Doom, Gloom and Reality

TPPhotog · May 28, 2005

I agree with you Ian, things change but life continues.

Both in your area and the midlands as a whole have seen industries come and go, however many of the skills and products have not been lost from the market. They just have new names and are made in other parts of the world. I'm sure there will be plenty of places that will be more than happy to supply a market where there is a known demand.

Flotsam · May 28, 2005

There must be a lot of industrial film and paper making machinery coming onto the market, not to mention people, recently unemployed, with the expertise to operate it. Also an existing international distribution network.
It would seem that someone could make something of that.

Aggie · May 28, 2005

All this gloom and doom.....I call this Photo Marketing Syndrom. PMS give it time and it too shall pass!

c6h6o3 · May 28, 2005

Flotsam said:
There must be a lot of industrial film and paper making machinery coming onto the market, not to mention people, recently unemployed, with the expertise to operate it. Also an existing international distribution network.
It would seem that someone could make something of that.

Sure. Given unlimited time and money, we can accomplish anything.

Photo Engineer · May 28, 2005

There is a way to make your own film and paper. There are people working on this to preserve our hobby.

Unfortunately, color is probably beyond the realm of possibility for us, but black and white films and papers matching those of the 30s and 40s are possible, perhaps even some from the 50s.

PE

rbarker · May 28, 2005

Aggie said:
All this gloom and doom.....I call this Photo Marketing Syndrom. PMS give it time and it too shall pass!

I think you're right, Aggie. This form of PMS is treated with Fidol - finances injected into the company's cash account.

Jennifer · May 28, 2005

Hi,
Agfa trouble, high gas prices, terrorists, digigizmo cameras. Perhaps the world is going to end !. On a brighter note, I wonder how Ilford is doing, and
their future ?.

Jennifer

WarEaglemtn · May 28, 2005

"So if Agfa went completely, or Forte ceased production there's plenty of companies who can fill their place in the market with the products we require."

No, there aren't. Agfa 111 is a product no one else makes. Forte Polygrade V is a product no one else makes.

These companies have specific products some of us like and the competition does not have these products. Just as it is with Kodak and Azo.

If the companies quit making the products we don't really have a choice other than "make do" with what is left. Over and over and over again the 'make do' product is inferior to what we were using.

Hand coated & hand made emulsions and products have more to recommend them every day.

At the increasing prices of silver papers it may soon be less expensive to print pt/pd all the time.

srs5694 · May 28, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
There is a way to make your own film and paper. There are people working on this to preserve our hobby.

Do you happen to have any URLs? I'm certainly not planning on setting up my own home film-making line any time soon (I'm not in the "the sky is falling" camp), but I'm curious about the process, requirements, etc. Maybe in 10-20 years it'll start looking appealing, too....

WarEaglemtn · May 29, 2005

http://www.cwreenactors.com/collodion/

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/bestvintage/multimedia_vid2.html

The second link will get you a little movie on your screen. Shows how the process works.

Here in Utah we have a couple guys who will be putting on a workshop for wet plate photography and Ambrotypes. It is worth going to. If wanted, I can post info when I find out the date & cost of their next one.

Photo Engineer · May 29, 2005

I think that the URL posted above will serve to show how complex it can be.

There are many sites that refer to this and similar methods.

It is not an easy or inexpensive process, but it may come to us doing it ourselves someday. I certainly hope not.

PE

isaacc7 · May 29, 2005

WarEaglemtn said:
"So if Agfa went completely, or Forte ceased production there's plenty of companies who can fill their place in the market with the products we require."

No, there aren't. Agfa 111 is a product no one else makes. Forte Polygrade V is a product no one else makes.

These companies have specific products some of us like and the competition does not have these products. Just as it is with Kodak and Azo.

If the companies quit making the products we don't really have a choice other than "make do" with what is left. Over and over and over again the 'make do' product is inferior to what we were using.

With all due respect, are you a photographer or an Agfa 111 user? Surely you can make good photographs with other materials. Most of the doom and gloom I hear from people revolves around the inevitable discontinuance of pet products. I understand really liking a product, I don't understand being wedded to one. I don't know if I have even seen a photograph that couldn't have been done with different materials. Or to put it another way, I've never seen a silver photograph that "worked" because of the materials used. If Agfa papers are discontinued (and I'm sure they will be eventually), I'll use another brand... I'm willing to bet that there have been far more analog products discontinued between 1950 to 2005 than there will be between 2005 and 2050. Photographers always managed to cope before, why not now?

