Where do you see Analogue photography in (say) 20 years time ?

[Sirius Glass]

Had the question been posed in 1998 or even 2001, would you have accurately predicted what we have today?

Not at all.

 

[removed account4]

Very tough on the wallet. I can't afford to shoot it

you send it to dwaynes through rite aid its about ( or was when you sent it through wally's and sam's ) $5/100 feet to process.
the tough part is that 100 feet is about 3 minutes. prepfilm lab in michigan used to sell affordable film but he was not young
and his website hasn't been updated, and email gets bounced and ...

 

[jtk]

Few of today's photographers know how wonderful serigraphs are, and virtually none have made them. What are (were) they? The most beautiful "alternative process" , commonly 20X24.

I think more photo-oriented artists will be excited about a serigraph revival in 20 years than will be fooling with enlargers.

"Photographer" will mostly mean videographer, just as it does today in many Netflix credits.

 

[jtk]

Probably totally digital with direct camera-to-printer technology from wherever we are (available on a few high end cameras presently that can link to a smartphone, but has yet to make an appearance on lower level pro- or consumer-series devices). No 35mm and probably no LF or 120, leaving little option other than the bespoke craft of wet plate collodian and similar processes.

Had the question been posed in 1998 or even 2001, would you have accurately predicted what we have today?

It was obvious by 1998, when most commercial photographers were starting to commit to digital photography and the vast majority of hobby-types were already more into video than still. We still shot plenty E6 but the writing was on the wall with Kodachrome, when processing turn-around times got longer and longer. A tiny minority of just-plain-folks shot B&W film then, as now...most were still shooting C41 film.

 

[David Brown]

restricted to a few masters of the craft

Perhaps I may aspire to be one of them.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I see it in the hands of many craftsmen and women who have purchased supply's in bulk, who have learned how to make their own emulsions , and are practicing hand coating methods of making prints. When I say this I am referring to printers for hire.
I am sure some of my clients will purchase paper for me to print , but 20 years from now I will be looking at getting out of the game, The day of wet commercial darkrooms is pretty much over so I see analogue photography being more in the hobbiest with small home darkrooms or co op groups who are sharing the costs of space.
If the price of film and paper continues in price (which is most likely) few will be able to get serious with continuing on buying supplies when a digital camera , and injet printer will allow one to make historical prints at half or more the cost.

 

[CMoore]

Bobs comments certainly make sense.
But really.....who knows.
Think back 20 years.
The state of Analog Photography (today) is probably 500% better than what 99% of the people, at the time, thought it would be.
In a similar time frame.....who would have thought that a few Hi-Fi Audio Freaks and Guitar Players would, single handedly, keep alive the (remaining) Vacuum Tube industry

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... a few Hi-Fi Audio Freaks and Guitar Players would, single handedly, keep alive the (remaining) Vacuum Tube industry

Also HAM radio enthusiasts buying amplifiers. Owners of older equipment or of hybrid (*) transceivers from the mid 1970s also buy vacuum tubes, but there seems to be a plethora of tubes still new-in-box from that era.

(*) hybrid = solid state electronics except for tube finals

 

[Bob Carnie]

Bobs comments certainly make sense.
But really.....who knows.
Think back 20 years.
The state of Analog Photography (today) is probably 500% better than what 99% of the people, at the time, thought it would be.
In a similar time frame.....who would have thought that a few Hi-Fi Audio Freaks and Guitar Players would, single handedly, keep alive the (remaining) Vacuum Tube industry

20 years ago I could not make pt pd prints as I do today with the intermediate digital negative and now making a Pt Pd is half the price of making a same size Silver in my set up anyways.
I have never used in camera negatives , other than one client, making inter positives and enlarged negatives was a real challenge and few would pay the fees I required to do it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's nothing economical about inkjet printing. People sometimes pay more for a blank piece of paper with a bit of sizing on it than papers coated with silver and
gelatin. And when it comes to color, chromogenic prints are generally cheaper to make. And inks are really where they make the money. No different than office
printers. The markup from point of mfg to retail is easily around 1000%. I'm not saying that is a sin; they have to recoup the R&D and marketing expenses somewhere. So they basically give away the printers and gouge you on ink and paper. Just like auto dealers who make next to nothing on a new car, but take a
500% or 1000% markup on repair parts. The problem with alternative processes is that there's always a risk some key ingredient will dry up for some reason. Even
something as petty and politically contrived as the current trade wars could do it. Any precious metal can spike in price or be downright restricted in time of actual war. Enjoy platinum while you can, or else learn to steal catalytic converters.

 

[blockend]

So they basically give away the printers and gouge you on ink and paper

That has been my experience. I use a large commercial printer who regularly have deals, and get my digital prints made a few times a year. Small prints are around 20p and a 12 x 8" is about £1 or less. Economies of scale.

 

[benjiboy]

Just watch the trilogy "Back to the future" once again and you'll know ...

BTW: I saw a real original Delorean for sale recently.

View attachment 72715 View attachment 72716 View attachment 72717

As a matter of fact, the Delorian was designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro the Italian designer who also designed for Nikon the F3, F4, F5and F6

 

[jtk]

My time is a lot more valuable than the pigment that I use. I can simply walk into my small studio and instantly, immediately knock off a print that's "acceptable", the same way photolabs do...but sometimes I make a dozen variations, according to my goals. I'm not into photolab interpretations of my work.

As for paper, there are infinitely more types of inkjet papers than there are of silver... because people who print inkjet are often exquisitely picky about what paper they use. A half dozen rice papers, for example.

 

[jtk]

Here's one place that photography is springing from right now, which means in 20 years it won't involve little prints....
https://www.jr-art.net

..and:

 

[removed account4]

And inks are really where they make the money. No different than office
printers. The markup from point of mfg to retail is easily around 1000%. I'm not saying that is a sin; they have to recoup the R&D and marketing expenses somewhere. So they basically give away the printers and gouge you on ink and paper. Just like auto dealers who make next to nothing on a new car, but take a

just like the "old days" with film and paper

i was talking to someone who has an eco tank epson ( full color ) and for each bottle of ink it costs him 10$ ( 2 years worth )
it doesnt' sound like gouging at the moment but who knows maybe the printer heads cost $1000

 

[NedL]

... The problem with alternative processes is that there's always a risk some key ingredient will dry up for some reason. Even something as petty and politically contrived as the current trade wars could do it. Any precious metal can spike in price or be downright restricted in time of actual war. Enjoy platinum while you can, or else learn to steal catalytic converters.

No doubt there's truth in this. Suitable paper could become difficult to come by too. I hope if something like this happens it won't be too fast so there's a chance to stock up.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Bobs comments certainly make sense.
But really.....who knows.
Think back 20 years.
The state of Analog Photography (today) is probably 500% better than what 99% of the people, at the time, thought it would be.
In a similar time frame.....who would have thought that a few Hi-Fi Audio Freaks and Guitar Players would, single handedly, keep alive the (remaining) Vacuum Tube industry

And, the vinyl LP record. There are today, more manufacturers of turntables than there was in 1960 (ok, that's hyperbole, but there are LOTS and LOTS of them out there). I think the key word in both cases is "authenticity."

 

[faberryman]

And, the vinyl LP record. There are today, more manufacturers of turntables than there was in 1960 (ok, that's hyperbole, but there are LOTS and LOTS of them out there). I think the key word in both cases is "authenticity."

In what way is the vinyl LP "authentic"?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

In what way is the vinyl LP "authentic"?

Do you have LPs that you play now, faberryman? If so, which are your favorites? (edit)

 

[ReginaldSMith]

20 years isn't very far in the future. I'd bet there will be more changes in the social construct of photography and images than there will be in the physical creation bits and pieces. Hate to say it but, the globe is being inundated by images, and at dome point there is a feedback mechanism that will take hold.

 

[faberryman]

Do you have LPs that you play now, faberryman? If so, which are your favorites? (edit)

I ran a high end audio website and did audio equipment reviews for seven years before devoting myself full time to photography. I had an expensive turntable and over two thousand LPs. They were tools I used to do my job. I no longer have them. I converted my dedicated two channel listening room into a darkroom.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I had an expensive turntable and over two thousand LPs. They were tools I used to do my job. I no longer have them.

Did you collect CDs after that? Because the issue of authenticity is relative and comparative. Anyone with deep experience in both media can generally understand the authenticity comment.

 

[faberryman]

Did you collect CDs after that? Because the issue of authenticity is relative and comparative. Anyone with deep experience in both media can generally understand the authenticity comment.

I have a similar number of CDs which I collected over thirty years, though I long ago ripped them to disk. Most LPs being pressed today are derived from digital masters and are about as inauthentic as possible according to any definition.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Most LPs being pressed today are derived from digital masters and are about as inauthentic as possible according to any definition.

But those aren't the prized LPs that collectors and buffs are buying and playing on $5,000 turntables with $1,000 cartridges and $10,000 speakers. The buffs (call them audiophiles if you like) believe that LPs from the golden age of LPs, "sound more musically convincing (authentic)" than the CD - on the whole. That's their subjective judgment, and it has kept the LP viable, along with the vacuum tube previously mentioned. It's a construct of art mostly, not technology. Among that crowd, there are lots of words thrown about in attempts to describe their perceptions of the difference. I just happen to like "authenticity". All recording of music is hideously unfaithful to the sound of natural music, in the same way a photograph of Paris is not like being in Paris. So, within that range of dreadful outcomes, the enthusiast judges the LP to be a lesser evil than the CD.

There's nothing at stake here aside from opinions, and all opinions on this are as good as any other.

 

[msage]

There will still be threads about bring Kodachrome back, there will threads about bring Kodachome back in 50 years from now!