oleg C
Established
I love computers to the bits!! I know them well enough to get the most out of them and it makes my life a lot easier and more organised. I can spend all day and all night in front of them and I only go to sleep so I can do more of the same thing later. I'm sure many people think I'm a freak. Even so, I have new a la carte MP on order and I can't wait to get it, because I know that it will drag me away from the monitor outside..
Genius might be the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way. (Charles Bukowski)
Genius might be the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way. (Charles Bukowski)
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Nah, you'll just have thousands of photos of your monitor. 
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Obviously, Harry is right. With proper processing and storage, negatives are long term. If you keep transferring digital images to the latest storage media, they will do well, too. They have the advantage that multiple copies can be stored in different locations.
My negatives and my digital files are well taken care of. And that's probably true of most of us on this forum. But, when it comes to storing for the far future, most folks won't be interested in our negatives or computer files. They'll probably want to look at prints unless everything, including Rembrandt and Picasso, has migrated to LCD screens. I think much more emphasis should be put on long lasting prints properly stored. I really don't think negatives and hard drives are going to hold as much interest as prints when the time capsule is opened.
FrankS
Registered User
At least the negs can be held up to the light to view. The digital files ...
MaxElmar
Well-known
Silver is dead - platinum/palladium is where it's at! :>)
But seriously, folks. I think there's still a preference for silver gelatin prints (or platinum) over any sort of ink jet - at least among collectors and fine art types.
I'm talking just about about prints. Of course one can capture with anything and wind up with a silver or alt. process print...
But seriously, folks. I think there's still a preference for silver gelatin prints (or platinum) over any sort of ink jet - at least among collectors and fine art types.
I'm talking just about about prints. Of course one can capture with anything and wind up with a silver or alt. process print...
newsgrunt
Well-known
I'm pretty sure it was a Kodak person who was quoted as saying that if one wanted to ensure the archivability of a digital file, one had to make a print...or something along those lines. I could be wrong as well but this has always stuck in my memory so it's gotta be true
Bill Pierce
Well-known
At this point in time, that is often true in part to very smart dealers and, often, ignorant (not stupid) buyers. There are other factors, but there is really little esthetic reason or archival concern to denigrate ink jet prints. There will, of course, come a time when silver is as rare as platinum and other print processes that were mainstream in the past. That alone will give it added value to some collectors.
KM-25
Well-known
My experience was this....
In 1994, I was told by then editor Steve Whitmore, son of late actor James Whitmore that we had to go digital, it was the brave new world, the future. He even gave us t-shirts that said "Digital or Die". I hated the first 10 years of it, cropped sensors, 1.3 megapixel cameras that needed to be plugged in when the battery died because you could not take the battery out. I remember Mary Ellen Mark looking at me in Pity when my NC2000 camera battery died as Bob Dole emerged from a limo while he was on the campaign trail. They were $14,000 a piece, huge and lousy.
But it got better and my attitude got better, after all, I was a pioneer, I was winning awards, helping AP figure out how we could use flash without making the subject look nuked...diffuse, diffuse, diffuse...
But something was missing, the wonderful attributes of a specific film, the not seeing the image right away, the reality of an image born not of a computer screen, but a paintbrush called film.
So after some 16 years of using digital, I am pretty much done with it except for specific circumstances. Most of those circumstances will be motion picture making, not stills.
I have built a darkroom, I get large Ilfochromes made from black and white Techpan slides processed in dr5, I shoot 20x24 litho film in a giant pinhole, I shoot the real thing man, I shoot FILM!
Yes, digital was well worth it, I can do it in my sleep. But the best part is it taught me that film is photography and digital is really not, at least for my meeds. For everything we do now days gets rammed up the arse of a computer, the thing that is killing backs, wrists, minds, vision, jobs and turning eye contact into i-contact.
I have had enough of this sh_t, I have had enough of fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity, I have had enough of digital.
So no, silver is not dead because I am not dead. One of the magazines I do regular work for assigned me to do a piece that would fill three pages. I shot it with my Hasselblad, souped the film in my kitchen, made actual darkroom prints and showed them at the meeting. They gave it three more pages and doubled my rate.
And yes, you had better damn well believe Silver is Better!
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
It is already happening Bill, I am finding that people will pay good for a hand made non-computer art derived print, as much as 10X in what I have directly experienced.
Digital was dead before it was even born....at least for me.
Last edited:
Fenwick
Established
Well said KM-25 well said
KM-25
Well-known
You could not be more wrong Mr. Wilson. I got to spend quite a bit of time with those at Kodak who actually make film last June when they flew 4 of us out to help announce to the world that Kodachrome was to retire.
It seems you waged war with a medium that was your friend from the start, a great teacher of nuance and light. You don't fight the journey that is life my friend, you go with the flow, you become the flow. Then and only then, the brilliance reveals itself to you...and boldly so if you have the heart and the talent to recognize it.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
"fake photography ooozing in photoshop born mediocrity" ... Oh man, I see t-shirts, mugs, the works. I'm not being facetious ... that is great.
KM-25
Well-known
Why not, I made K-Project T-shirts last year that sold out. But then I only made 75 of them, as in 75 years of kodachrome..
For others, Back Alley, don't take my passion personally, it is mine to deal with, not yours, it is simply expressed here.
Good night folks and good light, regardless of medium.
amateriat
We're all light!
How it works for me: On the post-shoot side, I "went digital" in the late 90s, head-over-heels with the degree of control I had in terms of scanning, image-adjustment, and printing, compared to any makeshift darkroom I could possibly conjure up (no chance of a proper, permanent darkroom setup in my lifetime).
As far as cameras, however, digital, in the ways that count for me, is about a light-year or two behind my favorite film-based counterparts. the "fastest, bestest" models are ridiculously large, heavy and obnoxious (but apparently fine for contemporary PJ work and such, for what that's worth). The more sanely-sized offerings are lacking in any of a host of ways, and too susceptible to flavor-of-the-month syndrome (a curse of most all digital devices, of course). None of these cameras are as straightforward in use as a decent film-based camera, IMO. Yes, I know my way around most digital cameras, but I feel I shouldn't need to ford so many technological streams for the sake of a particular image when in the field; when I'm home, in a comfy task chair, in front of my Mac, it's a different story. But until someone gets the proper gestalt of good digital camera design (which, from an ergonomic/operational standpoint, shouldn't be much different from good film-camera design), my main beat will remain film.
- Barrett
As far as cameras, however, digital, in the ways that count for me, is about a light-year or two behind my favorite film-based counterparts. the "fastest, bestest" models are ridiculously large, heavy and obnoxious (but apparently fine for contemporary PJ work and such, for what that's worth). The more sanely-sized offerings are lacking in any of a host of ways, and too susceptible to flavor-of-the-month syndrome (a curse of most all digital devices, of course). None of these cameras are as straightforward in use as a decent film-based camera, IMO. Yes, I know my way around most digital cameras, but I feel I shouldn't need to ford so many technological streams for the sake of a particular image when in the field; when I'm home, in a comfy task chair, in front of my Mac, it's a different story. But until someone gets the proper gestalt of good digital camera design (which, from an ergonomic/operational standpoint, shouldn't be much different from good film-camera design), my main beat will remain film.
- Barrett
robklurfield
eclipse
erik
Established
Thanks for this, made my day. Some editors do see and value the difference.
oleg C
Established
Nah, you'll just have thousands of photos of your monitor.
Please don't say that !!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"But the best part is it taught me that film is photography and digital is really not."
You insult a lot of very good photographers.
You insult a lot of very good photographers.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Everybody's happy with film except for Mr. Electric Screwdrivers. My electric screwdrivers don't see very much use anymore. No need to sell them, though... I want a t-shirt.
oleg C
Established
Bill, thank you!! Your quote just finally help me to decide to set up a dark room..