|
|
|
lion
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/7/2008 2:49:31 PM
Posts: 135,
Visits: 324
|
|
roteague (12/13/2007)
Agreed Wayne. Very well said. When the idea for this place first came up, I felt it needed to be more than just another discussion forum. My thoughts led me to a three point mission: promote, protect and encourage traditional processes. The tag line for this site, which I haven't put up yet, is: "Promoting and Preserving Craftsmanship in Photography" - which I hope captures the ideal behind it.
The big question is how to do all this. Some processes, like the one Rich (naturephoto1) and I use, are for all intents and purposes gone.
Well, you know that dye transfer seems to be making a comeback... 
Yes much harder than any of the processes out there, but men, when well done it is a sight to behold.....The best color photography I ever saw was by Elliot Porter in dye transfer and by John Charles Woods in cibachrome. SO who know maybe you should start sharpening up on Cibas and Dye transfer down the line... 
|
|
|
|
|
tiger
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/26/2008 11:31:12 PM
Posts: 62,
Visits: 180
|
|
I agree share Jorges concern about this matter. Harman (Ilford) has just recently launched a barytta paper for inkjet printers. It even has small particles of aluminum to give the "silver feeling". I have tried it, and it looks nice. But it gives me a bad taste in my mouth - why so desperately try to emulate a silver print.
This is a quote from their site: "The Baryta layer gives the prints greater detail and definition and the look and feel of real photographic paper." So they actually admit that this s what they try to do.
Now it is the time for me to come out of the closet and admit that I use digital output for me recent images. I am not very happy about it. I spend soooo much time in the field making perfect 4x5" and 8x10" negatives (and positives of course). They are carefully developed and ends up on a drum scanner, not in an enlarger or in a contact frame. This fact is bothering me more than I admit to myself. Why do I do this?
I would never do anything else than use film for may image capture. But I am curios about the digital output stage. I want to explore it and make up my mind about the process. The other reason is that it is complicated for me to set up a darkroom here. I live in an arctic outpost with small space (and rented apartment) and we have poor communication with the outside world. I have my darkroom equipment waiting for me at the mainland. So when I eventually return I am back in business.
I dont care about lying. And as we speak I am making some articles for my blog where I will share the outline of the digital output process that I use, for anyone that care to read. It will be easily available for all those who buy my images.
Best regards,
Eirik Berger
Longyearbyen, Svalbard
Just recently launched:
www.monochrome.no
|
|
|
|
|
pachyderm
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:18:46 PM
Posts: 545,
Visits: 2,246
|
|
Eirik Berger (12/18/2007)
Now it is the time for me to come out of the closet and admit that I use digital output for me recent images. I am not very happy about it. I spend soooo much time in the field making perfect 4x5" and 8x10" negatives (and positives of course). They are carefully developed and ends up on a drum scanner, not in an enlarger or in a contact frame. This fact is bothering me more than I admit to myself. Why do I do this?
Don't beat yourself up over this Eirik, I don't see this as a shortcoming on your part, as much as I see it as a result of the digital photography world we live in. Once you get back to the mainland where your darkroom is, I suspect you will be spending a lot of time in the darkroom.
Robert M. Teague---------------------------------------------
Website: www.visionlandscapes.com
Blog: visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com
"Fujifilm remains true to its heritage and to the acknowledged superior image quality delivered by professional photographic film products." -- Fuji Press Release
|
|
|
|
|
lion
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/7/2008 2:49:31 PM
Posts: 135,
Visits: 324
|
|
Now it is the time for me to come out of the closet and admit that I use digital output for me recent images. I am not very happy about it. I spend soooo much time in the field making perfect 4x5" and 8x10" negatives (and positives of course). They are carefully developed and ends up on a drum scanner, not in an enlarger or in a contact frame. This fact is bothering me more than I admit to myself. Why do I do this?
You do it because it is the only way you can make photographs, nothing wrong with this! As I see it you are still using film, and this is the important thing. As long as we have film we can always find a way to print them..no?
|
|
|
|
|
lion
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:14:24 AM
Posts: 136,
Visits: 208
|
|
roteague (12/13/2007)
mp_wayne (12/13/2007)
Our challenge, to keep the traditional community and methods alive, is to continue to share/participate in sites like this, and to support those suppliers who continue to make the products we love. Hopefully, our numbers will never diminish to the point that the last of those traditional suppliers disappear. Finally, our role is to challenge false claims by the digi-talists by presenting the truth and facts to an unknowing public (as opportunities present themselves). Our craft is a guild we are trying to preserve and positive PR is always helpful.
Agreed Wayne. Very well said. When the idea for this place first came up, I felt it needed to be more than just another discussion forum. My thoughts led me to a three point mission: promote, protect and encourage traditional processes. The tag line for this site, which I haven't put up yet, is: "Promoting and Preserving Craftsmanship in Photography" - which I hope captures the ideal behind it.
The big question is how to do all this. Some processes, like the one Rich (naturephoto1) and I use, are for all intents and purposes gone.
So very true Robert, and it is a bit frustrating. But, you and I and many others just plug along with our film based cameras (much of the photos being large format) and print from "digital negatives" on the Chromira or like machine.
Rich
Richard A. Nelridge
http://www.nelridge.com/
|
|
| |