reuben_c

October 31, 2006

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-38,GGLG:en&q=define%3A+trolling">define: trolling</a>

October 31, 2006

<blockquote><hr>All you need for conventional processing is a changing bag, tank with reels, thermometer, wristwatch, bottle of fixer, bottle of developer and a sink. I've done this in various bathrooms and kitchens. When I worked for newspapers and UPI, photographers carried everything for this plus printing in a suitcase and worked out of hotel bathrooms every day, so you don't need much space and it doesn't have to be permanent. For just developing the negative, I've seen people work out of a men's room wherever they happened to be -- just someplace with a sink for water and you'd load the tank in the changing bag.<hr></blockquote>

In the past I've done everything from color printing to large format enlarger work in a small bathroom. I put a wooden board over the bathtub and used it to hold the enlarger and trays. Yes, I had to crouch down to work, but the Japanese have been sitting down to dinner like that for centuries, so it's not that much of a hardship, presuming you really want to get some printing done.

As far as developing film, you don't even need a changing bag. All you need is a towel to stick at the bottom of the bathroom door, and then turn off the lights to load your tank. If there are still light leaks around the edges of the door (unlikely, but it can happen), then wait until nightfall to load your tank.

October 30, 2006

No, this was definitely not Tech Pan with a rocket up its tailpipe and concrete-hard contrast. The photo he showed had beautiful tonality. It was as I remember it a portrait of his newborn baby, with a nice grayscale.

I don't think he was trolling, either. I've been 'round Usenet for about a twenty years or so (I witnessed the creation of "trolling", by the oddballs from "alt.syntax.tactical" -- Andrea Chen and company -- quite a few years ago), and this guy just didn't even come close to fitting the pattern. If anything, he acted like he wished he hadn't even mentioned it, like he'd let slip something he wasn't supposed to disclose.

October 28, 2006

Regarding filers, you might want to consider using gelatine "color correcting" filters (probably most frequently used for color printing with older enlargers that lack a filter drawer). You definitely want to avoid "CP" (Color Printing) filters, which are intended for use "in the drawer" (above the negative, rather than under the lens). The gelatine filters will not degrade the image the way like the acetate "CP" filters. If you can't find a CC50, you could probably be OK by stacking a CC20 and a CC30, or two CC20s and a CC10, etc.

(In prior years, "quality" camera filters ("glass") consisted of two very thin sheets of glass, with a gelatine filter cemented in the middle of the sandwich, and it was not uncommon for studio photographers (back in the halcyon days of Kodachrome) to work up a gelatine filter pack for each batch of film, to tweak it to perfection.)

October 28, 2006

Thanks!

Unfortunately I see that my own nomenclature is fouled up. When I spoke of "orthographic spectral sensitivity" I obviousely meant "orthochromatic" response.

I plead fatigue, and "seniority" :)

October 28, 2006

A year or two ago there was a guy who posted something on Usenet about shooting TP at ASA 400 -- for pictorial use, continuous tone -- and getting exellent results, using a super-secret developer that he'd worked up.

He refused to divulge the formula (which is no problem for me, as I likewise treat some of my own IP in that manner), but still, I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has duplicated this feat.

He showed an example on his website, and it really did look good.

The "occam's razor" answer would be that he was obviously pulling our collective legs, but I don't think this is the case. He wasn't touting his soup, and in fact only mentioned it in passing when asked about the photo, as I recall. Sadly, what I do not recall is his name or email address, although I think this should be available via google if anyone is sufficiently curious. I don't advocate such a search though as it's going to be a dead end -- the guy won't talk about his stuff, period.

I do not doubt that he's accomplished it. I've seen things equally astounding (with respect to photographic chemistry) with my own eyes (proprietary, of which I cannot speak further -- but, no less impressive than tweaking ASA 400 out of Tech Pan). I know that "the impossible" sometimes actually does happen. In this case, I'd like to know of a way to reliably MAKE it happen for my small stash of frozen Tech Pan.

