RE: Users of digital negatives

[EJN Photo <ejnphoto@sbcglobal.net>]

Catherine, It has thrown a monkey wrench in the whole process. All the great
Kodak, Ilford, and Agfa material that I spent years learning 4125, 4127,
Tech Pan, and countless hours of mastery are all for not; after which came
all the imitators trying to fill a void that was an ever shrinking market.
Trying to do printing with a shirking and inconsistent film supply while
maintaining high standards is no fun and very costly. What was to say that
your efforts would prove to be useable in one or two months let a lone
several decades? Having been told to give up film back in the late 70's
while going to college in the heart of computers, Silicon Valley, it was not
hard to pay attention to the coming of the digital process. But when would
it become worthy or serious consideration? Here we are nearing the end of
the 1st decade of the new century and the inkjet market is as unsettled as
the large format film industry; one fighting to stay alive and the other
struggling through the early years of perfecting its course. Flexibility is
the name of the game. Our papers have changed, the process to make the
negatives has changed and still the process remains the same. 

What has it done for imagery? With the great ability to fix the composition
and elements of the image, digital has opened up the final print to many
more printers. You no longer have to have a precisely crafted negative with
one shot. You have many chances to get it right and if you mess up your neg,
you just make a new one. That is if the ink is still the same, the substrate
is still the same, ...     

Day after day the image making instruments and substrates change so quickly,
that without the internets speed to share, a book or written manual becomes
marginally useful. So hold on tight and get out your wallets 


Just a few thoughts,
 
Eric

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
 
Skype : ejprinter> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catherine Rogers [mailto:chrogers@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:45 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Users of digital negatives
> 
> Hi All
> 
> Thanks so much to all who have replied to my request for
> photographers and printers who use digital negatives. I have
> had a number of
> responses - all of which are most interesting and very helpful.
> The variety
> of approaches to making images in these responses means that I
> have been
> able to better refine my own thoughts - which is a terrific
> bonus - and part
> of the process for me too I guess.
> 
> Briefly, the project again:
> I am curious about the extent to which artists, photographers
> and those who
> print work for other
> photographers, are using digital negatives and inkjet printers
> to make fine
> photographs. I am hoping that some photographers and
> printmakers in the
> alternative
> processes arena might be willing to give a view (no matter how
> brief because
> we are all so busy!) on how the combination of digital
> negatives and inkjet
> printers has enhanced, expanded or changed their artistic
> practice and
> craft - commercially and/or professionally - compared to
> working in the
> darkroom making silver based, chemical generated, enlargements.
> 
> I am wondering what other possibilities an inkjet printer
> combined with
> digital
> negatives offers the individual artist and printmaker - both
> conceptually
> and practically - and  if digital
> technologies have changed what you do, and how you think about
> what you do.
> 
> If any more of you have a moment to comment briefly from your
> own experience
> or you have
> any other thoughts on the subject of hybrid photography, I
> would most
> greatful.
> 
> Once again, thanks to all who have so kindly responded. (I will
> reply
> off-list to all who have contacted me off-list.)
> 
> cheers and happy printing
> Catherine
>