A question about future generations

We discussed this a bit in Ron's NYC workshop, and I think glass plates are the wave of the future. You can get them from a hardware store.

Plastic film base needs to be clear and usually has to be subbed to accept the coating, so it's more complicated.

David A. Goldfarb said:

I think the thing I can do is to produce work and show it to people so a few of them might ask how they can do it too.

Click to expand...

YES!

Threads like this cause me to read up once again on the D-200's specs! I keep reminding myself "my Nikkor glass is good, my Nikkor glass is good...."

The other day, in a similar thread PE made a point about people saying, but not doing. Now he starts ANOTHER thread wherein all the same people start saying all the same things about doing what they are very much unlikely to do!

I mean really; cooking up a batch of 120 in your kitchen using the carefully saved paper backs from past rolls? Shooting at speeds of ISO 5?

If we get to that state I think that APUG will have about six members remaining!

I think I'm gonna' be sick....

haris said:

Now, seriously, I have meet lots of young people who find photography, especially b/w prints very interesting, arty, sexy. And some of them would like to practice photography as hobby. But, when I try to "push" them forward, they say despite all that they would use digital imaging.

Click to expand...

I think also that the "cool" factor of film is a two-edged sword. Everybody likes the (now) weird gear, the physico-chemical magic, the Barthesian implications of an analogue workflow etc, but few care to do it, they just want to hang around the cool kids. Think of all the other old stuff we find cool but only few people care to do: driving old 50's cars, dancing the swing, smoking the pipe, wearing a bérêt, going to see silent films, burlesque shows, etc.

I saw an ad for a clothes company once, and it was modeled like a contact sheet of 120 film, as one would expect from a fashion shoot. Edge markings in nice yellow on the black background, sequences, etc. The only difference was that instead of saying "Kodak EPY" or something like that, the "edge markings" gave the name of the brand.

Cool by association, but not by trade, that's the danger.

I think what is more important than looking cool is to underline the uniqueness of the medium. Daguerreotype still exists because there's a reason to use it. I wouldn't want to see silver gelatin go down the same way, but given that it's a product easy enough to use, the entry barrier is lower.

Direct dialogue with the manufacturers is I think a major step that so far only Ilford has done in a solid and stable manner. Why is nobody from Kodak around here (sorry Ron, I just mean someone who is in the house!)? We have some people who supposedly know people in film companies, but we need real people like Simon with real responsibilities. It dispels myths on either side (no PanF+ on sheets, sorry guys!), and it can affect production objectives (120 SFX).

This internet forum is the biggest focus group a film company could ever dream to have. Yes, we talk about stuff that is important to us first, but we are also valuable commercial fodder. Let's make ourselves useful by giving a call to these companies, telling them that it's worth allowing a staff member to surf the forums every once in a while and get involved in the activities.

I think one thing we have to do is to teach how "accessible" these can be.

Paradoxically, photography is always associated with its easiness and technicality at the same time. I do offer beginners classes to introduction to darkroom classes, it would be really hard to find students if we were to cover coating emulsion. Promoting historical processes is already difficult enough to general public.

Though I have to say that people who have taken classes here are getting more familiar with historical processes in general since that is what I do. I show my images in the class casually and also talk about them in the classes. We usually go to galleries and museums in NY to see photography shows to see actual prints. I take all my beginners students to Archive room at Philadephia Museum to show the orignal prints of photographers. So they do get used to seeing them eventually. I want to make sure that they are surrounded by those prints and processes, then they are not so foreign or discouraging.

Once people are comfortable with that level, emulsion coating is one more step ahead of those.

The way we try to promote these processes is the fact that they can manipulate the processes. You can print on different materials to getting different effects. It will bring an element of "craft" to the process and individualize the process. You can change it in any way you like once you understand the process.

So, to me this is a two-step process of getting people used to seeing and hopefully making prints that way.

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi

I agree with what Tsuyoshi is saying about showing how accessible these processes are.

It took me years to buy a darned scale so I could mix up my own developers. Crossing that barrier and experimenting for a few years was what I needed to do to start experimenting with handcoated emulsions and realizing how easy it was.

