Gelatin silver printing is now a historic process

[Photo Engineer]

And on top of that, AFAIK Kodak is not the primary source of operating funds for GEH. They contribute as do many industries in Rochester and across the US.

PE

 

[hgaude]

My apologies! - I did not know the two entities were completely separate.

 

[adelorenzo]

You all are reading way too much into this. Mark's title is Process Historian and his assistant Nick's title is Historic Process Specialist. They teach 'historic processes by definition. In 2015 they will be offering two gelatin silver printing classes: Gelatin Emulsion Week: Dry Plate Negatives & “Azo” Paper and Silver Bromide Enlarging Paper

Mr. Osterman seemed to think it was important enough to make a statement about it in the video, which follows along with some of the earlier bits about it being "obsolete" and the "shift to digital". I picked up on that. Is it going to disappear tomorrow because George Eastman House declared it so? Of course not, all of us on this board here are living proof of that. I do think they chose to make that statement for a bigger reason than just promoting workshops.

I definitely felt like it would promote some good discussion to post it here, which it has, I think.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

My apologies! - I did not know the two entities were completely separate.

But I did...

Ken

 

[moose10101]

I would not read into the word "historic" any meaning other than that the process has been in use for a long time.

From the Oxford Dictionary web site:

"Historic and historical are used in slightly different ways. Historic means ‘famous or important in history’, as in a historic occasion, whereas historical means ‘concerning history or historical events’, as in historical evidence; thus a historic event is one that was very important, whereas a historical event is something that happened in the past."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/historic-or-historical

IMO, the term "historic" was used correctly, and does not imply obsolescence.

 

[AgX]

As a non-native speaker I thank you for hinting at that difference (as it does not exist for instance in German).

BUT "historic" is often used for obsolete photographic processes. And that explains our reaction.

 

[Truzi]

I must point out that many native English speakers do not use the language correctly, and are often not familiar with the nuances of their own language.

However, I agree with moose on this one. From what I've seen in releases, the GEH (collectively) demonstrates a decent command of English.

One more thing to consider is the context of the quote about it being a[n] historic process. It was stated in the video that since they "recently" declared it historic, they are now teaching it.
The mission statement (http://www.eastmanhouse.org/museum/mission.php) is concerned with heritage and history. While silver gelatin printing is certainly historic, perhaps the timing of the declaration had something to do with a desire to teach people the process.

 

[Xmas]

I can buy silver bromide VC Foma, Ilford etc. in the shop I buy film in.

The shop has just stopped CD4 etc.

Just cause Kodak are pulling out does not mean it is history yet.

I can still get Plusx in 120 and BW400CN in 135 if I want.

edicts from Kodak are like edicts from Cuba or Moscow or White House or number 10 pure fiction.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mr. Osterman seemed to think it was important enough to make a statement about it in the video, which follows along with some of the earlier bits about it being "obsolete" and the "shift to digital". I picked up on that. Is it going to disappear tomorrow because George Eastman House declared it so? Of course not, all of us on this board here are living proof of that. I do think they chose to make that statement for a bigger reason than just promoting workshops.

I definitely felt like it would promote some good discussion to post it here, which it has, I think.

I think that the most important phrase to note in your post is that "all of us on this board here are living proof of that" the statement is false, but you ignore the fact that out of over 70,000 members, we must consider that only about 10% or so are regular posters! This implies the true "interest group size". It hovers roughly around that figure and that is probably the true size of the APUG interest group.

Sad to say it is not a large percentage.

Also, people who post come and go from APUG at a surprising rate. Just look at the OP from some old threads and you will very often see that they are among the vanished. Loss of interest in analog? Probably. Some actually left APUG with statements to that effect.

PE

 

[AgX]

PE, I guess you are wrong by one magnitude.

But not all who are interested members post. So that makes the interested group somewhat larger again.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think that over all of the forums here, 10% is not an unrealistic number.

And of course, some interested members don't post, but that hardly says that they buy and use film!

PE

 

[Dave in Kansas]

I think I'm in that 10% group that does not post much, although I read many of the posts. That is partly because by the time I read a thread, most everything important has already been said. I do continue to buy and shoot film as I have been doing for more than 40 years. Maybe not a lot compared to many of the APUG members, but there is always film in at least one of my cameras.

Dave

 

[Gerald C Koch]

From the Oxford Dictionary web site:

"Historic and historical are used in slightly different ways. Historic means ‘famous or important in history’, as in a historic occasion, whereas historical means ‘concerning history or historical events’, as in historical evidence; thus a historic event is one that was very important, whereas a historical event is something that happened in the past."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/historic-or-historical

IMO, the term "historic" was used correctly, and does not imply obsolescence.

It's really not about what the OED says but what the average person would infer from the term, that analog photography is dead. Hence my comment.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I would not read into the word "historic" any meaning other than that the process has been in use for a long time. When television caught on people said it would kill radio. Yet billions of people listen to radio every day. A far greater audience than when television first started. We live in an interesting moment when the utter banality of cell phone photos has yet to reach the hoi poloi.

Yeah, I read it this way as well, Gerald. We participate in historic processes because, by and large, they have been in use for a very long time. And, with hopes, will continue to be so past the foreseeable future with people like us all here on APUG.

 

[Vaughn]

I guess that as long as they don't use "pre" as a prefix, I am okay with "historic".

(But all of this must make the painters feel, well, prehistoric!)