if kodak dies

Nigel Meaby said:
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 😀
Click to expand...

In all fairness, this forum is full of people who can look at 640x480 pixel JPEGs for hours on end and discuss how they subtly express the gorgeous blacks of Tri-X in whatever your favourite developer is, or how they illustrate the sharpness and micro-contrast achievable with the Leica lens of your choice.
 
tunalegs said:
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?)
Click to expand...

Hard to determine - Ferrania once called it quits in 2008, but may have revoked since that. I haven't been able to find any authoritative information on whether they merely sell off their stores or are still actively producing.
 
rxmd said:
In all fairness, this forum is full of people who can look at 640x480 pixel JPEGs for hours on end and discuss how they subtly express the gorgeous blacks of Tri-X in whatever your favourite developer is, or how they illustrate the sharpness and micro-contrast achievable with the Leica lens of your choice.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
claacct said:
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 normal people...

But also, a good wet print is a sheer waste of time and effort if its subject is yawn-inspiring...
Click to expand...

Quite. In much the same way as nobody ever goes to photo exhibitions, or McDo doesn't have any Michelin stars.

There are always those who are perfectly happy with rubbish.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Quite. In much the same way as nobody ever goes to photo exhibitions, of McDo doesn't have any Michelin stars.

There are always those who are perfectly happy with rubbish.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

A photo is rubbish based on content, so if I were to photograph you in digital and convert it to b&w that won't mean that picture is rubbish because saying that will imply that the subject/you is rubbish.

But I also know that the photography world is divided between subject/content driven 'real' photography and technique and gear-fetishism 'hobby' photography...

In real photography all images are useful, even as examples of failure, in hobby photography only the 'good photos' count... But the plus side of real photography is that one can see the failure in the other side...
 
claacct said:
to-spadina.jpg
Click to expand...

You are demonstrating exactly the opposite of your point.
Technically, it's really an abysmal picture. And I'm usually not picky...
I would suggest to have a look at post #489 here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90895&page=20
to see how a picture can show more than 300 pixel and 4 levels of grey.

No offense, of course. You behave here with such a level of courtesy, I would hate to offend you.
 
claacct said:
If simple digital b&w was pleasing to the eye, it would have been accepted but its not...
Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this, but compared to what we see naturally, ALL black and white looks quite weird. It is an acquired taste, period. Photographs were really quite shocking to most people in the 1840s, who had never seen anything like them before.

They look less weird to us because we've known them all of our lives. Eventually, digital will become accepted as the normal look, even if it isn't quite the same as what we are used to.
 
The saddest part in I have only had my darkroom going a few weeks and also just learned, learning to use contrast filters and no plan to try dodging and burning. I have only just begun to appreciate Trix...
 
claacct said:
A photo is rubbish based on content, so if I were to photograph you in digital and convert it to b&w that won't mean that picture is rubbish because saying that will imply that the subject/you is rubbish.

But I also know that the photography world is divided between subject/content driven 'real' photography and technique and gear-fetishism 'hobby' photography...

In real photography all images are useful, even as examples of failure, in hobby photography only the 'good photos' count... But the plus side of real photography is that one can see the failure in the other side...
Click to expand...

A good photograph transcends poor technique, it's true, but equally, if a picture is SO incompetent (either aesthetically or technically) that you notice the technique before the content -- if the photographer isn't actually in control of the medium -- then it's a bad picture whether the technique is 'too good' or 'too bad' for the subject matter.

Cheers,

R.
 
cosmonaut said:
The saddest part in I have only had my darkroom going a few weeks and also just learned, learning to use contrast filters and no plan to try dodging and burning. I have only just begun to appreciate Trix...
Click to expand...

Why sad?
I think we are talking long term problems.
Nothing to worry about tomorrow morning (I hope...).
Enjoy your new darkroom! 🙂
 
sanmich said:
You are demonstrating exactly the opposite of your point.
Technically, it's really an abysmal picture. And I'm usually not picky...
I would suggest to have a look at post #489 here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90895&page=20
to see how a picture can show more than 300 pixel and 4 levels of grey.

No offense, of course. You behave here with such a level of courtesy, I would hate to offend you.
Click to expand...

It took unusually long for someone to pick on that image and say its no good...

As long as you don't call people in the my image rubbish or no good, I'm flame proof against internet-photography-nerd-attacks... As far as the 'look' of that image is concerned, I'm very happy with it.
 
claacct said:
It took unusually long for someone to pick on that image and say its no good...

As long as you don't call people in the my image rubbish or no good, I'm flame proof against internet-photography-nerd-attacks... As far as the 'look' of that image is concerned, I'm very happy with it.
Click to expand...

And film users are pretty much flameproof against digital nerd attacks, so I guess we're quits.

Cheers,

R.
 
claacct you have to like the pictures you make, no other opinion should really matter but yours. But you also have to accept that other people like or even love film and digital pictures do not look like film nor should they. It's like oil and watercolour some prefer the look of an oil painting and some people prefer the look of a watercolour but both are very different in look and feel just like analogue and digital photography. Watercolour might be the faster way to paint but the result will always look like a watercolour and not like an oil painting. Many photographers spent years to perfect the look they get with theri chosen films and a change in film might have a serious impact on their work and sometimes on their income, so saying simply convert a digipix to BW to get the Tri-X look is very naive to say the least.

Dominik
 
No. A photo is rubbish based on BOTH content and technical realization. Same as any other artistic expression, including literature, painting, music, etc. If you fail in either content or technique you fail overall.

claacct said:
A photo is rubbish based on content, so if I were to photograph you in digital and convert it to b&w that won't mean that picture is rubbish because saying that will imply that the subject/you is rubbish.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ChrisPlatt
ISO 400 BW negative film recommendation?
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
P
kodak movie film
Replies
1
Views
493
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
S
Developing Tri-X Suggestions?
Replies
13
Views
814
Muggins
Muggins
Jonathan R
W/NW Flatlands
Replies
4
Views
169
Dogman
Dogman
Rikard
Forgot my Tri-X in Rodinal method
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Rikard
Rikard
Back
Top Bottom