If faked B/W is OK do we still need real B/W?

[Dan Chang]

Why do we have to move on? You simply can not recreate the look and feel of a real fiber print made in a darkroom. I want the grain, the imperfections to show. Digital images are just too smooth and vanilla looking.

If you never try digital dark room it is time for you to try it.

 

[pesphoto]

I have tried it, and in fact I use digital darkroom for commercial work. It simply is a convenience in my view for commercial applications only, not for my personal work, which I want to look anything but commercial. Its the process, I enjoy developing my negs and printing in the darkroom. Top me the digital darkroom is boring and sterile. personal opinions I guess, agree?

 

[david b]

Dark room is dead, so the B/W will be soon follow the trend, I have seen some pros use color film coverted to B/W, print on inkjet paper. They look very good. I have given up processing my own film due to chemical harzad problem, C41 film is cheap and still easy to process and you can burn on cd in the same time. Do we still need B/W film?

My first response was "you're an idiot..."

I think I'm sticking with that.

 

[jjthe2]

Can you still find wet plate? guys move on

Several companies still make chemistry for wet plate processes. Here's one.

There will always be black and white film available.

 

[aad]

Why desaturate C41color to make fake black and white when you can buy real fake black and white?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Why desaturate C41color to make fake black and white when you can buy real fake black and white?

Because discussing orhochromatic, panchromatic, sensitivity curves, wavelength (freq.) response, chemistry reactions, technique, all of that is just too complicated and it's much easier to say "no color=B&W".

"Y sin embargo, se mueve." --- Galileo Galilei

 

[sf]

Well, they have counterfeit Leicas too, so do we really need the real thing?

OK, that isn't the best comparison

Every film has its own nature. THeir unique characteristics are what make them necessary and valuable. The real thing is the real thing.

 

[back alley]

My first response was "you're an idiot..."

I think I'm sticking with that.

not very nice david.
maybe you could find another way of saying it without resorting to being a smart ass.
joe

 

[bmattock]

Bill, new B+W film production plants do not have to be built if the demand for B+W film is deminishing. All that it is required is that some of the existing plants be kept open to meet the demands of a smaller hard core market. Capitalism works this way: if there is a demand, there will be someone ready to profit from that demand.

Capitalism does indeed work that way, so where did you get the idea that we live in a purely capitalist society - or that there is one to be found anywhere?

Factories produce profitably based on rated output. A factory built to make 10,000 widgets per day cannot scale down to 100 widgets per day and make a profit selling at a price anyone would pay. Once production drops below a critical point, it costs more money to keep producing in small quantities than to shut down entirely.

Simple economics - the costs of the raw materials are seldom equally reflected in scaled production. Meaning that most of your costs of producing film stay the same whether you make 10 rolls a day or 10,000. Same labor rates, same workers, same everything. The costs of actual chemicals consumed is not minor, but not the biggest part of the costs of production. So to cut to 10 percent production would not increase film cost by 10 percent, or 90 percent, it would increase costs per roll by 10,000 percent.

Factories built in the early part of the twentieth century often do not have to adhere to modern emissions standards, they get grandfathered. If they change ownership, those rights may not transfer along with them. Even upgrades become a problem.

Example - If I want to replace fuses with breakers in my house, I have to rewire the whole damned house. Because the law says if I mess with any of it, the whole thing has to be brought up to code. But I can leave it all in the state it is in forever as far as the law is concerned. Same thing for companies that pollute heavily.

Look at a film producing factory sometime. I don't know of one that is less than a million square feet, anywhere in the world. There is a reason for that. Making film is not like making buggy whips or oil paint. It is a multi-process production with many intermediate states and many volatile and dangerous chemicals involved. It ain't a guy in a dark room spreading emulsion on thin plastic with a butter knife and another guy in a room rolling it into little cans.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, and supply-and-demand do indeed make the world go around. But it is hardly the only consideration in producing photographic film.

Just as an example - where do you suppose Kodak gets it's raw materials? Eastman Chemicals. When they get out of film production, do you think they will still make those chemicals? Right. Where do you buy silver halide, anyway?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[david b]

oh come on joe, you thought the same thing.

Happy Holidays.

 

[ywenz]

You simply can not recreate the look and feel of a real fiber print made in a darkroom. I want the grain, the imperfections to show. Digital images are just too smooth and vanilla looking.

oh yeah? which is digital and which is film? (no cheating please 🙂 )
#1

#2

 

[back alley]

oh come on joe, you thought the same thing.

Happy Holidays.

what i think and what i write here may not always be the same thing.

i just like to keep things friendly...
joe

 

[bmattock]

Several companies still make chemistry for wet plate processes. Here's one.

Where, do you suppose, do they get their chemicals to make their products? From the companies that make chemical products for film companies like Kodak, etc. And where will they get those chemicals when those factories shut down? Right, nowhere.

There will always be black and white film available.

No, there will not, I'm sorry.

The 'fact' that demand always meets supply can be proven, if you wish, by showing me the new gasoline-powered internal combustion automobiles with no pollution control devices on them. I have a long list of guys who want one - so we have demand. Now, where is the supply?

Oh, you say, that's different. The government won't allow cars to be sold without catalytic converters and all kinds of pollution control devices that rob power and lower fuel economy.

Hmm, says I. The EPA says that photographic film production is one of the most polluting industries on earth. You suppose they'll let some little boutique company knock together a film-making plant just because there is demand for it?