Along similar lines, does anyone know of a developer/dilution/time-temp that can be used to obtain decent pictorial results with Kodalith? I know it's been done, and I presume that the answer would be to use the same sort of techniques used for microfilms (Tech Pan, High Contrast Copy, Copex, etc.), but with different dilutions, times, etc.

I have a fairly decent amount (in terms of "for my own use over the next few years) of Kodalith in 35mm and 8x10 (which I'd cut to smaller sheet format), which I'd like to use for pictorial use. I am not interested in super-high-contrast stuff (at all), so I won't be shooting any of it until I find a means to use it for continous tone use.

October 28, 2006

<blockquote><hr>Could this same problem be why they are about to re introduce SX-70 film?<hr></blockquote>

I had not heard that before, do you have any details? (Are you talking about Polaroid, or is Fuji going to start making it?)

October 24, 2006

Belated comments (that no one will probably ever read!):

It never ceases to amaze that with all the real time tragedy going on in the world today anyone would wish to re-enact an outrage that occurred more than a half century ago! It would have been ridiculous to re-enact the battle of Gettysburg while WW2 was demanding all our nation's resources, and equally so to re-enact WW2 events while WW3 is in its beginnings. Rather we should focus all resources attempting to solve current problems that can and may destroy civilization as we know it - - - Get real!

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

--George Santayana

I think for some reason it was only rated at 200 then, and that is after the war, when speeds of films supposedly dropped because there was some short of silver rationing for the military.

Nope. B&W film speeds were basically doubled across the board, it was in either '59 or '60 (I forget which year, it's been a while). No changes were made to the emulsions. The powers that be decided that there was enough of a "safety factor" (in terms of sufficient exposure) due to more accurate equipment and so forth, to allow the use of one stop less exposure. To this day, many folks continue to use the old speeds, which is to say they give one stop "overexposure" (set the meter to half of the "official" film speed), and perhaps 10 to 20 percent less development. This gives richer images with much smoother gradation, resulting in pictures that will sometimes look like they were shot on a larger format than actually used.

Britain, the US, and other western countries basically came to Palestine and told those who had been living there for 1000 years, that they had to get out and give to land to the new state of Israel. No wonder the entire Arab world wants Israel gone

A bit of a highly-charged overly-simplified and less than accurate explanation (and one that has more than a few echoes of cold-war agitprop as its origin).

It's apparently easy to forget who it was that lived there for SEVERAL thousand years prior to the folks you reference above. I mean, c'mon, think about it -- Bethlehem is a "Palestinian" town? (And that's just one of several examples.)

Then too, it's apparently easy to forget that the Jews bought land from the Arabs, who chose to sell it. And, as to the generally proferred trump card, the "refugees", it's also apparently easy to forget that the REASON they became "refugees" was because the surrounding Arab nations told them to skedaddle, so that they could attack the Jews (and, as with "The Mufti", promising them the land (that many of them had recently SOLD to the Jews) once the victory was at hand -- contingent of course on them booking out of Dodge).

Since that point, the "refugees" have made a handy propaganda-pawn for those who have an agenda that boils down to "Jews in the sea." The "two-nation solution", funny thing -- the area began with a "two-nation solution" -- the two nations were called "Israel" and "Jordan". But, now, it's no longer sufficient for half (the far smaller "half") to belong to the Jews. They now have to give up half of their remaining "half" too. Keep it up, and, well, it's simple math, isn't it.

Much of the grief in that region can be directly traced to two key players in the WWII and post-WWII timeframe -- the Germans (the Nazis were real tight with "The Mufti of Jerusalem", promising him lots of goodies if he'd help with "the final solution") -- and, the Soviets, who, in standard Marxist/Leninist doctrine, saw the middle-east as an ideal cauldron for "continuous revolution" (and a means to keep causing lots of grief for "the west").

But, I digress (as well as veer off-topic). The mere fact that I needed to give the above concise explanations (for stuff that should be taught in the schools) is vindication of Santayana's axiom.

October 24, 2006

<blockquote><hr>I have concluded that the Canon produces some of the finest results obtainable from the 110 format and has the edge over the Kodak f2.7 lens - just.<hr></blockquote>

I have one of those Canons, but I haven't used it yet (so many cameras, and only ten days to a week... :)

However, I don't believe that it is possible, with the current state of the art (retrograde as it is) to know one way or the other which lens is better -- the Canon, or the Ektar.

I have Kodachromes that I shot with my Pocket 60 some decades back, which I not too long ago turned up again. I projected them onto a fairly large white card, to something greater than 11x14 proportions, and the images were stunning. Razor sharp, grainless, and clearly capable of much greater enlargement.

Unfortunatly, there is no film on the market today (particularly in the restricted selection available in 110 format) that comes even close to the resolution that "old" technology Kodachrome delivered.

About the only thing we can definitively know today is that both of these fine lenses are capable of outperforming any currently available emulsion.

It would be nice if Dwayne's would process hand-slit "reloads" of Kodachrome, so that we could get a real taste of what this format is capable of delivering with top notch optics. (It would be nicer still if Kodak were to pull a few cases of bricks out of the "salt mine" and put them up for sale.)

October 24, 2006

<blockquote><hr>I pretty routinely shoot at 1/2 speed and cut development 20 %. The pics seem to have less internal contrast, but the end points are the same.

Try some and see as it is hard to describe. You will like the finer grain and easier printing too. No they do not come out looking flat and lacking contrast.<hr></blockquote>

Around 1959 or 1960, pretty much all B&W films doubled in speed overnight. There was no change made to the emulsions. The ASA (and/or "the industry") merely reevaluated the "safety factor" built in to the then-current film speeds, and determined that they could safely trim one stop off the speeds without losing too much "safety".

Many people prefer to use the pre-revision speeds, and give a tad less development. The result is a much richer tonality, with smoother gradation, at times approaching that of a next-size-larger format. (The larger the negative, the smoother the gradation.)

October 18, 2006

<blockquote><hr>Regarding EKTAR 25 PHR, are unexposed emulsions back from 1991 or 1993 still out of the freezer still good or just for trash?<hr></blockquote>

I've used Ektar 25 that was ten years out of date, stored at room temperature, with excellent results. Looked good as new. Truly amazing film, but, like apparently all truly amazing films, it's entered the RIP zone.

October 16, 2006

FUD (with rebuttal content interspersed):

Film HAS to be made in certain volumes or it's not even worth cranking up the production line. When demand does not equal that amount of production, manufactureres will stop. <A href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=345100">British Journal of Photography</A><hr>

Excerpts from the linked article:

However, it's an argument built on the fallacy that film is simple. It is not simple. It may be simple to use, but the product itself is extraordinarily complex, its manufacture monumentally difficult and problematic. It involves dozens of processes that have to be monitored to extremely close tolerances, it requires very costly machinery, sophisticated chemical engineering, procurement and storage of a huge range of raw materials, not to mention strict environmental control of toxic processes.

Oh, please. Film can be manufactured using 19th century technology. My proof of this assertion? It was made using 19th century technology -- on a scale that was miniscule compared to even todays scaled-back scale. And, while a lot of it was of lousy technical quality, there was plenty that was of excellent technical quality, proving that excellent film could indeed be manufactured -- on a relatively small scale -- using the technology available in the latter part of the 1800s.

The same cannot be said for digital photography.

Furthermore, all the nasty stuff imputed to the manufacture of film also applies to digital manufacture -- in spades. It's far more complex, far more demanding, and, far more environmentally unfriendly. And, finally, it's far more subject to economies of scale. As evidence, try checking out some electronics hobbyist fora, where people are driven to distraction in their efforts to locate and obtain "NLA" components -- and we're talking about simple components, such as transistors. When a semiconductor device goes out of production, that's all, folks. The only source (in lieu of "compatible" substitutes, which are often themselves NLA) are the occasional parts bin that an old-timer will discover in his heap.

