- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
as mentioned today i asked my uncle who used to make dye transfers in the 1960s if this is true, he did not corroborate your statement.In the 50s and 60s dye transfer was still the standard for inexpensive color portraits...
What? You mean his statement wasn't true? Who'd have thunk?as mentioned today i asked my uncle who used to make dye transfers in the 1960s if this is true, he did not corroborate your statement.
you never know, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction ! i mean look in the time we live in...What? You mean his statement wasn't true? Who'd have thunk?
.Any chance that there is confusion here between dye transfer and dye sublimation?
Why would you continue using color slides?When you grow up with the "old Tri-X" you've had plenty of grain. Modern film is so radically different than what was made pre-80's, there's no comparison. I have given up trying to use a grain focuser strictly on "grain" when printing. I don't scan, if I did I would probably shoot color negative film. For me the utility of film is for PRINTING . If all I did was inkjet, and computer display, I probably would use digital exclusively. (Oh except for color slides) You can add grain with software. I'm not saying to stop buying film, it's so much fun.
One other thing about film that's amazing. Right now you can find used film cameras and lenses for almost nothing. No barrier to starting to get amazing results.
I hope that I can keep going in my darkroom for a long time. I love it all.
Best Regards Mike
Nostalgia. I love to process reversal . I grew up with Kodachrome, my Dad started with Kodachrome in 1949, he stopped in the early 80's. I shoot medium format slides too. It's tricky and finicky, still love to project.Why would you continue using color slides?
Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but until Eggleston, and a few others. Dye transfer was primarily used for graphic arts work. Would allow better control for printing advertising etc.Any chance that there is confusion here between dye transfer and dye sublimation?
I have to few prints deserving such respect or treatment but I'll take my best photograph ever tomorrow.Now, if you are going digital, then make a library of letter size pigment prints of what you want to archive. That will be your backup to fall back on. I need to get going on that myself. Use letter size Hollinger archival boxes and stack em up with master prints. I had some scan comparisons but can't find em. You can recover +/- 90% or so from a master print.
Matt, correct me if I'm wrong, but until Eggleston, and a few others. Dye transfer was primarily used for graphic arts work. Would allow better control for printing advertising etc.
Why would you continue using color slides?
In the 50s color portraits were not common and would have been expensive no matter what. I grew up in the 60s and all my color school pictures were standard prints. Dye transfer has always been expensive and complex and would never have been used for "inexpensive color portraits".
Dye transfer was never "complex"...
None of what you say holds much water, if any, especially about the complexity of dye transfer. It is probably the most complex analog imaging system ever devised.Wrong. In the 50s, while my father was in Korea, my sister and I and all of our classmates were photographed by a school photographer (cheap!) and our prints were made locally (San Leandro, California). Pretty sure the photographer economized by gang printing.
Dye transfer was never "complex"...small town photographers in the 50s were commonly capable of dye transfer printing.
There was no such thing as "standard prints." Ansco Color was common but it was terrible, faded quickly, and was no cheaper than dye transfer.
One prof.I met in studio around 2002/2003 has got a digital Nikon so I asked him what he'd paid for:Hmm....I held onto film for 100% of my photography until spring of 2005. I'd tried digital cameras from compacts (Sony, Sanyo, Kodak) and a nikon D50 and didn't really find they offered me anything that film didn't. Additionally I believed, and still do, that film has the edge in terms of image quality. However I chanced upon a generic (branded Goodmans) 1.3MP digital camera in a charity shop in 2005 and bought it in part because I was due to attend a wedding and stag night in Boston and felt it would be an easy way to get photos and share them via email with the other wedding guests on both sides of the Atlantic. Although I did shoot 35mm and 120, it was easier to share the digital images.
Around the time Facebook came along, my dad died and I inherited his D50 and Sanyo compact digital camera. I found a place for these in my photography....with the D50 the quality was pretty good and the ability to change ISO without swapping films or carrying multiple bodies around was a boon. The compact was great for taking to parties etc. Then film got more expensive, processing likewise and less easy to find good labs. The Royal Mail upped prices for letters over 25mm thick which meant posting 135 cassettes to mail order labs suddenly skyrocketed in price (over 3X what it had been). Digital took over for a while. I think I was caught up with the technology (I am a geek) and the convenience. The two digital cameras I had between them offered the best convenience I'd ever experienced and decent quality. I think I shot just three rolls of film between 2009 and 2013.
Then late 2013 I went on holiday and forgot the charger for my D50. By luck I'd packed a film SLR on a whim and some Tri-X. I managed to buy some Fuji Superia 400 while on holiday and rediscovered how rewarding film photography is.
Now, despite having a decent Samsung compact digital, the D50 and now a D7100 I still spend more time on film. Digital still definitely cannot do B&W properly, and there's just something about film which digital cannot emulate even when the film is scanned or when digital images are edited to "look like film" (ugh).
So I use both. The D7100 is a great tool in many ways, I can shoot colour photos in any light conditions. But ultimately film is better. And it's not only me who thinks so. Sometimes I shoot a scene on both....and friends say there is just something extra about the film shots.
++++++I did not change - but : BTW to ask in other direction ( Digital -> Film) would be more interesting!
with regards
Ähhm - I just get in mind : this post may looks like suspicious to be corected via moderator!
im not sure where you get your information but people who make them now and who made them back in the day
do not agree with you.
So I use both. The D7100 is a great tool in many ways said:If you get access to better digital cameras (including cheap ones) and if you become comfortable enough with Photoshop et al to print your own, you may change your mind. IMO if one doesn't print one's own, and doesn't develop basic skills with PS et al, I agree that film is easier.
None of what you say holds much water, if any, especially about the complexity of dye transfer. It is probably the most complex analog imaging system ever devised.
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?