F$*k it, I'm giving digital a rest

[tmfabian]

Agfa, the classic. See the link:

Agfa Multicontrast Classic fibre paper to be reissued by ADOX!

That's pretty cool, I never tried agfa papers which is a bummer since everyone who has ever used the paper raves about it, looks like now i'll have the chance to now.

 

[blacknoise]

Also can anyone suggest a decent film scanner for b&w negs, mine just died a horrible death (dog smacked into the shelf and knocked it on the floor)

I have an Epson 4490, its pretty good (for the price) when it comes to MF, but not so great (but adiqute, as i cant aford better) for 35mm.

 

[Atom]

Try any of the Bergger papers.

 

[letvet]

Ilford warmtone FB MC paper. It does tend to tone a little "peachy" in sepia but it is my favorite for straight prints.

 

[maddoc]

Anyone not using fulminate of mercury to fix their images onto metal plates is not making a "real" photograph, in my opinion.

I use a negative (photo)-resist from time to time and make photographs of patterns on Si semi-conductor surfaces using UV light (254nm). Does that count ?

 

[richardl]

Was in Berlin with a colleague. I shot M5 leitz lenses fuji velvia 50, he shot digital. We shared color and reflected light meter readings. He sat down on the light table and compared the images to the digital work. The analog results were incomparably superior in every regard. The digital image displayed substantial image degradation in every visual criteria. Digital has its place in commercial photography, but it is effectively a form of efficient garbage. Even garbage can be art (e.g. Duchamp amongst others) though. So shooting digital does not preclude making great art, but it will be great art through garbage.

 

[Ben Z]

Is film dying or has the slump bottomed out now leaving a core of appreciative types who won't walk away?

I don't know, but I was away for a little while and decided to shoot film, and when I got back I went to the last independent film lab within a 50 mile radius of here only to find the place empty with a "For Lease" sign on the window. So now it's either pay shipping on top of the processing fees, drive 110 miles round-trip twice @ $4.39/gal of gas, or take my film to Costco and let them send it out (and lose it, like they did a couple of times before I stopped taking my film there). So pretty much that's the end of it for me for E6 and C41. I might still do some b&w, assuming I'm up for taking the time to develop and scan it...but that's bound to be a once-in-a-while thing and so I don't think my purchasing volume of b&w film is going to help the cause that much.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Was in Berlin with a colleague. I shot M5 leitz lenses fuji velvia 50, he shot digital. We shared color and reflected light meter readings. He sat down on the light table and compared the images to the digital work. The analog results were incomparably superior in every regard. The digital image displayed substantial image degradation in every visual criteria. Digital has its place in commercial photography, but it is effectively a form of efficient garbage. Even garbage can be art (e.g. Duchamp amongst others) though. So shooting digital does not preclude making great art, but it will be great art through garbage.

Not generalising at all there

But I am interested to know in what ways were the film images incomparably superior and what was the digital capture device (camera, lens and raw conversion software)? Composition doesn't count of course...

Cheers

Mike