If you think it's tough to restart manufacture of Panatomic X, try seeing what it'd take to start anew with the manufacture of PNP germanium power transistors.

The implication for specialized components used in digital camera production are even more dire. Apart from the frequent lack of any second-sourcing, there's the fact that when they're out of production, they are out of production for keeps.

The complexity of makingfilm means it can never be scaled down to a cottage industry.

Nonsense, as proven by history.

Back in 1980, the price of silver had risen from about $5 per ounce to an eye-watering $21 in the space of two years, but film prices didn't go up.

It actually approached $55 per Troy Oz. (a bit heavier than a "regular" ounce) during the heyday of the Hunt Brothers -- but, the cost of silver -- now, as then -- represents a miniscule percentage of the price of film. There are only a few cents worth of silver in a roll of film. Really.

Consider also that there are many other camera manufacturers who also see a big future in the Asian tiger economies. These companies don't make film and many no longer make film cameras, so it's in their interest to digitise these huge markets.

Are we talking about film manufacture or (new) camera MARKETS? One of these things is not like the other.

Unlike digital cameras, traditional equipment does not have an inherent obsolescence-factor built in. I sometimes use equipment made back in the 1930s -- with excellent results. And I'm by no means pushing the envelope. There are plenty of others using even older equipment, again, with excellent results. Sales hype aside, one does not need to "keep on buyin'" hardware in order to produce decent results using traditional equipment.

This cannot really be said for digital equipment. Plus, repairs and maintenance are often (if not generally) prohibitively expensive, rendering the "repair or replace" question moot. When a part or two cost as much or more than the value of the entire camera (even before labor costs are included), then the camera is not going to be repaired.

This can be viewed as "progress", or, it can be viewed from other perspectives. Regardless, it's of no merit insofar as the question of film manufacture is concerned, the point being that film cameras do not generally become unusable, unrepairable junk, and therefore, even if no manufacturer were to build any more film cameras from this point forth, there would remain countless millions of usable film cameras availavble, needing only a diet of film.

How ironic, that when it's all over, it will be because film is so complex.

The simplicity, so often put forward as film's greatest strength, is just an enduring myth.

High-sounding twaddle.

</blockquote>

This article seems to be written from a certain perspective, and it seems to me, with a certain agenda. It does not strike me as unbiased, let alone accurate.

Film is far from dead, and those intent on convincing us that it is, seem to fall into two main camps -- those manufacturers who have made the decision to "go digital" and cut their ties to traditional photography, and those users who are fixated on being "with it".

For the rest of us old farts, the future looks pretty decent, IMO, Kodachrome notwithstanding (and even with that, I suspect there may be a surprise or two in store for us -- of the positive variety (and this time, no pun intended!)

October 16, 2006

PS: If my memory is not playing tricks on me, the times (as well as temps) are not "standard E6", so, if you are seriously considering this route, please do the web searches, and don't just run your film through an E6 kit at 70 DegF with a prehardener step!

October 16, 2006

Caveat: You're on your own, don't take anything I say now as gospel, do your own due diligence before setting gelatine to soup!

OK, that out of the way, I could swear that a few years ago I read directions for using E6 chems for E4 film. Naturally, it was NOT done at standard E6 temperature, since, as the other poster correctly posited, your emulsion would slip right off the base.

I seem to recall the requirement to mix up (and use) a simple prehardener too (which I also seem to recall being SOP with "real" E4 processing). This was (again, as I recall) a fairly simple thing to mix up, nothing exotic involved.

It might not hurt to do some web searches to see if you can find these directions, presuming I'm recalling correctly, and, that they're still available on some website.

October 15, 2006

I have a question for Lynn: if one uses a 50C filter (something I've not come across) can one simply process the pan film normally or are there any special techniques to achieve the "ortho" effect? I must admit that I'm quite attracted to trying this.