<< I mean really; cooking up a batch of 120 in your kitchen using the carefully saved paper backs from past rolls? Shooting at speeds of ISO 5? >>

I'd try it. It doesn't sound that hard. I might eat my words after, but I'd come out of it smarter.

Nor does ISO 5 doesn't sound bad to me - again, I might eat my words after.

If people have to make their own plates, it won't be any different than muzzleloader enthusiasts making their own weapons, or flint-knappers doing their thing. Agreed that most will just give it up and move on - but those who are left will be hard-core, and know their stuff inside and out.

I'd guess that when film goes belly-up, chemical photography will be knocked back to the late 1800s, just before Kodak came out with film. The photos will probably be similar to those times, too, but with modern subjects.

You or I could be a Matthew Brady impersonator at a Civil War reenactment.

Somebody mentioned earlier- some people just aren't interested in photography. I'll take that a little further, by adding the fact that as a society we are getting lazier and lazier. Digital photography is great! It's fast (instant feedback), cheap (no more film or processing to pay for), and easy (take a hundred pictures, figure out what you're doing wrong, and correct it if you're so inclined). The learning curve is far less steep that for film. Then on top of things, if the shot isn't quite right, just fix it in photoshop, which is *much* easier to do, with a *far* less steep learning curve than a wet darkroom. Plus way cheaper- no added equipment, as everybody already has a computer. I'll admit this to you guys, but to none of my friends or family who think I'm nuts by "reverting" through analog and B&W photography: I get a much better result much faster in Photoshop than I do after a day in my darkroom. I delve deeper into film because I have a passion for it. It holds that magic for me. Not many "newbies" do though. I see a Digital SLR in my future to compliment but not replace my current gear. When I got back into photography from a mere interest throughout my life to a serious learning endeavor, I made the difficult choice of film or digital. I was only even really aware of 35mm at that time. All the film companies were still going strong... but just. AGFA folded within a year. I chose film to learn by the "school of hard knocks" I called it. If I could figure out color slide film with confidence, I could do any kind of photography. I wanted to learn it "right"....... I'm a rarity it seems- everybody who knows me thinks I'm an oddball. Personally, I think our lazy society is going to doom film photography to the point that it will be very expensive and labour intesive to continue practicing it in the next few decades. Digital is going to be able to replicate what we do to the minutest pixel and strand of fibre. Laziness will prevail....... But in the meantime I'm going to be as loud as I can about my passion, and keep buying the products from companies that will support me. Everything evolves- it's nature.

You might also discover that some older processes make things easier. The self-masking property of printing-out processes makes scenes that have a wide contrast range a snap.

Really, last time when asked someone to give you his/hers address when you got home address? When you gave your home address? Today everyone when asked for address give E_mail addresses. When last time you divided two numbers manually instead using calculator? When last time you wrote letter by hand instead type it on computer, and printed it, if you didn't already send it as E_mail? Why we should preserve photography if we don't preserve hand writting, manual calculation and other good old habbits/krafts?

What I am trying to tell we love photography, but rest of the world see it as handwritting, something nobody except theire grandparents do.

And if young people don't handwrite letters, how do we expect them to performe photography? For them those two things are in same league, that is ancient history.

So, we should raise awareness of good old krafts, photography first, because we are interested in it, but let us try to preserve other things too. What kind of people we are if we fight only for photography and let other old krafts to die? Selfish?

We should try to show t oyoung people that because some knowledge and kraft is old it doesn't mean it is "old" outdated and it will make them outdated. We should try to show that those krafts, photography in first place, will only make them more interesting, more skilfull and more proud to themselves...

OK, now I am talking Utopia, but I can't help myself, I just love those old things, and photography is at top...

Regards

I do agree that some people are not interested in photography. But that is precisely where we need to change the approach.

I think it is difficult to find someone who does not want to do something creative or being/feeling creative about themselves. So, they may not be interested in photography per se, but they can be interested in becoming or feeling creative by "utilizing the medium of photography." I think that is how we should sell photography in general.

People who take classes here are not necessarily interested in photography per se again. They are interested in creative activities. What we have to teach is that photography can be one of those activities. We try to understand that needs and try to nurture it in a way that is welcoming to anyone who may have a difficulties understanding the technical side of photography. I think that is partly why the majority of people who take classes are woman here.

Again, we need to make it accessible to people.

Warmly,
Tsuyoshi

Oh, and I forget ot tell. Two days ago one girl asked me where she can buy that "needle" for tuntable. She found old turntable from her parents and about 1000 vinyl records, and she is more then willing to listen them...

So, there is hope

Roger Hicks said:

Not according to any retailer I've spoken too. High cost of stock; rapid depreciation of stock (as a result of new models); very low mark-ups...

None of it adds up to the sort of revenue (NOT profit) which even allows you to pay a half-sensible wage to half-competent staff.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Well, the Digital Camera phenomenon has brought a lot more customers into the store, and even "if" the margins on digital are smaller, there are several factors here that are not obvious to most people. One thing, is the agressive marketing of the major vendors, where the store can stock a large inventory and not even be required to pay for it for 90 days or more, and the other "hidden" thing is the "spiffs" or comissions paid directly to the sales clerk from the camera manufacturer for each sale. These items encourage sales of the newest, latest product.

Then there are all the "un-needed" accessories and service contracts that most stores try to push onto the consumer, which are almost pure profit, with 100's of percent markup. The customer is more likely to purchase a skylight filter to "protect" the lens of his $1000. digital camera, than he is to do the same for a $250 entry level film SLR. Plus, he needs another battery, a compact flash card or two, a protective carry case, etc.. It is the consumer model for this type of activity that supports the manufacturers of photographic stuff.

haris said:

Oh, and I forget ot tell. Two days ago one girl asked me where she can buy that "needle" for tuntable. She found old turntable from her parents and about 1000 vinyl records, and she is more then willing to listen them...

So, there is hope

Click to expand...

One of my favorite pieces of home theatre equipment is my vintage Thorens. Nobody else I know has a turntable, except my father in law. He still shoots slides. I think it's a personality type. People like us are out there, and yes, We should try to encourage them to bloom. I don't know how easy it will be to convert digi-minded folk in our digi-world. We just have to keep supporting these companies and in turn, hopefully they will continue to support us. Problem with "buying as you need", and not hoarding, is that we never really know when a company is going to go under. If you have a product you love to use, you may not want to risk losing it. Then the death toll sounds, and there's a scramble for everybody to buy up existing stocks (that's how I've observed it, anyway). I've been lucky so far- I haven't used products from any of the companies that have gone under. I'm still sad that I'll not get to explore them, as they sound like great products. There are a number of older products I've read about that have gone the way of the Dodo, that I would have liked to have tried. Moral of this pointless story: God bless Ilford and Fuji.....

timbo10ca said:

Somebody mentioned earlier- some people just aren't interested in photography. I'll take that a little further, by adding the fact that as a society we are getting lazier and lazier.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

timbo10ca said:

Digital photography is great! It's fast (instant feedback), cheap (no more film or processing to pay for), and easy (take a hundred pictures, figure out what you're doing wrong, and correct it if you're so inclined). The learning curve is far less steep that for film. Then on top of things, if the shot isn't quite right, just fix it in photoshop, which is *much* easier to do, with a *far* less steep learning curve than a wet darkroom. Plus way cheaper- no added equipment, as everybody already has a computer.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into the whole A vs. D thing for the millionth time on APUG, but I'd dispute most of the above. D has some advantages but these are frequently over-hyped. A also has advantages and these are often discounted or ignored.

My suggestions -

Firstly promote traditional photography and stimulate interest in it by getting out there in groups and shooting in public places. At every UK Gathering the sight of a few people with old (looking!) cameras usually on tripods has prompted interest and questions. At the very least it combats the myth that film-based photography is already dead.

If it persuades a few to give film another try, or a first try then that's a few more keeping the products we need on the shelves. If not, well we might get a few good images out of it!

