So then, in the same way it is not realistic for a painter to paint all the paintings they want to view?
Makes no sense to me to scan. They make digital cameras to avoid the hassle of all that if one can't be bothered to make art.
It’s not realistic for the average person to print all of the work they want to have as viewable.
I liked the Thrifty ice cream.
When it was announced that Kodak was discontinuing UltraColor 400 film, I walked over to Thrifty and asked the manager if I could just buy all the film in the UltraColor section to free up his shelf space. I no longer remember what I paid, but I bought 5 feet of shelf space, three rows high for not much money per roll at the time. I still have that film frozen in my freezer.
Yes, but I already had an ISP for internet so that cost did not go up.
It’s not realistic for the average person to print all of the work they want to have as viewable.
Scanning serves many functions.
- A good replacement for contact sheets and drugstore prints, to simply see what you got.
- A way to share your work with others quickly and in a multitude of ways.
- A way to print really big without having to master that and get giant trays.
- A way to do with all the data on the film, what would be hard or impossible to do in a darkroom.
What’s more colour/RA4 is not as accessible as B&W to the beginner. So it’s a good way to get colour prints, if and only if the scan is good.
Scanning is here to stay. You might as well embrace it. You have almost all the benefits of film combined with the benefits of digital manipulation.
What’s more, other processes in the past and today for capturing and reproducing film images also involved steps and media that didn’t have the characteristics of photo paper or was in some respects almost digital.
Various types of printing for books, magazines and posters come to mind.
Never heard sneering or particular bias towards those.
On the contrary photo books are very respected as reproductions of an artist oeuvre. Whether captured from prints or directly from the negative or chrome.
That's what I thought. Yet the owner of CatLABS in the recent thread hawking his new film told me I was wrong when I said most young film enthusiasts don't have darkrooms. Sometimes it's hard to know what's true on the internet.
So then, in the same way it is not realistic for a painter to paint all the paintings they want to view?
Makes no sense to me to scan. They make digital cameras to avoid the hassle of all that if one can't be bothered to make art.
Your missed slide video shows for Youtube and for your home TV and desktop monitor, as well as your friend's cellphones. Here are some I have on Youtube (Scuba is scanned film, rest are originally digital) with lots more on my 4K TV that I don;t post on Youtube because they're personal.
As far as I can make out, there is increased interest in *using* a full dark room. But few people have one in their homes, especially younger folk. Housing costs for one thing, fewer people have the space to construct one or money to buy the gear. Hence the Ilford pop up dark tent.
We had bathrooms before we had the Ilford pop up tent. Do young people not have bathrooms? And what about the changing bag and kitchen counter for developing film.As far as I can make out, there is increased interest in *using* a full dark room. But few people have one in their homes, especially younger folk. Housing costs for one thing, fewer people have the space to construct one or money to buy the gear. Hence the Ilford pop up dark tent.
Sigh...! Film has a number of characteristics that make it better image sensor than even the best CMOS. So a camera can "scan" better image, especially when cropping and stitching, than the camera would be able to on its own.
Thanks. True, but I was thinking of example two as that.
Well, the cable company's charge for cable usually includes a connection to the internet. My Comcast charge which includes a 200MB bandwidth, TV stations, and landline ISOP telephone runs around $225 a month about $75 more than they charged two years ago. The problem is there is no competition for us. We're stuck with Comcast if we want cable. Then you add Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other services, communication services really starts to add up. Oh, then cell phone service, XM Serius for two cars, etc. I guess it's better than trying to get rid of the snow on TV's from rabbit ears antennas.
Well, the cable company's charge for cable usually includes a connection to the internet. My Comcast charge which includes a 200MB bandwidth, TV stations, and landline ISOP telephone runs around $225 a month about $75 more than they charged two years ago. The problem is there is no competition for us. We're stuck with Comcast if we want cable. Then you add Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other services, communication services really starts to add up. Oh, then cell phone service, XM Serius for two cars, etc. I guess it's better than trying to get rid of the snow on TV's from rabbit ears antennas.
So then, in the same way it is not realistic for a painter to paint all the paintings they want to view?
Makes no sense to me to scan. They make digital cameras to avoid the hassle of all that if one can't be bothered to make art.
As far as I can make out, there is increased interest in *using* a full dark room. But few people have one in their homes, especially younger folk. Housing costs for one thing, fewer people have the space to construct one or money to buy the gear. Hence the Ilford pop up dark tent.
Someone should reintroduce the daylight enlarger. An enlarger that is set up for one or up to three smaller sizes, with a bellows or cone covering the projection and paper.
This would truly make wet printing avalible again. But of course would overemphasize one size and would make burning a dodging trickier (masking would still be possible).
But totally worth sacrificing that for just being able to print.
I dont have the space, money and time to make darkroom prints. I dont even have a printer.
So you're like those old-timey photographers who push the button and let Kodak do the rest. Sort of returning to photography's roots. Admirable. There may be a market for bustles for women photographers and bowlers for men photographers. The evolution of the hipster.
We had bathrooms before we had the Ilford pop up tent. Do young people not have bathrooms? And what about the changing bag and kitchen counter for developing film.
Of course being able to quickly develop your own film eliminates the exquisite sense of anticipation of waiting four or five days to get your film back from the film processor, which young people cite as one of the main reasons they shoot film.
And when the enlarger is not in your bathroom?
I think you overestimate the amount of space the average film shooter has.
Both in the bathroom and in the rest of the apartment.
I’d estimate that there is probably almost an inverse reciprocity between how likely someone is to shoot film and who wants to print and how much space they have available.
People who live in a house and in large apartments tend not to have the time for or interest in film.
With a tonne of exceptions of course.
Loading film onto a spiral can be a real nightmare for someone not used to it. They don’t “just have a sacrificial roll of film” to practice on.
Most people don’t have the tenacity to practice either.
When you got it you got it. But that can take a lot of tries.
And what to do when something unforeseen happens? The film binds, you forgot the scissors, something gets wet or dropped?
There really is no good tutorial or school to learn this for the vast majority of people.
We had bathrooms before we had the Ilford pop up tent. Do young people not have bathrooms? And what about the changing bag and kitchen counter for developing film.
Definitely a million reasons you can't do something you are not really interested in doing anyway. It's a miracle any of us learned to develop our own film and make our own prints. My mom and dad just took our vacation pictures to the drugstore, and that worked out pretty well for them. Same should do for many young film enthusiasts. I'm not faulting them. I like to drive but I never learned to overhaul a car engine. Never had any interest in doing so. I just take my car to a mechanic when the need arises. Besides, I never had a shade tree so I couldn't have learned to do it even if I wanted to.
Better yet self developing film. I bet that would be real popular.
Polaroid's been there, done that. A screaming failure. Polarchrome, Polapan and Polagraf 35mm instant films. Very delicate emulsions, the black & white positive film had an interesting look.
According to this wikipedia article, Polachrome "remained in production for nearly 20 years," suggesting to me that it was reasonably successful.
Anyway, I used the hybrid process (develop+scan) for 20 years or so. It was only when a coworker gave me his enlarger that I built a darkroom and got to enjoy that half of film photography. If hybrid boosts film-sales, I'm all for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?