Make sure you know what you want, and what you're getting.

More frequently than not, as of the past several years, when I hear people using the word "ortho", what they really mean is "lith" (as in "Kodalith Ortho").

"Lith film" is frequently (but not always!) "orthochromatic". (It's sometimes panchromatic.)

"Orthochromatic film" is sometimes (but hardly "always") "lithographic" film!

"Lith" ("lithographic") film is ultra-high-contrast film. By "high contrast" I mean "black and white" -- and by "black and white", I mean "black and white" period! Its standard application (in the pre-d_gital epoch) was line copy and halftone printing. When souped in what is colloquially termed "A and B developer" (i.e., a single-based (hydroquinone) developer, with a caustic (lye) accelerator), it would produce a very solid black, a completely clear white, and zero gray steps in between them.

One interesting artifact of the process is dot-growth, which allows its use for halftone applications. The size of the dots produced by a grayscale negative, exposed onto the lith film through a screened mask, is determined by the amount of light hitting the lith film. So, highlight areas (in the negative -- actually shadow areas in the subject) produce larger dots than shadow areas, and, when the plates are made, the larger dots pick up more ink, hence, darker "gray" print on the paper.

The science that explains the relationship between the development byproducts and the hydroquinone is readily available to anyone who is interested (any web search engine will suffice), and, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The main thing is that until the past few years (and I attribute it to nomenclature-careless "photography instructors", as well as the general loss of pictorial othographic films from the marketplace), when one used the term "ortho film", it was understood that one was speaking of a continuous tone film with orthographic spectral sensitivity.

Unfortunately, due to the widespread contemporary misapplication of the term, "ortho film" is meaningless unless one clarifies that he is speaking of either lith film or continuous-tone film.

That said, spectral sensitivity issues aside, there is a black art (pun definitely intended) in using actual lith film as a continuous-tone pictorial film, using soft/compensating developers to allow it to produce an actual grayscale.

These films (Kodalith and its ilk) have extremely fine grain and high resolution, rivalling if not surpassing microfilms such as Tech Pan.

For a while, Kodak sold cassette-spoolings of Kodalith, under a completely different name (I think they called it "Ektagraphic Slide Film" or something like that), to be used for creating title slides for slideshows. The absolute black/white rendition was useful for that application -- but, if you can find any (and as with most ultra-slow emulsions, the keeping qualities should be excellent), you might want to experiment with it as a pictorial film. (They also sold Kodalith Ortho in bulk rolls.)

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that regardless of any filtration used with panchromatic film to produce orthochromatic rendition, you will NOT be able to develop under safelight! So, if that was the goal (for using pan-as-ortho film), it's a non-starter.

October 10, 2006

"Can't I decline?"

:) You know me better than that.

Just enjoy it -- this is my good deed for the year, no strings attached. (I gotta do something to "feel good about myself" :)

October 10, 2006

Robert -- keep your eye on your [snail] mail box. Give me a day or so (you know what I'm dealing with at the moment), and I will take a jaunt out to my freezer, and see if I can help keep those three rolls of yours from feeling quite so lonesome by themselves. (Hopefully *before* "peak fall" hits your region.)

I'm putting this "public" so that you can't graciously decline, heheheheh :)

October 10, 2006

A medley of comments, in no particular order:

I still think that for beauty and honesty, Kodachrome II shot with Summicron glass, is/was the ultimate in 35mm color photography.

Back in the glory days of Kodachrome II, I recall examining some slides shot with the equally glorious Rodenstock Heligon, matched to a humble Kodak Retina. There was something about that lens that just clicked with that film. There are no words to describe the sensation of "being there", falling into the image -- while viewing it with a microscope! It wasn't mere resolution. There was, and still is, "something" about Kodachrome that imparts a presence to the image that nothing else can match. As I said, words can't describe it, so I won't try, other than to suggest doing it -- using the stuff -- if you haven't yet done so yourself. Then you'll know what I'm talking about (but you still won't be able to describe it!)

