Freakscene
Obscure member
Yes, you make an inkjet negative and contact print it. I use Adox Lupex and print like I always did, 6x9 on 8x10 paper for routine shots and 10x15 on 12x16 for exhibitions. Given that you can be sure what the print will look like once you get used to the process I don’t mind using Lupex, Amidol and selenium that might otherwise bankrupt me.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
And those who are so invested in spotting the difference are missing the point. You do good work, and I generally like your photos a lot. For me, end of discussion.
When film was used to store digital data. The good old days.
bulevardi
Established
But who was shooting digital in the 80's...
First decent digital cameras only came into circulation around the millennium.
I worked in a photo store back in 2002 where we both sold analog and digital, and it was going to become the end of film, mainstream people were making the switch by putting their first steps into the digital world.
Yes you had a lot of digital cameras already long before, but the quality was ... euh... a single use film camera was still the better option.
My first "Store Bought" digital camera was the very first full-spectrum DCS200ir sold by Kodak. I asked them to make it. 1.6MPixels, and sensitive in IR out to 1.1uM. Much better than what film of the day could do. It was over $12K for the body alone. Before that: we made our own digital sensors. Work in an Optical Sciences R&D Lab, got to do some cool stuff. 20+ years ago, we had a 100MPixel monochrome camera. It used 4* 25MPixel arrays, stitched together. It was made to replace 4x5 recon cameras.
Last edited:
JeffS7444
Well-known
Me, with a Koala MacVision + RCA video camera, in glorious 1-bit.
Ororaro
Well-known
Anyone still printing? Or is chimping the new sport?
The images from the 100MPixel monochrome camera were printed out using a Dye-Sub printer. The print was the size of a full table in a conference room.
I have some color Dye-Sub prints from the 90s that look the same as they did when new. The printer was $10K. These used a dye transfer roll for four passes, did not use wet ink. I see the modern ones use ink.
I have some color Dye-Sub prints from the 90s that look the same as they did when new. The printer was $10K. These used a dye transfer roll for four passes, did not use wet ink. I see the modern ones use ink.