Kolame
Established
The "Lomography" people will buy Kodak's B&W and then charge three times the price for it... or more.
After putting it into an oven at 100°C for an hour
…
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Aren't you forgetting Ferrania? They still make 35mm color film, unless they called it quits. (In fact they may be the only ones making color print film in 100 ASA these days?)
claacct
Well-known
As far as my own modest aesthetic requirements are concerned, I think I can live without Tri-X with no problem... This sample picture is a digital conversion, it might not hold up to pixel peeping but to me it looks Tri-x'ish enough. The method of conversion takes less than five minutes... And I can apply the same conversion preset to other RAW files which gives me consistent look... And this is a RAW from a two year old p&s...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Why bother imitating Tri-X?
If you want something to look like Tri-X, then use Tri-X.
Did we not learn anything at all from the pictorialists? Use a medium to its best advantage. Contriving ways to make it look like something else is a waste of time and of the process's inherent qualities.
Or simply, if you want something to look like it was rendered in charcoal, get out the charcoal, not the water colors.
If you want something to look like Tri-X, then use Tri-X.
Did we not learn anything at all from the pictorialists? Use a medium to its best advantage. Contriving ways to make it look like something else is a waste of time and of the process's inherent qualities.
Or simply, if you want something to look like it was rendered in charcoal, get out the charcoal, not the water colors.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Just for the record, Tasma nowadays produces mainly technical films for non-photographic imaging applications. Their only photographic products are a few B/W movie films that are pretty much on the way out, and unperforated aerial photography films. The main customer for the movie stock seems to be the Russian railway company, who still uses them in automated defect monitoring for railroad tracks. The bulk of the remaining production are special-purpose films for medical (X-ray) and technical inspection applications. They don't seem to make any film that you could put into a camera directly without at least repackaging, possibly perforating it.
So while they do make film products, for a photographer there isn't really much in it.
claacct
Well-known
The look of b&w photograph is a standard set by b&w film and tri-x especially, so unless a new look is invented this standard has to be followed for those who're after this particular look.
I can get the same look with film and with digital (at least 85% with digital). That 15% is lost in computer monitors and something that future software will take care of... The expense and time for film also makes that 15% acceptable, and before someone jumps about film being cheap, I should say that I'm not one-roll-a-month photographer, I shoot a lot because I'm not good enough to "get it" in one shot...
thegman
Veteran
Colour print film at 100 ASA in production, Kodak Ektar, Fujifilm Reala, AgfaPhoto Vista. There are also some Lomography ones, but they are probably the Agfa emulsions.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Sure, but your statements here only represent people who tweak digital photos in computers *exclusively*.
Remember that there are still a lot of people who print the negatives optically and enjoy doing so.
Given that the loss of Tri-X will not stop me from using other films and keep printing, but the *trend* of losing choices means increasing cost to the consumers, which also will have a negative impact on newcomers to photography who would like to experience film photography. You may not believe it, but there are young people who like darkroom printing.
Schizophrenia of film vs digital? not for me, it's fun to use both (in some instances, even to *combine* the two)
Last edited:
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Yes and the pictorialists thought photographs should look like paintings because that's what people were used to.
Then photographers realized that they ought to just get on with what photography does, and forget imitating other mediums.
In other words the less digital photographers focus on imitation, the faster the inherent visual qualities of digital will be accepted as "normal".
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I believe the lomography films are made by Ferrania. I heard that the Agfa films were too, but there seems to be confusion on this point.
I'd quite forgotten about Ektar and Reala though.
claacct
Well-known
Yes and the pictorialists thought photographs should look like paintings because that's what people were used to.
Then photographers realized that they ought to just get on with what photography does, and forget imitating other mediums.
In other words the less digital photographers focus on imitation, the faster the inherent visual qualities of digital will be accepted as "normal".
If simple digital b&w was pleasing to the eye, it would have been accepted but its not...
Imitation is the wrong word to use here. Its replication. If I can get the same look from film, I'm entitled to get it from a RAW file as well...
