What would you do ?

digiconvert · Dec 17, 2006

Just imaginre the following scenario, not an impossible one.
- In about 10-15 years time CCD technology is such that all of the qualities of film (tonal range, latitude, 'feel' etc.) are capable of emulation by affordable digital cameras. The processing of images using digital/analogue conversion enlargers (as in colour labs) is also affordable by those on median incomes.
In other words you can still print in the same way as you would now but the capture medium is now digital but the output is analogue.

-I assume that you have not become the latest inhabitant of some 'retirement manor' or gone to whatever destination fits with your beliefs (ironic PC in case you hadn't noticed )

Would you still be an enthusiastic printer, would you give up and take up some other means of spending money or another choice ? Just interested to know .

Sean · Dec 18, 2006

I can't imagine it ever happening, but voted for making my own plates if it does. CCD & software might be able to emulate film to a high degree but it can't provide 1 important feature, and that's a tangible object that was burned by the light of that exact moment. That's one thing I love about film capture, just seems more real to me than something that is converted to 1's & 0's vanishing into a virtual existence.

DeBone 75 · Dec 18, 2006

Personaly I can't imagine not being able to go into a darkroom, smell the chemicals, feel them at my fingertips and see the image apeer as if by magic. And the thought that I had some small part of it getting there. When this is no longer possible then whats the point. For me it's the prosses. Film is the only way I prefer to get it there.

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Dec 18, 2006

I'm with Sean, I'd just find a way to do things my own way if something like that ever happened. I've been around computers since I was 2, and I dont trust them as far as I can throw them.

copake_ham · Dec 18, 2006

I thought film photography was already a niche market supported by afficianados of the medium who simply prefer it for many reasons?

If not - it soon will be.

Jim Noel · Dec 18, 2006

Since my pleasure comes from the craft, I would make my own film and paper, or do wet plate. I have used digital cameras, and print3ed digitally - neither of which interests me in the least.

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 18, 2006

They managed to do some great photography in the 19th century before the commercial manufacture of film and paper. There's no reason we can't do it in the 21st century.

jovo · Dec 18, 2006

Even though you are postulating complete analog emulation, just knowing that I'd be using a software designer's algorithm would send me headlong into making my own plates. People like Ron Mowry are going to end up being heroes to those of us who just won't go down that road. My wife and I are headed in the direction of solar plate photogravure anyway (we already have the intaglio press which is 'hard' part) and that will open up a host of interesting explorations that I can't wait to delve into.

If your scenario were to come to pass, it'd be fun to imagine the ad slogans:

"Just like the real thing!" "Photography's Golden Age can now be yours to recreate effortlessly in your study or family room!" "You too can be Ansel Adams with just a few mouse clicks!"

YIKES!

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 18, 2006

Anyone who's tried one of those "Tri-X plugins" for Photoshop or a software tube amp emulator knows it ain't happening anytime soon.

Curt · Dec 19, 2006

I have such a back log of negatives that I could spend the rest of my life just printing.

Ed Sukach · Dec 19, 2006

If sketching with charcoal dies, will you mix your own oils?

arigram · Dec 19, 2006

I would kill myself with a spoon

reellis67 · Dec 19, 2006

A spoon? - Ouch!

The process itself is what I enjoy, and if film ever disappeared while I was alive (unlikely) I would simply switch to a historical process like Calotype, or learn to coat my own plates. I have no interest in digital photography, or in working digital into my work flow, nor I am not at all concerned about film going away before I do.

- Randy

Craig Griffiths · Dec 19, 2006

Speaking as someone who started with film a few years ago, switched completely to digital, and has now abandoned digital in favour of film, I would probably look at the historic processes and work with those. I sit in front of a pc all day, I dont want to look at a screen when I relax.

Coating my own plates sounds like a good option. Or there is always Ari's spoon.

Vaughn · Dec 19, 2006

I love Curt's responce!

I am in the same boat -- I have too many negatives in boxes that are getting ignored because of the ones in the holders that are waiting development and printing!