I've learned since that thread in July that there has been another coating of K-64 in Rochester.

This is probably gonna come off as sarcastic, but it's not. Which Kodachrome 64 did they allow the reprieve? Was it the consumer version? Or the pro version? Or, was it both versions, with the "pro version" staying in storage, ripening until it's time to chill it down to lock it in?

Some years ago I designed a film tank for processing single 35mm rolls in a long strip with Kodachrome's requirement to do colored reversal exposures from both sides of the film. I started building it but when I realised I couldn't just mix chemicals that are purchasable in small quantities (like I can with C41 chemicals from scratch.) I stoped working on it. I thought it would be quite an adventure - sort of like climbing a mountain. The mountain got considerably taller with the key chemical in the Yellow developer requiring analytic chemistry skills to synthesize it.

You wouldn't have been the first. If you spend some quality time scouring the Internet, you'll find that there are a few known instances of "home processing" of Kodachrome over the years. By "a few", I mean something less than a half-dozen -- but, they did it. So, it can be done.

Kodak has to synthesize the strange chemicals (dyes, etc.) that have no other use in the world.

Are you sure of that? I seem to recall reading something, somewhere, some time back about various arcane color couplers and color developing agents being used for various biological purposes (stuff like tissue analysis, I think).

And here's something else to think about while listening to the Lunestra commercials running in the background :)

The fact is -- for the time being, at least -- that someone is making -- and selling -- those chemicals. In the case of Horiuchi, who, unless I'm mistaken, is using a K-Lab, that "someone" is EKC, who sells it prepackaged, ready to go. They list the CAT numbers somewhere online, I've seen them.

Now, if a feller happened to live near one of the many (um, I mean "two") labs running their own K14 lines, and if that feller was friendly with the operators, then that feller might be sore tempted to beg up a storm, asking for the "discarded" chemistry when the machine is reloaded with a fresh batch.

Here's what I'm thinking: They load the machine with fresh soup, and then replenish it for a while, and then dump it out, and repeat the process.

And speaking of "the process", logic would seem to dictate that right up to the moment they dump it -- when they've put the last roll through it before shutting the machine down for the dump/refill operation -- the process must be running up to snuff, turning out good quality results. I assume, in other words, that they're dumping GOOD chemistry -- chemistry that, while "good", is expected to be on its last legs, and, if replenished much longer, won't stay "good" -- so, they dump it before it goes bad.

Can you see what I'm thinking? I'm thinking that the "old" soup, dumped out of the machine, unable to take any further replenishment, might turn out to be just what the doctor ordered for one-shot use at home!

And now, three that sort of fall into a category of their own:

It's sort of odd that companies like Kodak don't do small runs of "classic" films, the same way there are vintage re-issue guitars and such. I swear, if they did a small run of something like Technical Pan, in 35mm 120 & 4x5, it would all sell.

It already sells -- for a king's ransom, even though a glance at the expiration date will reveal that it's getting quite long in the tooth. You'd think someone in Yellowville would be kicking themselves every time they see a roll of "killed-off" film selling for truly staggering prices as the buyers line up to bid each other into the nosebleed section, all desperately trying to be the one who walks home with the brass ring that day. The prices this stuff fetches on ebay are truly mind-boggling.

But then, I think about it, and I recall the stuff I've heard from The Leaders -- stuff about moving toward "The all-digital Kodak" and similar sentiments -- and I start to think that maybe some folks are kicking themselves, cursing "The Beast That Would Not Die!"

I do wish Kodak could figure out how to sell some films through boutique channels. Just a few internet dealers.

I got a chuckle out of reading that. It's not exactly like they'd be forging any new trails, after all. There are plenty of others who are already doing stuff like that, with product types that I guess don't dovetail with an "all-digital" agenda. Hell, they've even got dye transfer materials back in production, and every few months there are more new... um, "old"... um... well, you get the idea. There are more "forgotten" products put into production, and they are aparently being lapped up by a growing segment of aficionados of traditional photography.

This entire market segment -- which increasingly seems to be headed toward what might be described as the non-digital segment -- appears to be at once thriving, and of no interest whatsoever to Kodak.

(Or am I missing something really obvious???)

There were several programs over the years that proposed using one of the small experimental machines for production. These were for trial products to see if there might be a market for them. None of these proposals acutally made it into production and these were cases that had significant upside potential. There was never any interest in moving declining products into small scale coating machines. [emphasis added]

LOL! No interest? Um, I think you mean no interest in Rochester, with the result being that others have taken up the mantle and are running with it.

It's not too late, of course. Kodak could do what others are already doing. And Kodak still owns quite a few very deeply honored brands. Just a quiet little announcement to the effect of a limited run of Panatomic X being released via lottery would result in a massive stampede. And that's just one example out of many.

Please, no one cough up any of the stock answers as to why it can't be done, why it's not practical, blah blah blah. I've heard the party line so many times that I could recite it in my sleep.

The fact is, after all the storm and stress about the "can't happen won't happen that's that" saga, there is one incontrovertible fact staring us in the face: OTHERS are doing it.

And please, don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that these other outfits have some kind of leg up on Big Yeller. Don't tell me that Kodak couldn't make use of the same "advantages" these other outfits have (i.e., regional realities, global cost issues, blah blah blah). Kodak is still a heavy hitter multinational player, with arms all around the globe. If smaller outfits can turn out "boutique" emulsions in Eastern Europe, then certainly KODAK could manage to get "Classic Emulsions" rolling in China, at a cost structure that would likely leave those "poor" Europeans feeling like high-rollers by comparison.

No, I do NOT believe it's a matter of "cannot"; I believe it's a matter of WILL-not. Kodak has made no secret of its sentiments toward what has become the red-haired stepchild of their product lines. The "will" is simply not there, from all appearance that I can see. I don't think it's a matter of convincing them that they could indeed make a go of it (in terms of "boutique films" or how ever you want to phrase it), because I don't think they want to go anywhere near that direction..

I think the decision has been made that digital=good, non-digital=bad, and therefore anything that breathes further life into "that stuff" they've managed to kill off is by its very nature a strategic threat to "digital".

I feel like saying something like, "Yeah, right -- once they take my Kodachrome away I'll have no choice but to scoot down to the Happymart, belly up to the "helpyousir" counter and say, "I'll buy me one a' them thar KODAK cameras -- a Kodak digital camera! Wrap it up, I'm a-takin' this baby HOME!"

And in my darker moments, I feel like some "strategy wonks" upstate are thinking the same kind of thing -- only they're not joking!

And on that note, goodnight.

October 10, 2006

Would anyone like to try out a color negative film with clear base and no dye-masking? (Pet peeve of mine -- it is NOT an "orange layer" -- it is true masking, i.e., the "orange" is ONLY present in areas where the actual dye ISN'T developed.)

If you really would like to try out a film like that, you can do so, with a wide choice of filmspeeds and formats, from 16mm roll to 8x10 sheets.

You should be able to scan it nicely once you work up a scanner profile for it, and, you can soup it in standard C41 developer. Just make sure that you tell the lab dude to disregard the spurious "Ektachrome" label on the package, eh? *snicker*

Cross-proccessing has come of age!

March 9, 2006

Very nice looking cat! (Speaking as an inveterate ailurophile.)

March 9, 2006

<blockquote><hr>Scott Eaton seems to be getting meaner with time. Like wine turning into vinegar. Something has made him so bitter and vitriolic. So sad.

You've said it perfectly.

All I can figure is that he's for whatever reason an "untouchable". I hardly accept the idea that any other user could get away with the stuff he pulls, and retain their membership, let alone the two Magic Icons next to his name. I cannot explain it, but I cannot help but observe it.