Isaac

c6h6o3 · May 29, 2005

isaacc7 said:
I've never seen a silver photograph that "worked" because of the materials used.

I have. I've seen many large format contact prints which just wouldn't work if either enlarged or contact printed on enlarging paper. They have to be printed on contact paper, of which there is only one left.

In general, I agree with you. But there are some unique products for which there is just no substitute. Amidol is another such product, although I think there's little danger of that ever being unavailable.

Donald Qualls · May 29, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
Unfortunately, color is probably beyond the realm of possibility for us, but black and white films and papers matching those of the 30s and 40s are possible, perhaps even some from the 50s.

If we can make panchro B&W materials (and panchromatizing is trivial compared to getting the film speed above ISO 100), we can do color the old fashioned way: via tri-color. The resulting separation negatives can be printed via tri-color gum or carbro. You could even, in theory, make color prints in three stages with the venerable salted paper process, using bleach/redevelop processes with dye toners that use industrial chemistry -- coat, print, fix, bleach/tone, and repeat for the next color.

It's a lot of work, and most amateurs won't bother, but color photography based on silver chemisty won't disappear -- it existed long before Kodachrome, even a couple decades before Autochromes (and prior to 1900). And there's always color Daguerreotypy, which dates back to (IIRC) the 1870s...

Ian Grant · May 29, 2005

isaacc7 said:
With all due respect, are you a photographer or an Agfa 111 user? Surely you can make good photographs with other materials.

Isaac

Quite right Isaac

In fact the Agfa warm toned paper I used changed quite significantly when they had to remove the Cadmiun about 16 or 17 years ago, (Record Rapid possibly called Portriga in the US). Then the paper was replaced by VC Classic. So change is forced upon us by manufacturers.

We are talking fine nuances in tones and colours with different papers and there are various ways of altering these anyway.

Anyway my point was that if some popular papers disappear other manufactures will be asked to fill the gap and make a similar product.

I started this thread because the doom and gloom of companies possibly ceasing trading is actually going to boost the sales of the smaller companies who remain in the market if it happens.

Ian

Dr.Kollig · May 29, 2005

Guess my darkroom is turning into a museum for not available products. Lots of Agfa. Thankfully Fomatone was rescued, by Fotoimpex etc., but is softer and warmer than Agfa. Agfa MC 111 was the cheapest good lithing paper.

isaacc7 · May 29, 2005

c6h6o3 said:
I have. I've seen many large format contact prints which just wouldn't work if either enlarged or contact printed on enlarging paper. They have to be printed on contact paper, of which there is only one left.

In general, I agree with you. But there are some unique products for which there is just no substitute. Amidol is another such product, although I think there's little danger of that ever being unavailable.

And I'd say that if the type of paper and developer used is what determines weather a print is "working" or not, than it is a pretty marginal image. Obviously what "works" for someone is pretty subjective, but for me craft can accentuate an image, but it can never save one. I have zero interest in how someone shoots or prints their stuff, all I care is if I like it. The same goes for my own stuff. I get the feeling that some on this board would stop taking pictures if their favorite materials went away and that seems very strange to me. Whenever you depend on a commercial product to do what you love, expect change to happen eventually.

Isaac

Photo Engineer · May 29, 2005

I would have to agree with Isaac. Since enlarging and contact papers are made to the same specification regarding characteristic curve, with the only difference being speed, I would say that prints should be identical.

If you see any difference it may be due to reciprocity failure. The two papers are designed for different light intensity for the most part, and that must be taken into account when using these two materials for contact printing or enlarging.

PE

WarEaglemtn · May 29, 2005

"I don't know if I have even seen a photograph that couldn't have been done with different materials."

One can always print with different materials just as an oil painter can use pastels. But different materials often do NOT give you the print you are after.

Removing cadmium from warmtoned papers screwed up things for a lot of us. Yes, we can 'make do' but the prints are not what we had in mind when we exposed our negatives for specific papers.

Platinum/palladium prints are our creation with hand coating. Oftimes we make negatives to fit specific papers and/or processes and losing the paper we plan on requires compromises that 'just.... don't.... work'.

"nd I'd say that if the type of paper and developer used is what determines weather a print is "working" or not, than it is a pretty marginal image."