How? Attend your local gathering. No local gathering? Post a message on your regional forum and ask if anyone's interested in meeting up for a shoot in or around such-and-such-a-place. Be approachable to passers-by. Don't preach. Be polite and encouraging. If nothing else, it's a day out making photographs!

Don't wait for someone else to do it; you do it! All it takes is a camera and film! Don't just do it once, do it once a month! You might even enjoy yourself!


What else?

[Addendum] Get more manufacturers in touch with the APUG membership. Ilford have engaged and this has brought mutual benfits. Fuji has had some limited contact. Several equipment manufacturers are members. What about the rest?

Do you have a contact at a photo-manufacturing company? Drop them a line and invite them to APUG.

Do you have a manufacturer whose products you would hate to see vanish? Drop them a line, tell them how much you value their products. Invite them here to talk to their customer base. [End Addendum]


If you choose to stockpile film or paper, don't stop buying. Use your stock as a buffer to cushion you against a possible stop in production, but keep buying as you use it and rotate your stock through your freezer on a First-In-First-Out basis.

More?

Build a library of formulae and techniques here on APUG. Preserve the knowledge. With today's technology it might be impractical to have a coating plant with consistant quality on a small scale. We don't know what technology will be around at the point in the future if / when we need it.


The future may not be as bleak as it appears. Ilford have repeatedly stated that they're in it for the long haul. There have been recent posts to the effect that some of the other firms (Kentmere in particular) are doing well too. Products have been discontinued, but others have been brought back and a few new ones have been introduced.

We do what we can. We can do no more than that.

FrankB said:

Agreed.



I'm not going to get into the whole A vs. D thing for the millionth time on APUG, but I'd dispute most of the above. D has some advantages but these are frequently over-hyped. A also has advantages and these are often discounted or ignored.

Click to expand...

I made this statement sort of tongue-in-cheek (although it still rings somewhat true to many ears, mine included). The thought of a film vs digital debate didn't even enter my mind, and I obviously don't want to degenerate to that level. Nonetheless, digital may be over-hyped, but it's a pretty loud voice screaming in the ear of the masses. I commend any ideas such as yours to raise the analog voice as much as we can. Unfortunately, I'm a natural pessimist- I see these little oases of public information as small drops in a large ocean of market- driven digital evolution. In this day and age, there are so many "save the (insert animal, vegetable or mineral here)" causes, you have to start one-upping to get anything done. I wore a yellow wrist band with pride. Now there's a frigging color for every cause out there. Our society is not only getting lazy, but it's getting deaf as well. The obvious is the need to have the TV louder, noise pollution, etc. It's the marketing noise that film is struggling against. To reach the consumer, analog photography has to be loud as well. It has to be more noticeable on a grander scale. I commend what Ilford and Fuji (and others) are doing, but I don't see them running any large film marketing ventures. These are the types of loud voices we need. Marketing to film users is preaching to the choir.

On another note- When I've mentioned APUG to other people I know who have an interest in photography I've explained that it's strictly for film- based stuff, but has great information and they should check it out. I've followed up with telling them that if they are going to post something, even the word "digital" is dirty here, often being referred to as "d-shit-al" or just "D" (personally, I think this is silly- it's out there people, no need to be an ostrich about it). The response is usually a scoff. I figure it's better to fore-warn them, than to have them flamed up the wazoo by making this faux pas and then writing APUG off forever (bad press travels 10 times faster than good too). The religious fervour held by some (although respectable) isn't necessarily helping our cause in a public forum. Yes, there is a mission statement that people read when first coming here, but the way it is upheld can be quite heavy-handed and unsavory. Public image goes a long way.

timbo10ca said:

I've followed up with telling them that if they are going to post something, even the word "digital" is dirty here, often being referred to as "d-shit-al" or just "D" (personally, I think this is silly- it's out there people, no need to be an ostrich about it). The response is usually a scoff. I figure it's better to fore-warn them, than to have them flamed up the wazoo by making this faux pas and then writing APUG off forever (bad press travels 10 times faster than good too). The religious fervour held by some (although respectable) isn't necessarily helping our cause in a public forum. Yes, there is a mission statement that people read when first coming here, but the way it is upheld can be quite heavy-handed and unsavory. Public image goes a long way.

