Smieglitz@aol.com
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 04/20/1999 9:44:59 PM, keller@wvinter.net wrote:
<<BTW, if Kodak, Fuji, Nikon and Canon thought film was disappearing in ten
years they would not have invested the tons of money they did in the
Advanced Photo System.
>>
Helloooo. Anyone remember Polavision? Done in by Sony Beta. Anyone
remember Beta?
Cut to 1888 and Emerson says Photography is Art, Ea$tman says the darkroom is
difficult but pushing the button easy so send the film to us, and Hurter and
Driffield say it is a science complete with reproducible results. Emerson
recants in 1889 as a result of H&D, Ea$tman democratizes photography, and
eventually H&D spawn Ansel et. al.. It is all useful and dynamic and the
same thing will be seen with digital as it evolves.
I've done some things to create "negatives" in Photoshop in a matter of
seconds (e.g., burn and dodge, oops, I mean apply the sponge saturation tool
to the selected individual cells in an image containing a houndstooth fabric)
that would have required some very tedious darkroom manipulation (probably
split-filter printing and masking and bleaching) which I'm loathe to even
think about trying. Digital can be a useful tool and will be getting better
and more affordable and more democratic. But, the digital print will never
replace the hand-coated print for me. Alternative photographic process
printmaking has an alchemical aspect to it. I like mixing the magical stuff
together.
Many on the list make images in platinum (for example) because of the
intrinsic rewards of the craft/process and not for commercial gain, to be
trendy, or because the galleries increasingly insist upon it. I suppose it
is nice when the monetary and other rewards coincide, but I suspect many of
us would continue with our alternative printmaking solely because it is a
part of who we are.
I'd love to learn to make my own negative emulsions. I plan to someday take
that wet-plate collodian workshop from Scully and Osterman in order to
realize that goal. The reasons have to do with handcrafting the image as
much as possible. But, as digital improves, I too suspect sheet film will
disappear and (given an extremely rare exception performed by some retros
scattered here and there among the billions) almost all large format/high
resolution images will certainly be made with digital cameras or backs and
not with film or wet plates. So I see the commercial film emulsions
disappearing but perhaps not the use of traditional cameras.
Does it matter to most of us (with apologies to wet-platers and
daguerreotypists) if the camera image is recorded digitally rather than on a
silver halide film or plate? On the other hand is the collodian/albumen
combo vs. FP4/Pyro/Platinum comparison that far removed from the CCD/digital
negative/Giclee debate? I suspect a good, high-resolution 8x10 digital back
will soon be available at a reasonable cost and will certainly be easier to
lug around than a bunch of conventional sheet film holders. 11x14, 14x17 and
other sizes may not be as reasonable but will probably surface as well. Not
to worry. Are we really that attached to film emulsions and adjusting
contrast index chemically rather than by adjusting a digital transfer
function?
But, nothing will ever replace the alternative print mainly 'cause we all
know and love it, and we will have to continue the printmaking tradition
because it is part of who we are. Although they could facilitate our
efforts, Kodak and company have very little to do with that motivation .
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:32