In any case, where would they get their raw materials? Clear plastic tape is easy to come by, lots of companies make that. Now, about those volatile chemicals that are precursors to producing silver halide...hmmm...seems that the really big plants that make that stuff are...owned by the film companies. You know, the ones who are lining up to dump film. Do you suppose they'll keep the production lines open for you?

Some demands go unsatisfied. Film will be one of them, when the time comes. I'm sorry that it is true, but it is true.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ch1]

Oh a happier note - I did "finish" shooting out a roll of T-Max 400 today that I had started last weekend. [I do a lot of shooting at my weekend home.]

Sadly, for some, I shot the roll with my dastardly evil Nikon F3 SLR because I keep the S2/R2S RF "combo" back in "the City"!

Can't wait to see how these pics come out - hey, anyone here ever notice how much quickker the "gratification factor" is with digital? 🙂

 

[ywenz]

Regardless of all the benefits film has over digital, the most annoying thing of film for me is if I'm not done shooting with a 100 iso film during the day, I'm screwed when night time comes around. I usually just resort to rewinding the roll prematurely

 

[sf]

oh yeah? which is digital and which is film? (no cheating please 🙂 )
#1

#2

asking someone to figure the digital from two is not realistic, given we are looking at computer monitors. Not to mention, how you scanned the images. What scanner, etc. I would say the top one is digital, but I am relying on the artifacts I see on screen to tell me - and my screen is a cruddy little one on an old HP laptop, and if your scanner is less than drum-style, the image will look digital. On paper, the difference is ALWAYS noticeable to the trained eye unless you have modified the film image in some way like pixelating it, adding digital grain, etc - and not much training is necessary to see the tell-tale signs. I recently attended a gallery showing of a photographer here in LA, and he was shooting with a high-end Canon - you know which one - and I was really surprised at how the prints compared to those taken with the Hasselblad. They didn't. The digital-ness of the shots was obvious. They were both printed on fiber paper, both black and white. The photographer using the Hassy was attracting the same attention as the digital guy, but the image quality - from a purely scientific perspective - was NOT the same by any measure.

I can tell the difference between film and even the high-end backs. Though the backs are pretty impressive, they still don't match up to a real nice 6x7.

So, really, the digital thing is not, and can not, be a comparison of image quality. Digital is not as sharp, not as tonal, not as color accurate as film. Of course, a 12 MP camera is going to produce better material than a half frame 35mm, but you get the idea. Digital is easier, faster, cheaper (with the exception of the photoshop time you spend tuning images - but you do that with film stuff too), more practical when you're on a trip and don't want to carry film, don't want to change film, don't want to wrestle with x-ray machines.

And digital is digital, you don't have the choice of recording your subject through the unique eye of film, like tri-x or Velvia.

Bottom line: both film and digital have benefits - but neither looks like the other either, and digital is FAR from paralleling film in any way. It's only benefit over film is that it costs less to use, which allows people without $$$ to develop their skills, and to play around whenever they want - and to save space on film, etc.

Don't criticize anyone else's choice to use the real thing - that is a personal choice, and no argument can be made that defines either choice as superior overall. Both have victories over the other.

 

[sf]

Where, do you suppose, do they get their chemicals to make their products? From the companies that make chemical products for film companies like Kodak, etc. And where will they get those chemicals when those factories shut down? Right, nowhere.



No, there will not, I'm sorry.

The 'fact' that demand always meets supply can be proven, if you wish, by showing me the new gasoline-powered internal combustion automobiles with no pollution control devices on them. I have a long list of guys who want one - so we have demand. Now, where is the supply?

Oh, you say, that's different. The government won't allow cars to be sold without catalytic converters and all kinds of pollution control devices that rob power and lower fuel economy.

Hmm, says I. The EPA says that photographic film production is one of the most polluting industries on earth. You suppose they'll let some little boutique company knock together a film-making plant just because there is demand for it?

In any case, where would they get their raw materials? Clear plastic tape is easy to come by, lots of companies make that. Now, about those volatile chemicals that are precursors to producing silver halide...hmmm...seems that the really big plants that make that stuff are...owned by the film companies. You know, the ones who are lining up to dump film. Do you suppose they'll keep the production lines open for you?

Some demands go unsatisfied. Film will be one of them, when the time comes. I'm sorry that it is true, but it is true.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Good points, Bill, just makes me hug my cameras harder. Gotta REALLY live every moment with them like it will be their last. I mean, I can still hold them and pet them, and love them, but witout film, it's just foreplay. Sadness awaits us, hopefully VERY long ways down the road.

 

[Andy K]

Dark room is dead, so the B/W will be soon follow the trend, I have seen some pros use color film coverted to B/W, print on inkjet paper. They look very good.

They might look good but they do not, and never will, look as good as a real wet darkroom made black and white photograph.

I have given up processing my own film due to chemical harzad problem...

Do we still need B/W film?

Absolutely we still need black and white film. It is the medium of choice for many thousands who find inkjet printed desaturated colour images are vastly inferior in quality to real enlarger made black and white photographs from real black and white negatives.

Would you want a real Ferrari or a cheap replica of a Ferrari? It looks like a Ferrari, but when you look close it is nowhere near as good as a Ferrari.

If you never try digital dark room it is time for you to try it.

There is no such thing as a 'digital darkroom', it is a computer workstation. If you never tried a real darkroom it is time for you to try it.

 

[schmoozit]

They might look good but they do not, and never will, look as good as a real wet darkroom made black and white photograph.

Subjective.

 

[Andy K]

Hmm, says I. The EPA says that photographic film production is one of the most polluting industries on earth.

and...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up

http://www.relectronics.org/eWaste.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/slideshows/electronincs-dirty-secret?page=5