you want to mix up. For paying jobs, film is in the

decline. Certainly not gone, but that day is coming. The company I

used to work for spent thousands of dollars for studio shots of their

products until a couple years ago. Time-to-market pressures, and

lower cost, convinced them to skip the studio work, and even the

product itself! They went right from CAD renderings to advertising,

and I have to admit that the results were quite good. Most non-

photographers wouldn't have noticed that the shots weren't real, and

the customers didn't seem to care at all. They used Photoshop, but

with a highly skilled and trained graphic artist- no amateur. Today I

was in the local surplus store and they had a giant Durst enlarger.

Looked almost brand new- 8x10, I think, and taller than I am. On its

back on a wooden pallet. Motorized and with a vacuum easel for up to

20 x 24 or larger paper. Turret with several large El-Nikkors. The

thing will probably go for a few hundred bucks to $1K, because not

many labs or individuals need that kind of capacity. (if anyone wants

the phone number, email me- they also have a couple D series Omegas)

It got me to thinking about time in general. Back in the '70s, you

would have been laughed to the door for bringing '40s equipment to a

job (Speed Graphic?), and 30 year old equipment was considered old.

It's now 2001, yet 20-30 year old equipment isn't uncommon. We're

overdue for a big change, and digital is it. IMHO, photography will

head down two paths. Commercial and consumer imaging will be digital.

Fine art will be traditional materials, as I don't think inkjet or

even dye sub prints will be considered valuable or collectable in the

near future. But I could be completely wrong. Or a complete idiot. Or

both!

Sorry,

 

<p>

 

To complete my previous post...

 

<p>

 

The bottom line is eventually their may be only a few papers

available and only a limited selection of off the shelf chemistry.

Maybe the selection will be greater but the cost for a 100 sheet box

of a particular paper will become cost prohibitive for many of us.

But you make due with what you have got. People who want to make

beautiful images with silver based materials will will learn how to

use the available materials to their fullest potential.

Sour grapes,you old farts! It's coming, it's here already for rich

folks. You can fight it, or join it. There are still some fools who

use glass plates, and some who fume Mercury onto Degarreotype plates,

and in 10 years anybody still printing on silver gelatin in a

stinking darkroom at 3AM will just as backwards. The seven stop gray

scale, and burned out highlights and styglian shadows of silver

prints will look like charcoal drawings compared to the subtleties of

digital printing. Lord, it's gonna be great!

 

Being a woodworker as well as a photographer, I can see many

parallels between woodworking and photography and the changes that

have affected both disciplines over the years. Mortise and tenon, two

inch hand dovetails, rabbeting, classic joinery which must be mastered

before one can call himself a furniture maker, in many instances is

replaced with staples and screws in the even supposedly 'high end'

furniture that is made and sold nowadays for speed, volume, and

increased profit margins.

 

<p>

 

I've seen kitchen cabinets for a small sized kitchen for sale at

different venues for $10,000 that were made primarily w/staples,

screws, and particle board. I've watched with sadness, people filling

out loan apps. to purchase these cabinets even though the total value

of the materials used in the cabinets came to about $200.00. Particle

board slowly falls apart after a certain amount of time, use, heat,

humidity, and cannot be repaired once damaged. These cabinets will

begin to fall apart with regular use in three or four years, and are

in fact temporary, since parts of them cannot be repaired as you can

repair furniture made w/classic joinery and good materials.

 

<p>

 

Furniture crafted together by a supremely gifted artisan nowadays

can cost a fortune. The cheapest way to get well made furniture is

to learn how to do it yourself.

 

<p>

 

My cameras, tripods, lenses, and even my filters, if treated with

respect, can be kept and used for a lifetime. Whenever I call Mamiya,

or some other manufacturer of photographic equipment I get a human

voice in about five minutes maximum, which is almost always polite and

ready to help. I get the same attitude from most labs. I've even

called some of these folks about problems I've had w/equipment that

had gone off warranty, and these folks many times to their credit

said, 'to hell with it, send it in, there'll be no charge'.

 

<p>

 

This attitude to a large degree doesn't carry over to digital.

Waiting on hold for a half hour to 45 minutes to talk to someone about

my computer, software, scanner, cd burner, and printer is the norm.

 

<p>

 

I recently sold a printer which the manufacturer(who also makes

film), flatout told me they don't bother to service anymore. Digital

is expensive although some of the equipment is essentially THROWAWAY

after a certain period of time. Digital equipment and software

purchased three or four years years ago sometimes won't even

communicate with equipment you buy today. Repairs for digital off

warranty can be a 'black hole'. The people behind digital with a few

exceptions tend to be arrogant, obnoxious, or what's even worse,

unconcerned when it comes to standing behind their equipment.

 

<p>

 

There are some incredibly gifted digital artists, but there seems

to be just a few who have taken the time to pay their dues. Even

though it takes time to master Photoshop, these same folks who've

mastered Photoshop, don't seem to have bothered studying composition,

color, spacial relationships, and so forth. Learning Photoshop is not

and can never be a subsitute for imagination, creativity, and

discipline. I see imagination and creativity in both 'straight

Photograhy and digital, but there's a lot less discipline in the

digital work I've seen, excepting the work of very skilled

photographers who also happen to do digital.

 

<p>

 

I've seen digital work by folks who it seems to me figured that

if no one could figure out what is was, then it would have to be

considered 'good', or considered 'Art'. You can dial up Photoshop on

your computer, and get a monkey to sit down and play with the keys,

and he might come up with something interesting, IN SPITE of not

having studied Art and/or photography, and it can never be anything

else but an accident. You could show the monkeys work to someone else

who might consider the work 'Art', anything can be rationalized.

 

<p>

 

When I decided to go into LF, I was pleasantly surprised by the

fact that LF doesn't cost more than 35/MF. My Toyo 810MII cost $3300,

my 360 Docter Optics cost $737.00, the Wollensak $280.00, the Ries

head $327, and a bigger Gitzo to hold the 810, $400.00. I might add

that the workmanship that went into this LF equipment astounds me.

 

<p>

 

Add up what've I just mentioned, and it is only a small fraction

of what I've spent on digital equipment and software, and I don't have

a lot. Digital is expensive when it comes to first tooling up, time

consuming, hard to do, hard to maintain, stressful when dealing with

the high strung egos on the other end of the phone, and much of the

equipment worthless after too short a time. I might add that it's

going to take most of at least a year to become skilled at photoshop.

 

<p>

 

I laugh to myself when I see these articles which praise the

merits of a printer and all it does, and then I get to the end of the

article and read....'all these features for $25,000, and for $400.00

per month, on site service(the printer's a little tempermental you

see).

 

<p>

 

If you want to be 'up and running', and fairly quick, and for a

lot less money, then digital is not the answer, and it is only a

'pipedream' to think it so. Get into digital, but do it with your

eyes wide open.

 

<p>

 

Having said all this, I enjoy doing digital work, but getting to

this point was only after an incredibly long learning curve, after

spending a lot more money than I should have, and only after a lot of

heartaches that I wish I had not had to go through.

 

<p>

 

A high degree of skill is easily spotted in a well executed

photograph, same goes for digital work. If the skill isn't there,

going digital isn't going to disguise that fact. At least not for

long.

Conrad, I could have sworn that the photographer taking my elementary

class picture back in the 70's was using an olden days Speed Graphic!

Bless his heart! :>)

I only hope they keep producing velvia and ilfochrome classic,

that'll do me.....

RAven:

 

<p>

 

When photography was developed in the mid 19th century, many bemoaned

the End OF Painting. Yet to come were Picasso, Dali, Monet, Matisse,

Miro, and (even) Pollock and Rothko.

 

<p>

 

I too look foward with relish to the ability to make B&W prints ( my

particular preferred output medium) on a Printer via computer as

wellas in messy trays of chemicals in teh dark. I have the computer

under my fingers as I type this. Beside me I have a Canon BJC 6000,

printer which can make OK colour prints, some of which I have

displayed and people have payed for. Within a month I will likely get

an Epson 2000 with the aftermarket inks for monochrome prints.