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Have you ever seen a good black and white silver halide print, let alone made one? Yes, it's very easy to make a mediocre imitation that looks OK on a computer monitor. But it's very, very difficult to duplicate the look of a good wet print for even a modest range of subjects, and (I suspect) impossible to do it with all of them.
Cheers,
R.
claacct
Well-known
The tragedy is that all those "good wet prints" means squat if no one sees them or if they're scanned and put online --- not to mention to anyone who's not a photography nerd, which means 99.99% of people...
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
What ever happened to the notion of craft for the sake of personal satisfaction?
One may make a nice rocking chair by hand just to sit in and be satisfied that it was made by hand, by oneself.
The same goes for photography. Why do we all need to have others pay attention to us and what we make? Perhaps a lot of us are very happy with creating "squat" for the sake of its creation and participating in the craft from beginning to end.
Phil Forrest
One may make a nice rocking chair by hand just to sit in and be satisfied that it was made by hand, by oneself.
The same goes for photography. Why do we all need to have others pay attention to us and what we make? Perhaps a lot of us are very happy with creating "squat" for the sake of its creation and participating in the craft from beginning to end.
Phil Forrest
Last edited:
traveler_101
American abroad
Don't sell Kodak short
Don't sell Kodak short
I agree with sentiment and with all those of you whom have expressed relative optimism about the survival of Kodak or Kodak products. Apparently, the company's problems are not as severe as Wall Street has made them out to be, and they certainly are not about to go bankrupt. The most likely scenarios are either they will be bought out by another firm, or they will return to profitability. Let's hope for the later. It would be too bad to see such a storied firm fade away. See analysis here
http://seekingalpha.com/article/297191-kodak-s-sell-off-is-overdone
Don't sell Kodak short
I agree with sentiment
and with all those of you whom have expressed relative optimism about the survival of Kodak or Kodak products. Apparently, the company's problems are not as severe as Wall Street has made them out to be, and they certainly are not about to go bankrupt. The most likely scenarios are either they will be bought out by another firm, or they will return to profitability. Let's hope for the later. It would be too bad to see such a storied firm fade away. See analysis herehttp://seekingalpha.com/article/297191-kodak-s-sell-off-is-overdone
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
I'm with you 100% Roger and I'm sure the majority who have ever produced a print in the darkroom are too. But don't take the bait from Claacct. The more he writes the more it is evident that either he doesn't know what he is talking about or he is trolling on this forum. I mean what is the point of giving us a poor example of a picture that "looks like Tri-X" on a computer screen?!! :bang: That tells me all I need to know about Claacct
traveler_101
American abroad
Photography is an amatuer's art form
Photography is an amatuer's art form
Yes, film photography is more craft-like. Who will see the photograph if it isn't on Facebook. I will see it; my friends and family will see it. That's enough in itself as Phil suggests above, but if I am good enough, people viewing exhibits will see it. One's idea is that we should all be defined by electronically mediated culture. Perhaps I shouldn't assign books to students anymore. They can read blogs instead.
Photography is an amatuer's art form
Yes, film photography is more craft-like. Who will see the photograph if it isn't on Facebook. I will see it; my friends and family will see it. That's enough in itself as Phil suggests above, but if I am good enough, people viewing exhibits will see it
. One's idea is that we should all be defined by electronically mediated culture. Perhaps I shouldn't assign books to students anymore. They can read blogs instead.
Last edited by a moderator:
claacct
Well-known
My satisfaction is going out, walking for hours, and trying to capture something that satisfies me... Sitting on my bum in front of the fire and admiring prints is not for me...
Nomad Z
Well-known
You'd rather sit on your bum and admire the limited tonal range and graduation of a computer monitor?
claacct
Well-known
Do I have a choice?
Maybe direct that question to R&D of monitor makers...
If this argument was judged by bad analogies, ad hominems, and simply a lot of hot air, the film crowd has already lost...
Last edited by a moderator: