Film is not dead: Demand soars for vintage cameras in developing trend

Sal Santamaura said:

Those who rely on an understanding of the natural world via science take such things into consideration when selecting a San Clemente home location. I will say it was very entertaining during the 1982-1983 El Niño to leave our house and go look over the Capistrano Beach bluff edge, wearing full rain gear, watching science-eschewing people's homes disintegrate, then wash out to sea. Perhaps they were relying on "magic" for protection.

Click to expand...

I grew up in Capistrano Beach, one block from the border of San Clemente, probably within walking distance of you. And I saw a picture of that house that fell down the bluff in the mudslide. Our house is a few blocks inland, so we were safe, but I've always been surprised that folks build houses near those bluffs.

In 1969, there was a long rain that caused many houses in the Shorecliffs development to shift and crack a lot. It also caused our house to sink 4 inches in the middle.

@Huss - This thread hasn't devolved; it evolved.

Sal Santamaura said:

Been a resident of this city since 1978.



I've as much (little, if any) interest in sports as in rock "music." Nonetheless, Magic amazed the masses with his skillful understanding of physics and excellent muscle control, the same way illusionists do with "magic."



In 1967, throughout high school and college, in fact from birth until 1978, I lived first in New York City and then suburbs just outside it. There was no 65-degree weather in December through March, I quite assure you. And anthropogenic global warming hadn't yet reduced the average snowfall in those places to any significant degree.





Those who rely on an understanding of the natural world via science take such things into consideration when selecting a San Clemente home location. I will say it was very entertaining during the 1982-1983 El Niño to leave our house and go look over the Capistrano Beach bluff edge, wearing full rain gear, watching science-eschewing people's homes disintegrate, then wash out to sea. Perhaps they were relying on "magic" for protection.



About most things, even before high school. Not much credible new evidence has turned up since to cast doubt on my conclusions.

Click to expand...

Good responses. And just to be clear, my livelihood is completely dependent upon my use of applied math and sciences, and the same holds for my wife. Neither of us go in for any sort of mysticism. My comments/questions were meant to be lighthearted.

Huss said:

Photrio - the site where a discussion for the demand of vintage film cameras devolves into houses being washed into the ocean.

Click to expand...

There was most probably some film in that house.

Pieter12 said:

There was most probably some film in that house.

Click to expand...

Give it a long wash to get the salt water off, it should be fine.

VinceInMT said:

While I suggested “wonder” as an alternative to ”magic” to explain the experience many of us have had, it struck me today that the word “awe” is probably closer to it...

Click to expand...

Why, I wonder, are photographers not just as "awed" by a beautiful print emerging from an inkjet printer?

Sal Santamaura said:

Why, I wonder, are photographers not just as "awed" by a beautiful print emerging from an inkjet printer?

Click to expand...

We expect that all our electronic gizmos work properly.

Oldwino said:

We expect that all our electronic gizmos work properly.

Click to expand...

I expect them to fail.

Sal Santamaura said:

Why, I wonder, are photographers not just as "awed" by a beautiful print emerging from an inkjet printer?

Click to expand...

First, because you have already seen what the print will look like on the monitor if all is calibrated correctly. And secondly, maybe because there is less physical interaction with the printer, less of a feeling of success (or disappointment) at the outcome. Of course, there's nothing like the feeling of seeng a large, beautiful inkjet print emerging from the printer with tracks from clogged heads or stains from excess ink.

Pieter12 said:

Of course, there's nothing like the feeling of seeng a large, beautiful inkjet print emerging from the printer with tracks from clogged heads or stains from excess ink.

Click to expand...

It's like magic! It's like magic a second time when the printer disappears into the dumpster. Now you see, it, now you don't.

Sal Santamaura said:

Why, I wonder, are photographers not just as "awed" by a beautiful print emerging from an inkjet printer?

Click to expand...

I was awed when I had my 8 1/2x11 Epson printer. And I'm awed when I see my slide shows on my 75" 4K TV. This whole debate that chemical prints are awesome and inkjet prints aren't is just silly. Watching a white piece paper go into a jet printer and seconds later roll out all colored like the photo you took is little different than watching the colors emerge from a chemically treated paper.

Agulliver said:

Smaller flats/apartments have bathrooms of course, but often quite small...and where does one keep the enlarger and other paraphernalia when not in use? These homes don't have storage closets, don't have garages, basements or attics, don't have spare rooms.