Supposively there is a camera-speed cyanotype process out there, though what to do with a blue negative is a head-scratcher. Photographers have been inventors in the past, so would continue to invent (are still doing so) given a need.

vaughn

Jojje · Dec 25, 2006

Isn't anybody at all worried about archival permanence?

Mark Pope · Dec 25, 2006

I think (hope) that there will will always be a demand for silver-halide materials. There are enough of us around to keep the medium going IMHO. Whilst I could go completely digital and have the requisite equipment, I much prefer the darkroom.

fparnold · Dec 25, 2006

The only problem I see in the DIY approach is going to be getting autochrome plates rolled onto spools to use in the TLR.

Maris · Dec 28, 2006

If electronic picture making was the only thing known most folks could not care less; except at APUG it seems!

Sean is right. There is something unique and special happening when something that was part of the subject leaves it, travels across space, goes through a lens, and makes a picture of itself on an actual sensitive physical surface.

That this happens directly and only from the energy donated by the subject matter and without anything entering and re-emerging from cyberspace is sublimely wonderful.

If photography had never been invented we would have to invent it.

Vaughn · Dec 30, 2006

Less and less...

Jojje said:
Isn't anybody at all worried about archival permanence?

Generally speaking, no. Speaking to a professor friend of mine, she said that for an assignment, a student showed her a digital image that had been way over-sharpened. She suggested that he go back to the original file and correct it -- but he said he had already deleted it. Hmmmmmmm.

Another example...someone took a snap of a child with his digital camera and showed the child the image on the camera's screen. The kid was thrilled, but when the fellow offered to print it for the child, the child said, "Why? I've already seen it."

A society flooded with images (and the flood just's starting) tends not to see the need to save any of them.

My prints will last a half millinium or two -- as long as the paper they are on doesn't fall apart. Kinda of scary -- a bad print of mine could be looked at mid-millinium and I can almost hear them say, "This carbon print from the early days of photography is a classic example of work that should have been tossed out centuries ago. But we keep it because it is old."

vaughn

Woolliscroft · Dec 31, 2006

Jojje said:
Isn't anybody at all worried about archival permanence?

Me, but then it reather goes with the job. David.

Andy K · Dec 31, 2006

If digital gets to emulate film so well that it gives you a roll of negatives after every 12, 24 0r 36 shots, I might consider using it. If it doesn't I would give up photography.

Jennifer · Dec 31, 2006

Hi,
A person told me a year ago, that film is on it's way out. I won't get it, or it will cost a fortune in the future. It will cost a bit more, but I don't think it will be expensive. I said to this person you are telling me that if the demand dwindles to say 1/4 of its current demand that there is not enough
demand to keep at least one company going full time, people working 40 hrs a week. I say it won't go away, just too hard to beleive.

Happy New Year,

Jennifer

Daniel_OB · Jan 17, 2007

"In other words you can still print in the same way as you would now but the capture medium is now digital but the output is analogue."

you are making a girl from a grandmother. it si not possible.

And to all folks thinking about disappering films. Many times I said that photography is not in trouble. It just got normal. Some freaken manufacturers of equipment intersted to make money out of photographers (like kodak, agfa, ... and whoever else) are gone, so what. Photography will be around as long photographers are.

To answer the Q.: I would make my own films.

Snapshot · Jan 17, 2007

I would prefer to think that film will be around for as long as I desire to work in the the darkroom. As a person that has just recently had their interest rekindled in film photography, I would hate to think otherwise.

What would you do ?

If film dies but printing is analogue.

It will never happen !

If ALL aspects of film capture are replicated , no problem.

I would give up on photography or go totally digital.

I would find some way of making my own plates.

digiconvert

Sean

Admin

DeBone 75

Alex Bishop-Thorpe

copake_ham

Jim Noel

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

jovo

Membership Council

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Curt

Ed Sukach

arigram

reellis67

Craig Griffiths

Vaughn

Jojje

Mark Pope

fparnold

Maris

Vaughn

Woolliscroft

Andy K

Jennifer

Daniel_OB

Snapshot

What would you do ?

If film dies but printing is analogue.

It will never happen !

If ALL aspects of film capture are replicated , no problem.

I would give up on photography or go totally digital.

I would find some way of making my own plates.

Admin

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency