Traditional / Digital / and 'Art'

[David Hall]

I believe there is a BIG revival of old techniques, if not equipment. Both Artcraft Chemicals and Photorapher's Fromuarly are out of Amidol these weeks. Amidol, of all things.

I personally think it's the internet. I have been doing LF photography since 1990, almost all of that time in a vacuum in which I never met another LF photographer. I learned nothing of the LF medium except from View Camera magazine and the old Ansel Adams books.

Today I communicate daily with more than a few like-minded photographers. I know all about Azo and Amidol and Pyro and PMK and ABC and WD2D from the internet. I just minutes ago had an email discussion with someone about spot metering.

I think Philip Greenspun, Tuong and Michael Smith have a lot to do with this. I used to hold my breath for View Camera to come in the mail every month, and now it's almost obsolete for me because I get so much more information from so many other sources. And almost all of it involves decades or centuries old processes, materials, and sometimes equipment.

dgh

 

[SteveGangi]

As an aside, there has been a jump in demand for the equipment too. In the latest issue of View Camera, one of the camera makers put in an ad saying they will not be taking new orders for a while... They have had so many orders that the backlog is just too much. It looks like the companies that have supported our little niche market for years may finally be rewarded for sticking by us. I hope they all make a pile of money.

 

[clogz]

The other day I went to a rather large photo shop in order to buy a plastic reel for a Jobo tank. The young salesman there gave me look full of pity when I asked him about the reel and said that the shop was going digital bla, bla ,bla. But...somewhere at the back there was a pile of old darkroom stuff and I could take a look there. Browsing through all the old stuff I got talking to an elderly gent (son of the owner) who said that lots of customers who had bought a digital camera, printer and other paraphernalia would come back some weeks after their purchase to buy back the analogue SLRs and enlargers. Some 60% he claimed.
So analogue friends take heart, fight the good fight and keep on tripping that shutter and develop that film with good cheer.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think I mentioned elsewhere that one of the guys at the film counter at B&H was also surprised by the recent increase in sales of sheet film.

I'm finally trying to get some holders for this 11x14" camera I picked up a few months ago. Lens & Repro had some on their website, but they said they sold out immediately, so I emailed Quality Camera to order two of the S&S holders, and they say they're selling them as fast as they can make them, so that's another good sign.

 

[Robert]

Which I guess explains the prices for those barrel lens that cover larger then 8x10.

 

[tommorris]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Guy @ Jan 16 2003, 07:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Many of the great masters (most notably the grand poobah Ansel Adams) spent their lives diligently modifying and retouching their images, contrary to may purists of their day. They used the tools available to them then and there's no reason we would not use the tools available to us now. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I agree.

Wasn't it Ansel himself who said that chemical photography is only the beginning and that with the rise of electronics towards the end of his life that eventually some form of photography will enhance on chemical processes.

Even if you don't use digital, it will pay off. 35mm users have already seen the results of APS in their film - due to the smaller formats the c41 film makers have had to increase the quality of the grain to reflect that.

With the whole digital argument, it's the same old "it's new, it's scary" argument.

Having used 35 mm, MF and (very briefly experimented with) 4x5, as well as the digital printing route (which I'd utilise more if it wasn't for the omnipresence of crappy inkjets), I'd say that both camps have something to learn from each other.

Boiling it down to a simple level: is it cheating if you use 35mm? I mean, you haven't lugged that enormous 8x10 view camera around the field with you, and therefore you can't be a true artist.

Photography is whatever it means to you. I welcome digital - if it means more people taking photographs, and experiment with what imaging (in whatever way you want) has to offer, digital or analogue, that has to be a good thing.

In too many "popular" photography mags like the British mag AP focus (no pun intended) far too much on what camera, what film and whatnot. With every image, it's got a little not saying "Nikon F60, 90mm, Velvia, f/8 @ 1/60th" or something. It doesn't matter how you made it. One of the few rules that I have when I show photographs for critique at class (and they get rather overcritiqued at times!) is that I don't talk about cameras. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Whether I took them with my 35mm or 645 rig doesn't matter. Lenses don't matter. The only thing that matters is peoples response to the images.

In my mind, whatever means you take to achieve it, as long as it's your vision, that is the only relevant thing.

 

[c6h6o3]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Jan 30 2003, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I believe there is a BIG revival of old techniques, if not equipment. Both Artcraft Chemicals and Photorapher's Fromuarly are out of Amidol these weeks. Amidol, of all things.

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I hope that someone at Kodak takes note of this. We all know it's a bad artistic decision to discontinue any grade or size of Azo. Maybe if the Jolly Yellow Giant took a look around the valley once in a while they'd see that it's also a bad business decision. They have a huge potential market in this one product alone.