Click to expand...

Actually, the dirty little secret here is that there are a lot of 'puggers who own and use digicams and others who use film but print digitally. The message is not that digital is 'evil', but that there are lots of sites to discuss it other than apug. It doesn't have to be hostile...just accurate.

Actually, the reason people tend not to use the "d" word around here is to prevent APUG from showing up on web searches for information about the photography that dare not speak its name on APUG. It keeps the off topic discussion down.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Actually, the reason people tend not to use the "d" word around here is to prevent APUG from showing up on web searches for information about the photography that dare not speak its name on APUG. It keeps the off topic discussion down.

Click to expand...

Okay I will not use the "d" word.

I've been following the thread and developed a question to myself, which is the practicality of the future photography. Oboviously this thread is geared more toward people interested in LF gears, sheet film type, and wet plates, and so on, right? Whatever these recording formats are, they tend to look like the sets with heavy and steady tripods. The real big stuff.

However, I'm one of the shooters who never use a tripod because my format doesn't go beyond MF size, and I do hand-held street-candid photography and videography to some extent. So, for me to actually continue practicing what I've been practicing is, sadly to start using more of the electronic non-film cameras that weigh about the same as 35mm and MF sets if 35mm and MF rolls disappear.

For printing, I plan to wet my darkroom, so as long as some kind of traditional photographic paper is available, I can keep using it. No problem. But the camera format(s) will definitely be the issue along the way.

So, my ultimate question is, is there a way to make 35mm roll film (with decent coating) at home? Where do I get the materials? How do I make sprocket holes?

No, there is no way to make perfed film at home. Someone would have to build a machine to do it. Coating quality and other factors would also tend to degrade results too much.

PE

Aristotelis Grammatikakis:
What you said!
I agree that we need to leave it to future generations to preserve analog processes. Those that have value will withstand the test of time.

Photo Engineer said:

No, there is no way to make perfed film at home. Someone would have to build a machine to do it. Coating quality and other factors would also tend to degrade results too much.

PE

Click to expand...

So, basically you're saying we will not go beyond the current state of dependence, our manufacturer-dependent attitude for that type of film.

I have a feeling my future camera would be a Sony or Panasonic...

Is there any way to make a 35mm-roll-fim-producing machine to keep running without giving too much hope to the remaining manufacturers? If a machine is too costly to buy, I'm sure it is), can we form a group and fund it, more in a sense, like some people build windmills in their eco-friendly community, generate electoricity, use some of it, and sell the rest to the big energy companies?

The point is to reverse our commercial manufacturer-dependent attitude and start doing the work by outselves first, fulfill our needs, and have the manufactuers and sellers buy the leftovers from us, so they can still do the business, too, but without facing and risking too much of the potential loss.

timbo10ca said:

Somebody mentioned earlier- some people just aren't interested in photography. I'll take that a little further, by adding the fact that as a society we are getting lazier and lazier. Digital photography is great! It's fast (instant feedback), cheap (no more film or processing to pay for), and easy (take a hundred pictures, figure out what you're doing wrong, and correct it if you're so inclined). The learning curve is far less steep that for film. ....

Click to expand...

I think we are lazy when we argue like this. The fact of the matter is that the growth of digital photography is a direct result of the universality of PCs. Once a society crosses the threshhold and PC's become prevelant it is only a matter of course that more and more uses will become "digitized" to take advantage of that infrastructure.

In fact, to master Photoshop requires a hell of a lot of effort. Effort you and I may not want to undertake - but someone who does so is certainly not "lazy".

I actually took a course in PS last year taught by someone who works in the NYC advertising biz. She dazzled me with her ability to zoom into pics and adjust individual pixels and then zoom out and work of various areas of an image rapidly employing a vast array of tools available to her.

She was a frenzy of knowledgable activity and certainly not LAZY!

I prefer film photography over digital. But I think it is cavalierly out-of-touch to argue that an accomplished digital photographer/processor is LAZY!

It's one thing to favor our "art" over theirs - but to denegrate accomplished people because they have a different approach is unnecessary.