Yes, the changing bag enables processing. I keep all my processing equipment in one bucket so it's easy to store in an enclosed porch when not in use. The desktop PC has an older Epson V series scanner. Wet printing waits until I can commandeer a bedroom at my mother's house where my enlarger lives. Though I do have a garage, it's full of camping equipment which is more frequently used.

Click to expand...

Periodically my developing room has to revert to a guest bathroom when I have visitors. I have a film drying chamber made from a garment bag that is easily removed at those times and folds up compactly.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Watching a white piece paper go into a jet printer and seconds later roll out all colored like the photo you took is little different than watching the colors emerge from a chemically treated paper.

Click to expand...

One big difference is that there isn't much awe involved in watching a "chemical" colour print emerging, because the lights are off, and you can't see anything
For the black and white prints, most of the awe, for me, comes from the translation that happens - starting from the rather strange and foreign negative image seen under the enlarger, applying the alchemical incantations of hand waving including burning and dodging, and then seeing the results appear, as if by magic, in the tray before me.
I never made Cibachrome prints in the darkroom. If I had, I may not have enjoyed those as much as I enjoy printing black and white.

The magic is watching the Kreonite machine put out color prints.

There was nothing quite like seeing a Ciba come out of the drum. Now it's Fuji Supergloss. But these need to be dry to appreciate the true end result. Same with B&W prints; how they look in a tray under the safelight can be deceptive.

The delight for me is really that all the effort I put into making that print--from the initial exposure to the print in the inspection light--has come out looking like what I was aiming for, sometimes even better. Of course, the opposite happens, too. When something unexpected happens to the film, processing or printing of the image. Then it's black magic I suppose.

Sirius Glass said:

The magic is watching the Kreonite machine put out color prints.

Click to expand...

The magic fades a bit when you are watching the Kreonite put out the the roll of paper that contains the many, many machine prints you just made using your Durst Lab Miniprinter.

MattKing said:

The magic fades a bit when you are watching the Kreonite put out the the roll of paper that contains the many, many machine prints you just made using your Durst Lab Miniprinter.

Click to expand...

Kodak handled the maintenance for the Kreonite machine.

Sirius Glass said:

Kodak handled the maintenance for the Kreonite machine.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the roll of freshly completed prints - sometimes hundreds on the same roll, one after another.
We used the Kreonite to process both the roll output from the machine printer, which I mostly operated, and either single sheet or roll easel output from the enlargers used for custom enlargements, mostly operated by the owner.
And our machines were maintained by ourselves and local, independent for hire technicians.

Sal Santamaura said:

Why, I wonder, are photographers not just as "awed" by a beautiful print emerging from an inkjet printer?

Click to expand...

Oldwino said:

We expect that all our electronic gizmos work properly.

Click to expand...

So? I expect my trays of developer and fixer to work properly too.

Pieter12 said:

First, because you have already seen what the print will look like on the monitor if all is calibrated correctly...

Click to expand...

No one has ever seen what an inkjet print will look like by viewing a monitor image, irrespective of how well the workflow has been "calibrated." They cannot be the same, one on paper viewed via reflected light and the other on a screen via transmitted light. The only way to determine what the print will look like is to use paper and ink.

Pieter12 said:

...And secondly, maybe because there is less physical interaction with the printer, less of a feeling of success (or disappointment) at the outcome...

Click to expand...

Interaction is with the file, and it's no more trivial in pursuit of print excellence than is physical interaction with darkroom chemicals/paper. I've had just as many feelings of success or disappointment making inkjet prints as darkroom prints. Neither is easier than the other.

Pieter12 said:

Of course, there's nothing like the feeling of seeng a large, beautiful inkjet print emerging from the printer with tracks from clogged heads or stains from excess ink.

Click to expand...

Proper maintenance of inkjet printers is no less important than, say, proper removal of fixer from darkroom prints prior to selenium toning. There's nothing like the feeling of seeing a large, beautiful fiber-base print stained streaky yellow from inadequate inter-step washing.

MattKing said:

I'm talking about the roll of freshly completed prints - sometimes hundreds on the same roll, one after another.
We used the Kreonite to process both the roll output from the machine printer, which I mostly operated, and either single sheet or roll easel output from the enlargers used for custom enlargements, mostly operated by the owner.
And our machines were maintained by ourselves and local, independent for hire technicians.

Click to expand...

At Kodak, one would put in the sheet of exposed paper, go out of the room through a revolving door into the hallway, down the hall to next next door and then when in the room the print comes out.

Sirius Glass said:

At Kodak, one would put in the sheet of exposed paper, go out of the room through a revolving door into the hallway, down the hall to next next door and then when in the room the print comes out.

Click to expand...

When there were the one-hour photo stores, you'd go into the shop and an hour later you'd walk out with an envelope full of negatives and two 4x6" color prints of each shot. That seemed pretty magical to me since I last saw a shrunken head at the museum.

Sal Santamaura said:

No one has ever seen what an inkjet print will look like by viewing a monitor image, irrespective of how well the workflow has been "calibrated." They cannot be the same, one on paper viewed via reflected light and the other on a screen via transmitted light. The only way to determine what the print will look like is to use paper and ink.

Click to expand...

The only time I felt wonder or awe from an inkjet print was because it was printed much larger than my monitor size. Otherwise, as you say, they tend to fall flat of what you see on the screen. And not to start a different conversation about wet vs inkjet prints, the undo button in the darkroom is the trash can.

Pieter12 said:

The only time I felt wonder or awe from an inkjet print was because it was printed much larger than my monitor size. Otherwise, as you say, they tend to fall flat of what you see on the screen. And not to start a different conversation about wet vs inkjet prints, the undo button in the darkroom is the trash can.

Click to expand...

A "print" looks even better on a 75" 4k HDR TV than a monitor.

MattKing said:

One big difference is that there isn't much awe involved in watching a "chemical" colour print emerging, because the lights are off, and you can't see anything

Click to expand...

I learned to print in color in an Army Special Services darkroom, south on Mainz, Germany in the early/mid-70s. We used Agfacolor paper and chemicals and it was open tray at room temperature. Time in the developer was close to 15-20 minutes and by then, under that dark green safelight, I could see the image. Not the color but the image, sort of.

Sirius Glass said:

The magic is watching the Kreonite machine put out color prints.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

The magic fades a bit when you are watching the Kreonite put out the the roll of paper that contains the many, many machine prints you just made using your Durst Lab Miniprinter.

Click to expand...

Well, the magic is different for different people. A lot of people from my era sorta got hooked by seeing an 8x10" b&w image start to appear in a tray under safelight.

When I first moved into photo lab work, mid 1970s, my intention was to learn about color processing, which seemed sort of a black art back then. I kinda went thru the trenches, so to speak, running a paper processor for a while. These were the old Kodak 4C processors, continuous machines (heat-splice rolls together, on the fly), running maybe 14 (?) feet/minute. Three of those running, all on the same concrete pad, was about the most amazing thing I had ever seen in photography. All high-volume portrait work, exposed by package printers from 70mm film. That's, let's see, 3 x 14 x (12/8) equals 'bout 60 8x10" portrait "units" per minute.

Years later the company had gone to all Pako CP6000 processors, arguably the industry's biggest work horses. We ran ours at 28 feet/minute with 3 lanes of 10" paper... a single CP6000 could put out about double the volume of all three of those old Kodak machines. That is, about 125 8x10" units every minute. There was an area where they rolled up, maybe 2 or 3 feet long where you could watch the finished prints rolling up under a high-quality light.

When I was a QC guy I used to spend a fair amount of time with the tech reps from Kodak, Konica, and Fuji. We were always amused when they had a "new guy" with them, getting broken in. We'd typically give a brief tour - whatever they wanted the new guy to see. But whenever the new guy saw the take-up on a CP6000 it was like they got stuck there with glue. You could get "eyes on" a particular image for maybe 2 seconds before it winds up, then jump your eyes to another, etc. Within a half minute or so they'd start calling out to their cohorts, "Hey you guys, come look at this! These are GOOD... these are REALLY good!" We'd typically be standing around shooting the bull while they let the new guy gorge on the eye candy a little bit. (Everyone understands cuz they've all been there.) After maybe 5 minutes, which is really quite a long time, the new guy can finally pull himself away, but just wants to talk for a while about what he's just seen. They reassure him that yes, they know, etc.

Anyway, it seems mostly relative to what you've seen before.