From: Rod Fleming (rodfleming@sol.co.uk)
Date: 08/06/00-03:51:13 AM Z
Judy,
I think you are in danger of leading this down digital/not digital route,
which would be tedious. I appreciate the value of digital, I use it all the
time in my commercial work and have done so for 5 years now (well do I
remember the delights of triple pass scanning and PhotoShop 2.5 on an
AppleMac laptop with a postage stamp for a screen. Shudder.)
I don't need to be persuaded of the advantages of digital, and I have put in
the homework over the years. Nowadays there are many things I can do very
quickly, right here, which beforehand would have required a great deal of
darkroom time, not to mention the services of airbrush artists, considerable
expense and not a little frustration. But in my personal work I exclusively
use photo-optical methods. It's not a rant thing, it's just- well, to
paraphrase Elliott Erwitt, digital is for work, photo-optical is for
pleasure.
I think that states where I'm coming from; the simple truth of the matter is
that for many years Kodak has taken but little heed of the increasingly
limited market for monochrome products, and has been chiselling away at the
product range. That's fine, it's their business. All I'm saying is that a) I
think any attempt to get Kodak to reintroduce SuperXX is doomed, b) IF there
are enough people interested in buying a replica emulsion they should get
together (for which the internet is ideal) and approach a smaller
manufacturer with the promise of a certain amount of guaranteed sales and c)
it is these smaller manufacturers, which have already been mentioned, which
will be the future of film-based monochrome photography, and it is these
manufacturers which deserve our support.
I understand the pride Americans take in their own world-leading company,
Kodak, but you have to be realistic- Kodak is going to dump the messy,
environmentally hazardous chemical stuff just as soon as it (profitably)
can. And that applies to a range of product far wider than one or two rather
elderly emulsions. If we have not been supporting the smaller companies,
then where will we be?
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Cc: <alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: Kodak to re-introduce Super-XX
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Jason Hall wrote:
> > > If Kodak was going to bring back double X, I'd sell
> > my stock (if I had
> > > any).
> >
> > Sadly a realistic representation of the average
> > consumer. Why bother expending time and effort to
> > learn a skill/craft when you can do a passable bodge in
> > a fraction of the time. Few people have the patience
> > or the inclination to bother. What happens when no one
> > can recall what zones are? Who's going to write the
> > software then?
>
>
> Actually, from where I sit (or stand) you have it backwards... it's MUCH
> easier to learn to use SuperXX (which I learned in one half-day class)
> than to learn control with the computer and its peripherals which until
> you really do have control is -- well, I've been doing certain kinds of
> digital for some time and still at intermediate level.
>
> But once you do have control -- it is INFINITELY better. For instance I
> can dodge or burn either by highlight, midtone, or shadow. Without
> affecting the other values. If you haven't done that, don't knock it. It's
> purely magical.
>
> I am not aware in ANY case of digital being a "passable bodge" or a
> "fraction of the time." I WISH ! Of course I don't print with any of
> these methods... I'm talking about getting negatives. And I don't use a
> view camera. Perhaps for some folks using a view camera and contacting
> directly from the large neg, what you say ..... well, trust me, digital is
> STILL harder.
>
> I've often said I can teach a class to make a passable large neg in a
> morning with a $300 2nd hand enlarger. To make that same neg digitally
> would take weeks of study and thousands of dollars worth of equipment. But
> it suits my purposes better. I don't want to take view camera photographs.
> (Maybe next year.... but I don't think so.)
>
> Maybe we should have a bake off -- get some of the SG is better fellows &
> see if they could tell the difference WITHOUT a loupe ... (Except Greg
> Schmitz is not eligible... he has some kind of out of gamut vision. I mean
> regular people.) And if you say better, better for what? For platinum
> printing? And? Or?
>
> best,
>
> Judy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09/18/00-10:20:30 AM Z CST