And observe it I do, even when I tried clearing my head of the noise by avoiding the place for several months. I stick my head back in, and what do I see, but Scottso, sniping away in a FILM forum. As the poster after you pointed out, if he hates film so much, why does he continue sticking his nose in here? Why is he driven to dive into discussions that are of no putative interest to him, and inevitably piss into the punchbowl?

Like I said, I can't believe that anyone else could get away with it, so, even accepting that he's got some kind of magic annointing that allows him to defecate in anyone's dinnerplate, and get away with it, the big question is why does he do it? Is that any kind of a life? Stalking the message boards, looking for other people's discussions, to jump in, disrupt, attack, insult, berate, and then stalk off, once the damage is done?

I mean, WTF???

March 9, 2006

<blockquote><hr>I've noticed that the most vocal digital haters alwyas have zero uploads, or a portfolio that looks like it was shot by a 7yr old girl on AOL. Gee Ed, why is that?

I've noticed that the most strident film-hating digiteratti seem to be rude, snotty, arrogant, and abusive toward their fellow photographers. Gee, Scott, why is that?

March 9, 2006

<blockquote><hr>The great paradox of the digital age is that film is better than it's ever been.<hr></blockquote>

LOL!

<ul>

<li>Panatomic X</li>

<li>Technical Pan</li>

<li>Kodachrome 25</li>

<li>Ektar 25/Royal Gold 25</li>

<li>Ektar 100/Royal Gold 100</li>

<li>Supra 100</li>

<li>Verichrome Pan</li>

</ul>

Yes, film is better than it's ever been -- presuming you have a large freezer, and the foresight to have stocked up before the best emulsions were discontinued.

March 9, 2006

<blockquote><hr>Antonio Perez has stated that within two years, film "wont matter" to Kodak. He is talking about the financial health of the company.<hr></blockquote>

He's got some catching up to do. Film already "doesn't matter" to Agfa.

Kinda sad watching the PR coming out of Rochester. Reminds me of the story of the Amazing Pig. You've probably heard it. There are many variations, they all have the same theme. A traveling salesman is driving down the road, and he has a flat tire. He manages to pull into the driveway of a farm house, gets out of his car, takes out the jack, and all of a sudden, a pig comes limping out -- it's a three-legged pig. The pig and takes the jack, puts it under the car, jacks it up, changes the tire, releases the jack, hands it back to the salesman, and hobbles off to his wallow.

The salesman is in awe, he can't believe what he just watched. As he's standing there, the farmer comes out, and says, "That's some pig, isn't he?"

The salesman fumbles for words, and says, "Um, yeah, he sure is!"

The farmer invites him in for dinner.

As they're sitting around the table, the farmer tells him about some of the other things the pig has done. One time the farmer fell into a well, and the pig went and got some rope, lowered it, and pulled him out. Another time, the house was on fire, and the pig got everyone out, then put out the fire all by himself.

After hearing several of these tales of bravery and intelligence, the salesman is in complete awe, and he asks, "And it was during one of these events that something happened to injure him, and that's why he's only got three legs?"

The farmer breaks down laughing, and when he finally composes himself, he says, "No, no, that's not it, that's not it at all! He never got hurt doing any of those things!"

The saleman, confused, asks, "Well, then, how come he's only got three legs?"

The farmer looks him in the eye -- and, with a tone of voice suggesting that he is speaking to a complete idiot, explains, "Look, mister -- a pig like that... A pig like that you don't eat all at once!"

March 9, 2006

Max, dozing off as usual...

That looks like a "Gold" Max :) (Is he?) (I guess he could be gray (or "silver"), but he has that "gold" look to me. I have two gold tabbies, one is a total fraidy cat, scared of his own shadow, timidest cat I've ever seen. The other it total swagger, moves slow, not a mean bone in him, built like a tank -- but if he thinks he's offended you, he will run and hide for hours; so gotta be careful not to give him a dirty look or scold him when he hops up in my lap.)

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by reuben_c