 

<p>

 

I have also just acquired an old Agfa Ansco 8x10 and am awestruck by

the quality of the contact prints on silver paper. I also have made a

light source and labouriously squeezed out a few Pt/Pd prints and

will continue with both of these.

 

<p>

 

 

Where is the rule that says I can't do all three? Yes, the materials

may become scarce, but there will always be supplies of film & paper,

just as there are suppliers of brushes, oils, pastel crayons and

canvas. There are still companies that make glass tubes( valves) for

Hi Fi amplifiers, as well as those black plastic discs with needles

scratching in grooves, which still reproduce beautiful music..

 

<p>

 

Wake up. The future was here yesterday.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

It isn't an either/or, binary choice. What you will see more and

more in the present and the near future is a hybrid. Especially

with large format. You'll shoot on film, and then have your best

image scanned and you print via photoshop. Some people, like

Dan Burkholder are taking it a step further, and instead of

printing to paper , are using their digital files to output enlarged

negatives and using those to make large platinum/palladium

prints. The hard won skills of printing will carry over, just with a

new set of tools. True Photography is about vision, not Dektol.

Hi Raven,

 

<p>

 

Just couldn't resist answering this one. Have you ever added

something to your computer such as a "Palm Pilot" or perhaps a new

driver ? Has it ever screwed up your system and required 6 to 10

hours to just get things back to the way they were ? Ever have a

virus attack your PC and erase your hard drive or just play havock

with the computer ? Do you run a personal firewall to protect

yourself from others who want to steal your secrets ? (or perhaps

your digital photos)

 

<p>

 

Ever have a presentation document or large spreadsheet just about

perfect and then with a simple additional keystroke completely

destroy the result and find yourself unable to get back to where you

want to be ?

 

<p>

 

Like others before me, I also am a woodworker and know that

particleboard is a temporary solution and very fustrating to work

with when you want to acheive a high quality and lasting result. Give

me "REAL" wood and I'm as happy as a "pig in #$@%$". I also happen to

be employed in the computer industry (18 years) and can hardily wait

till I can retire and never have to fix, update, re-install, adjust,

or just plain kick another computer again.

 

<p>

 

So to everybody out there I say ...welcome to the digital

photographic age ! I hope you enjoy your many rebuilds to come ! As

for me I'm delighted with real film, real paper, and a real darkroom.

Have yet to have to reload, re-install or re-configure any of these

since I first began using them.

 

<p>

 

My analog best to all,

 

<p>

 

GreyWolf

There is only one truth here.

DIGITAL OR NOTHING!

For the foreseeable future photography as it is now will be around.

Paper will still be around. Witness Berger Papers. Many films will be

available too. Witness all the eastern european materials. Not every

country has access to the digital revolution that the US and western

europe does. When everyone in the west has gone to digital the Chinese

will start producing paper and film because many there who practice

photography will be in the wetroom because computers aren't readily

available or prohibitively expensive. But to those who dismiss the

digital revolution, as not real photography or are afraid of the

coming revolution, I say too bad for you. It will be a marvelous art

form akin to the birth of photography. It is in it's infancy now. It

will get even better and easier to use. And it is much more

environmentally safe. For the environmental cost of a computer system

you get millions of images. No pulp bleaching and bartya materials. No

more silver solvents. No more toning byproducts. No more wastefull

washing of prints. You will be able to do so much more with your

creative vision. Velvia? Passe now. A moderately skilled high school

student using photoshop can color rings around my favorite film. Quit

the arguing. You like the wetroom like me so be it. That's cool. If

you are into digital, well good for you. Neither of you campers have

anything on the other. Just do what you do best and enjoy it. Make

images not war. There's no need to champion your chosen methodologies.

Just make images. Quit trying to be better than the other guy. Just

make images. James

I don't know how much I can add to this thread,but here goes.

Yesterday I took a 1 day course given by West Coast Imaging on

scanning and manipulating the image in Photoshop. I was astounded by

the quality of the many finished prints on display. Mostly color but

one large Pieziography (sp?)B&Wprint.Thetonal values on the BW print

were spectacular. I have spent many hours on this type of negative,

breaking waves against almost black rocks on the pacific coast. There

was an Ilfochrome print and a matched print from the scanned chrome.

There was no comparison! The scanned light jet print was sharper,the

highlights detailed, the shadows textured,and midtones subtle. It

does cost though. I think in a few years,as we have seen, the quality

of equipment will increase markedly and the price will drop. Digital

is here to stay. The person sitting next to me is a professional who

is using his digital Canon exclusively for his architectural work. He

described an interior office shot he had just done theat sounded, to

me, like a nightmare-outdoor light through windows, bounced

Fluorescent ceiling lights and halogens elsewhere. The Canon handled

it all and photoshop balanced out all the lighting extremes.

George

I tend to look at this situation as not necessarily a fork in the

road that needs to be taken, but a very general trend in society

driven by a perceived need to increase business efficiencies for

which photography is simply attached to the wagon. I personally

believe that given the infrastructural cost and the results produced,

the numbers have shown that digital has quickly grown to its current

size and additional market growth is nominal at best projected

forward. It is a large niche market not an upward growth trend. Why

it has drawn so much attention (and concern) is because conventional

photography has been a nominal growth industry at best for decades.

As result, the only way for companies to grow in this environment is

to take market share away from a competitor. That is what is

happening in the battle of Fuji versus Kodak in the color print

markets. Conversely, digital has been a July 4th fireworks display

from purely a business perspective. Once this market peaks out, which

it will, the technological growth component that everyone expects

will continue will also reach its pinnacle because of the fact that

the financial supporters of this product are the first to injest the

realities of nominal market growth projections. Without an

expectation that additional growth will take place, costs will stay

high and business players will go elsewhere with their intelligence

and capital. Those are the realities of todays high expectation

financial and business world. The botton line is that a product cycle

of 8-10 years is reasonable for digital photography. As a result, it

is highly probable these two products can cohabitate perfectly well

for years to come in photography. The largest risk in photography I

feel is for a large player to drop out through market share

consolidation. Is it possible for Fuji to acquire Kodak? Before you

say NO WAY, who would have thought it possible that small Dynegy

would be able to acquire the huge Enron given the fact that Dynegy is

1/5 the size of Enron. It gives me goose bumps to think that Tri-X

could come in anything other than a black and yellow box, but as long

as it comes, who cares?

 

<p>

 

Lastly, I just wanted to personally thank everyone for the great

deals to be had as they make the move to digital. I hope that

whatever medium you chose you find considerable satisfaction in the

expressive arts.

The truth here is that pride in workmanship and quality are

always going to mean something. 10 years ago they were

predicting the end of Photography. Photography isn't going to

disappear, it's just going to be practiced now by the people who love

it.

 

<p>

 

The new toys for the well to do 'yuppies' and rich folks will be

in the digital arena until they get tired of them and then they will

be for sale.

 

<p>

 

I will never accept paying good money for things that aren't made

to last. The same people who 'sweetalked' you into paying $5000.00

for their scanner five years ago, will sell you one today with the

same features for $500.00.

 

<p>

 

Digitals gonna be great, and it's going to be cheap. Save your

money and wait, unless it's burning a hole in your pocket.

I think that, at very least, as long as there are people who value

the art and process of traditional photographic processes, there will

be film, paper, and chemistry. Look at what�s keeping products like

Azo alive now- the people who love the stuff and use it because they

feel it is the best. This is why there are still people doing

Daguerreotypes and salted paper negatives. True, given 50 years,

there might be fewer people out there doing large format photography

using traditional materials, but they will still be there. I don�t

know about the rest of you, but I don�t necessarily drag 50 pounds of

wood, metal, and glass around the hillside because I think it�s fun.

I do it because it�s a method and process I love and believe in. To

quote Robert Adams, and please forgive me for any typos:

<br>

<BLOCKQUOTE>One does not for long wrestle a view camera in the wind

and heat and cold just to illustrate a philosophy. The thing that

keeps you scrambling over rocks, risking snakes, and swatting at the

flies is the view. It is only your enjoyment of and commitment to

what you see, not what you rationally understand, that balances the

otherwise absurd investment of labor.</BLOCKQUOTE>

<p>

To me, the same sort of idea applies to the materials we use. We use

what we use because it�s what we feel is the best for what we do. If

some new, ultra-affordable digital process came along that was

superior in every way to any traditional photographic process ever

devised, I�m betting every one of you would give it some serious

thought. But would we all jump on the bandwagon and leave our film

to collect dust? I think not. Modern color processes pretty much

put an end to the practical application of processes like the

autochrome, and yet there are still a few people out there keeping it

alive and having one hell of a good time doing it.

<p>

I find myself in a bit of a unique generational situation. I was

born in 1982, and that places me in the gray area between gen. X�ers

and whatever they�re calling what�s after that. My generation has a

lot in common with the X�ers in that unlike those a few years younger

than me, we remember when Challenger exploded, we remember when the

first Nintendo came out, and computers have <i> not </i> always been

a part of our lives. I�m comfortable using computers, even for

photographic applications, but it�s not my favorite way of doing

things. Last week I spent 3 hours in PhotoShop editing wires,

antennas, and a stop light out of a photo of a building of Athens

City Hall. On the other hand, yesterday I spent 3 hours making

contact prints of 8x10 pyro negatives using Azo and ansco 130. For

me, digital and traditional photography do not necessarily have to be

antitheses to each other. The photographers of my generation are in

a situation where we need to be proficient at both digital and

traditional mediums right off the bat. I work on my independent

study project in architectural photography during the week in which I

use a 4x5 monorail, wooden film holders, and Provia. On Tuesdays and

Thursdays I go to my desktop publishing class where I work on stuff

in Photoshop, GoLive, Quark, and sometimes Freehand. I am already

working hard to know and be able to use both kinds of tools to the

best of my ability. For the next generation of photographers,

though, I wonder how much traditional technology will be in the mix.

My nine year old cousin was born in 1992, exactly ten years after me

to the day. His house has had a computer in it since the day he was

born- they aren�t a new concept that he had to adapt to and learn

like the rest of us did. Even I am at a bit of an advantage in that

regard in that a good 2/3rds of my life had computers in it. But for

those photographers who come along in another 10 years, what

percentage of them will have more of a background in film than in

digital?

<p>

In terms of the digital divide, I think we also have to consider the

world situation in terms of industry and the like before we can start

doing last rights for film. The core nations of the world-that is,

those with the most lucrative economies and post-industrial social

structures-are getting to the point where, yes, film is becoming more

threatened by digital. Look at those countries of the world in the

periphery and semi-periphery, though. My sister was until very

recently in the Peace Corps in a town outside Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

This town had one telephone and only very sporadically had

electricity available. Do you really think that people there or in

any developing part of the world are so worried about digital

technology overtaking film? Not only do I think that film will be

kept alive and available by those who prefer traditional processes, I

think that film and such will be kept alive worldwide by simple

demand. Until the rest of the world �catches up� to where we are as

a nation, and then everybody takes one giant step into the future,

film is safe in my book.

<p>

I think I had better quit now. The continued availability of film,

paper, and chemicals is a very complex and relatively volatile

issue. It�ll be interesting to see where things go in the next few

years.

 

As painting has coexisted, largely peacefully, next to photography,

so do I hope will be the fate of digital imaging with silver

photography.

 

<p>

 

Granted, it was commercial considerations (cheaper, faster, the quest

for new market niches, etc) that gave birth to digital imaging and

availability of cheaper hardware ment that more and more people could

afford it. The truth is that most people with a camera in their hands

just want to take snaps and to hell with technique. I'll go by it.

 

<p>

 

The real problem I see is the trend to compare just the end product

of the two disciplines, i.e. the print. But how can they ever be the

same? The silver photographer has to master technique first before he

can use it to express his vision. He spends hours in the field

waiting for the correct light before tripping the shutter. In the

darkroom he can spend many hours even days for an evocative print.

 

<p>

 

In contrast the digital imager may not even have to have a camera.

And technique? Well Photoshop can be used to correct the contrast,

balance the tones and add extraneous elements. Granted, the last has

been used by silver photographers but it requires extraordinary skill.

 

<p>

 

Silver photography produces unique images just like any craftsman

cannot produce identical products from the same draft. The love of

the artist for his image grows with the time he spends seeing it come

into being.

 

<p>

 

Digital imaging is an automated way of cloning the same image in

increasingly good quality and speed. Love? No _time_ for that.

 

<p>

 

Therefore it is only fair towards the artist who created an image to

clearly state if it is unmanipulated silver or digital. Unmanipulated

silver is a contradiction of terms!

 

<p>

 

In one way the digital imaging can be seen as a blessing. It has

separated the silver photographers from the rest. We are a much

smaller group now but we do what we do out of choice. As long as we

keep buying films and papers they will continue to exist. As simple

as that :-)

Well said for an individual of your youth, and shows an open

mindedness and maturity way beyond your years. You know now what

some people never learn.

 

<p>

 

You do not suffer from myopia. We, right now, are someones

distant future, and at the same time we are also the dim past to some

future generation.

Sooner or later, someone should bring Ansel Adams in to this discussion.

Adams was evidently very impressed and openly excited about the very high

quality of the high end laser scans madefrom his negatives for reproduction in

the last book he produced before his health failed -- and that was at least

twenty years ago! he felt that this technology was ableto get more information

out of his negatives than he was ever able to get through his considerable

darkroom skills.<P>My point is that digital technology is coming and that no

amount of emotional attachment to one set of tools will offset thepotential of

this newer and more precise set of tools. You may think it sterile and devoid

of creativity -- but that is more a judgement of the user of those tools than of

the tools themselves.

A talented individual can create magic with a pencil, crayons,

anything, that is not in dispute Ellis, at least not by me. I think

several threads have crossed back and forth between two different

issues here.

 

<p>

 

Digital's not coming, it's here, and it can be very precise,

when it works right, but there isn't going to be any precision because

there isn't going to be anything when your systems crashed, frozen,

not communicating with your printer and so forth.

 

<p>

 

That's the issue, at least for me, not that I don't like using

digital as tool, but the workmanship and dependability of that tool.

Digital is useless when it doesn't work. I have eight cameras,

including three that are electronic, and I have a breakdown in any one

of my cameras about once in 10 years!

 

<p>

 

The crashes and freezes with my digital tools have been

countless, and sometime they occur from just turning my computer on.

I've suffered a lot of downtime, so in terms of digital as tool it's

going to have to be better made and cheaper, and I have no doubt that

it will be.

 

<p>

 

I use digital in spite of the problems, but digital at this

stage of its evolution is costlier, and a lot less dependable than my

other equipment. Emotion has got nothing to do with pointing out this

fact.

 

<p>

 

I would never dismiss digital which is why in the hell I have

digital in the first place, but there is simply no excuse for bad

workmanship and indifference. Make this stuff right with the best

materials, make it dependable and don't release until it is right and

digital begins to realize its full potential.

adams did indeed say he was excited by the coming technology, but he

did not say that the scanned reproductions were better than his

original prints, he said they were close, but not quite as good.

The only thing anyone knows for sure about the future of anything is

that no one knows for sure. One of the troubles with these kinds of

discussions is that people tend to speak of "film" as though it was

all the same. In fact there are different markets for different films

(and papers), some more susceptible to digital competition than

others. By far the biggest single seller among films is 35 mm color

negative film. It accounts for something like 90% of all film sales

and something like 50% of that is in disposable cameras. This is the

stuff used by vacation/holiday snap shooters who aren't interested in

the greatest quality. I don't see digital being able to compete on a

cost basis with disposable and low end point and shoot cameras/drug

store processing and printing any time soon so I think the future of

35 mm color film and papers is pretty secure. OTOH, commercial

photography is already pretty much digital. The pro labs in my area

have all gone completely digital - no more wet processing at all. I

only know a handful of pro photographers but they are all into

digital almost exclusively. So the materials used mostly by pros -

i.e. medium and large format color film - is probably in some

trouble. Doesn't mean it will disappear but it probably will go up in

price and way down in choices. One of the big differences between

pros and fine art/serious amateurs is that the pros all can pass the

cost on to a client, so digital cost isn't the factor for them that

it is for a non-pro. Black and white stuff should be pretty secure

since it isn't used commercially to any great extent anyhow.