Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tim atherton
for the record, those are Lightjets (or simialr) - i.e. printed on traditional chromogenic colour paper originating from LF colour negative film
it always beholds a luddite to at least get their facts straight
Ah, then the guy is an idiot. Hoping to have traditional materials go away yet needing them to print.
And they are not from a color negative, not at 99 cm in size, they are form digital files. So as you say before you post your erudition and make an ass of yourself get your facts straight as well.
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Canadian? Need I say more?
Don't insult Canadians. They are the only civilized people in North America.
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steven Barall
Canadian? Need I say more?
Nope, seems like sour grapes to me....
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Yeah . . . who the f*(% is Robert Burley? And why would he know any more than anyone else in the world of photography?
It seems every month some expert pops up and makes the same proclamation. These experts have also made this same proclamation for well over six years. Yet both Kodak and Fuji have introduced new films (even niche market transparency films), and one can still get Ilford films, amongst several other smaller choices.
Simple fact is that as long as someone can generate profit from film sales, film developing, or making photographic (chemical) prints, then some company will continue to do those things. Consider a super niche product like Kodachrome, and Dwayne's is still processing about 1000 rolls a day . . . imagine how much profit Kodak is still making from Kodachrome.
Oil painting is about as dead as any technology could possibly be dead, yet I can still buy oil paints, canvas, and brushes. It is not because it is propped up by enthusiasts, it is solely because several companies can make a profit from this continuing.
Maybe the distant future of film is places like Bostick & Sullivan selling chemicals to enthusiasts, or the need to get our supplies at an art store in a big city. However, we are not there yet. Can you buy film today? Yes! Can you get film processed today? Yes!
Seriously take a look at all that Polaroid has been through, and still one can buy Polaroid film. One can even buy Fuji Instant peel apart films. Someone must be buying this stuff, or it would not be available for sale.
So a company shuts down a factory . . . Big Fluffy Dog! Now go out and shoot some film.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
Ah, then the guy is an idiot. Hoping to have traditional materials go away yet needing them to print.
It's really about time you improve your English comprehension
either that or you didn't actually read what he said (big surprise there...). Nowhere did he say he was "Hoping to have traditional materials go away". In fact the work in question is very much an elegiac record of the once massive Kodak production facilities in Canada from someone who still uses a lot of traditional materials - both film and paper.
Quote:
And they are not from a color negative, not at 99 cm in size, they are form digital files. So as you say before you post your erudition and make an ass of yourself get your facts straight as well.
Again, your English comprehension really can't be that good, as I said "originating from LF colour negative film" - which is indeed the case
But you've got to have your childish little digs at anyone who would actually dare to use any form of digital process in their work.
Your statement was simply wrong.
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tim atherton
Again, your English comprehension really can't be that good, as I said "originating from LF colour negative film" - which is indeed the case
But you've got to have your childish little digs at anyone who would actually dare to use any form of digital process in their work.
Your statement was simply wrong.
Well, for someone who is a native english speaker it seems your english comprehension requires more work than mine, I learned english as a second language, what is your excuse? If the first paragraph of his BS introduction is not a wish to see traditional materials go away, I don't know what is.
Given that people doing ink jet prints will use any name excpet ink jet print to label their work one does not know if they are ink jets on anything else. So I might have been wrong calling them ink jet prints, but you are also wrong in pretending they are from purely traditional materials from a LF negative, which I am sure was your intention.
I don't take digs at people using digital, I take digs at those ass***** who use digital and pretend it to be the best thing since sliced bread just because they lacked the talent to make traditional work for them..... you are a perfect example.
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Kasaian
Fiber glass has been around at least since the 40's, but there are still sculptors chipping away at marble and granite.
Now go buy some plate holders and be happy :)
a bit different, since sculptors don't rely on materials that come from a specialized and expensive manufacturing process. those of us who use film are dependent on film remaining a profitable business. the industry in its current incarnation won't be able to sustain itself if demand gets too much lower; whether or not a cottage industry can rise up to replace it is a matter of speculation.
i don't know why speculation on the fate of an industry becomes such a religious issue. personally i hope film sticks around; if it does vanish i hope it waits until reasonable and affordable (for me at least!) digital alternatives appear.
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jorge Gasteazoro
If the first paragraph of his BS introduction is not a wish to see traditional materials go away, I don't know what is.
.
Photography as we know it is passing into history. As photographic media move rapidly from traditional light sensitive materials and processes to digital systems of capture and printing, the use of photographic films and papers have plunged into an irreversible decline that is quickly headed towards obsolescence. The goal of this project is to create an interpreted photographic record of a rapidly disappearing manufacturing infrastructure dedicated to the production and use of photochemical materials. The images presented here document the final year of the Kodak Canada facility in Toronto. This facility, which was made up of 18 buildings on a 5 hectare site, had a one hundred year history of producing photographic films and papers. It was sold in 2006 and demolished in the summer of 2007..
?? Simply sounds like a reasonable (and reasonably accurate) description of the current state of affairs - from someone who happens to be a long time film user
Quote:
So I might have been wrong calling them ink jet prints, but you are also wrong in pretending they are from purely traditional materials from a LF negative, which I am sure was your intention.
which wasn't at all what I said - once again you are 100% incorrect.
Ahh - And you pretend to know my intentions - how typically arrogant of you.
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gordon Moat
So a company shuts down a factory . . . Big Fluffy Dog! Now go out and shoot some film.
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
It was, though, the factory that produced many of the most well loved Kodak films and papers for the N American market
Re: Depressing Statement re Film
Quote:
?? Simply sounds like an accurate description of the current state of affairs
Dis you actually read the first few sentences? and if you did, did you understand them?
Probably not.....
Quote:
which wasn't at all what I said - once again you are 100% incorrect.
Ahh - And you pretend to know my intentions - how typically arrogant of you.
uh huh..... this is typical of you, now that you don't use your other identities you back down and pretend you did not try to make implications. Seems the written english is not something you are very good at or most likely you don't have the balls to say what you mean.