Last Year at PMA

[Glenn Kroeger]

I can't disagree more with Erik's claim that:

"It seems with each technological advance things take longer, are harder to do, cost more, and deliver less"

In my color photography, scanning and printing digitally with a LightJet have allowed me to become an artist. For years, I was stuck with trying to pick a film/process/paper that would produce what I visualized. But unlike B&W, it was a process with precious little control. I had to carry negative and reversal films, choosing based on some guess as to whether Cibachrome or Type R would reproduce the color palette I saw. I had virtually no control over contrast or tonal range. Aside from exposure, it was pot luck.

I still capture the image on silver. But Photoshop gives me the artistic control that an ART should have. I can CHOOSE to faithfully reproduce what my eye saw, not what some particular emulsion/paper pair could manage. Or, I can CHOOSE to produce what I wanted to see... just like a painter with canvas. But now it is MY choice. And this technology holds new promise for B&W as well. Sure, N+ and N- developing let you change the overally slope of the curve, but with digital you can change the curve at every density. Sure, you want a good high-silver fiber based paper for the final product, but that doesn't mean digital cannot be used as a process in route to the product.

Now as Erik points out, having paint and canvas does not make everybody a Rembrandt. We have all seen the abominations in the typesetting that the advent of the Mac and Laserwriter brought to the world. Having typefaces and knowing how to use them are two different things... and a mouse and menu don't replace centuries of development of an artform like typesetting. But the response is not to go back to hot-lead, but to educate the users about the asthetics and sensibilities of the medium.

Another note, digital may not be so environmentally friendly as we hope. The digital cameras I have used go through batteries like ... thru a goose. If everybody would recharge batteries it would be fine. But most consumer still digital cameras use AAs. And on vacation, that means the family is going to go through dozens of alkaline batteries. That's nasty for the environment.

[Blake]

calm down...this isn't trackable but there are a lot of us here using large format and if we could total film sales over the last year I'm sure we'd see an increase from the 80's. I think that if the silver-eating consumer market goes digital faster we could see our silver-based products cheapen. Let's wait and see...it can't be all that bad. And Sheldon...don't do that...the price you pay for a digi cam that might get you decent 8"x10"'s in bright daylight will get you a Mf rangefinder for the same price/weight. Trad is still the best bang for the buck. I've used our frontline kodak nikon digicams and they are very noisy at 620asa and above unusable for anything but very small pj quality work...the bodies are huge and any print from that cam even at hi-res settings the prints hurt my eyes over 5x7. What we can do now is stick with trad cams and not buy the digicams and let the companies know without a doubt that we won't settle for anything less than what we have.

[sheldon hambrick]

And Sheldon...don't do that...the price you pay for a digi cam that might get you decent 8"x10"'s in bright daylight will get you a Mf rangefinder for the same price/weight.

Trib, youre reading my mind! Thats (buying a Fuji RF or two) exactly what I was/am planning on doing with the proceeds from the sale of some of my 35mm stuff.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Maybe a counter trend, but sales of MF equipment are rising, and the MF manufactures are clearly trying to appeal to traditional 35mm users (witness Contax and Mamiya AF)... is this because of or dispite consumer digital?

[Blake]

that as good as any reason I've heard Sheldon...I bought my GSW because Ilford released 3200 delta in 120....I couldn't feel more justified since.

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

While I am worried about the whole mess, there are plenty of good points made above. Video did not knock out film. Color did not wipe out black and white.

Last year at a convention of movie theater owner/operators and other exhibitors, traditional film projected by a top flight union projectionist went head to head against the newest high tech alternative. It was a draw of sorts. The union projectionist was quite impressed with the new technology and it's image quality. They had improved dramatically over what he had seen in the past.

However, the new tech folks were rather stunned at the quality of the projectionists work. They had been basing their qulity standards on what they had seen at the local multi-plex which is unfortunatley all too common and accepted by consumers.

I watched the sequal to Jurassic Park in a multiplex in New Jersey and thought there was something wrong. Sure enough, when the credits rolled it was all too obvious that the gate was open or out of registration. Did anyone but me complain?

Super XX is out of production, although Ron Wisner is trying to change that. If you're interested I suggest you contact him at sales@wisner.com. Azo is on the endangered species list, but Freestyle has doen what it can.

If you care about quality and traditional materials there's two things you can do - as Trib said - VOTE with your Wallet! and call the manufacturers and raise a stink!

I pay about $1.60 something per sheet of 8 X 10. How much better quality for as little price and portability can you get? If I could afford the Mido system, I'd be able to carry even more sheets of film!

I wouldn't say that digital is devil-spawn. As stated above it has made materials control more manageable for some. I was flabbergasted though when the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago went all digital rather than shoot 1 B&W, 1 Chrome and 1 Color neg. That was standard practice in the studios I worked in and they scanned everything and sent it to their clients on zip drives!

What I don't understand is why they haven't tried to standardize like TV - there's no calibration color bars, no waveform monitor and vector scope, no back porch breezeway and so forth that will allow you consistancy from monitor to monitor from printer to printer to e- mail'd jpg to zip dirve etc. yet is there?

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

p.s.

Has anyone noticed the irony that we're discussing the advent of digital and the downfall of traditional materials/processes on an electronic forum associated with a page maintained by a computer mayven interested in the pursuit of those traditional materials?

[Bob Salomon]

Why would this have been at last years PMA? This years was just last month and there really was no major conclusion drawn other than last year was the year digital became viable and affordable for many and that both systems will continue to co-exist for quite some time.

This was also the conclusions drawn at a recent PMDA dinner where Managers of Kodak, Fuji, Olympus and Nikons digital divisions made a presentation to the industry in NYC.

[Bob Salomon]

Why would this have been at last years PMA? This years was just last month and there really was no major conclusion drawn other than last year was the year digital became viable and affordable for many and that both systems will continue to co-exist for quite some time.

This was also the conclusions drawn at a recent PMDA dinner where Managers of Kodak, Fuji, Olympus and Nikons digital divisions made a presentation to the industry in NYC.



"What is the potential of taking LF digital (aargh!) into the field? "

Go to Phase One and ask them where you can see the porfolio of B&W images done in the field on a Linhof Technikardan 23S camera with a Phase One back on location in Scotland last year.

The quality, tonality, detail, etc. will amaze you.

The potential is here.

[Blake]

sure the potential is there but so is the price. Better light is cheaper but both are slow.... aren't they?