It is not a question of whether the print works or not but HOW it works. I want some images to look like I want them to work. When the materials dissappear & I can't do what I like any longer I won't print that image again unless I find something I consider better. So, some older images are no longer printed as the whole idea can't be completed as I want with the materials no longer available.

c6h6o3 · May 29, 2005

Photo Engineer said:
I would have to agree with Isaac. Since enlarging and contact papers are made to the same specification regarding characteristic curve, with the only difference being speed, I would say that prints should be identical.

They're not made to the same specifications. The emulsions are different, since Azo is pure silver chloride. Sometimes it's the qualities you can't measure which make all the difference.

isaacc7 · May 29, 2005

WarEaglemtn said:
It is not a question of whether the print works or not but HOW it works. I want some images to look like I want them to work. When the materials dissappear & I can't do what I like any longer I won't print that image again unless I find something I consider better. So, some older images are no longer printed as the whole idea can't be completed as I want with the materials no longer available.

Fair enough, but it seems as though you have two options. Either just give up and relegate the older negs to obscurity so as not to compromise your artistic integrity, or loosen up and adapt. I have a hard time believing that images that were printed 20 years ago on warm tone paper cannot be effectively printed with today's materials. To me, the idea that I won't print old images simply because older materials are no longer available is silly. I make them work with newer materials. No, they don't look EXACTLY the same, but nobody really cares, including me. I get much more out of struggling with an image than I do with repeating old techniques. There are many possibilities in a neg, sometimes a forced switch of materials is just the kick in the rear we need to find them. This is how I try to look on the bright side

Isaac

isaacc7 · May 29, 2005

c6h6o3 said:
They're not made to the same specifications. The emulsions are different, since Azo is pure silver chloride. Sometimes it's the qualities you can't measure which make all the difference.

I gotta point out how silly this is. I realize you're using a bit of hyperbole, but if the paper makes all the difference, why not just do photograms? If the paper makes the image, than the print is about the paper and not about the image. Craft worship is an easy trap to fall into, but it has severe consequences, especially when the materials you need go out of production. If you're worried about the continual availibility of a certain product, my best advice is to start shooting so that you don't need it anymore. Enjoy it while it's here but adapt and move on when (not if) the materials go away.

Isaac

jjstafford · May 29, 2005

isaacc7 said:
I gotta point out how silly this is. I realize you're using a bit of hyperbole, but if the paper makes all the difference, why not just do photograms?
Isaac

that is hyperbole with a twist of strawman

Photo Engineer · May 29, 2005

Just a note to pyrogallol and wareagle above.

Some enlarging papers are chlorides and some contact print papers are chlorides. Some papers are chlorobromides or chloroiodides. The final result depends on the manufacturer and the emulsion formula and the chemicals added.

Also, cadmium was used in both enlarging and contact papers, but not for image tone. It was used to adjust the curve shape and control reciprocity. If it toned the image, that was incidental to its primary effect. When it was eliminated, the manufacturers modified the formulation to match the original tone as closely as possible. Further adjustment is possible by altering the developer and by post process toning.

As you say, photography is an art and what the artist does is more important than anything else to the final art work. Canvas and oil paints have changed to the point where we now have canvasboard and acrylic paints but masterworks are being made with the new media. Masterworks are still possible with the remaining photo products unless you want to make them yourselves.

My point is being overlooked. There are enlarging papers and developers out there than can give results either identical or closely identical to contact papers. In that I was agreeing with Isaac. By careful work and some testing you can produce prints as good or perhaps better than you did before. Who can tell until you try.

PE

isaacc7 · May 29, 2005

jjstafford said:
that is hyperbole with a twist of strawman

I agree that it was ridiculous, but in my opinion so is saying that a particular paper is necessary to make an image work. People that claim that such and such film, paper, or developer are necessary for an image to work are (once again IMO) putting too much emphasis on materials dependant craft. In addition, the idea that a certain paper etc. can "make" a picture and no other one can is not a position I'd like to get in. It says a lot about the image if the paper is the determining factor...

To get back on topic, the reality of the situation is that materials come and go, they always have and they always will. Despite all the change in the commercial products over the past 100 years, photographers have managed to adapt and continue making great (and lots of not so great) pictures. All I'm saying is that the next 100 years won't be all that different from the last.

Isaac

Doom, Gloom and Reality

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency