pop Posted November 13, 2010 Share #121 Posted November 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I shoot film cameras because digital ones are crap and they don't work in the places I do. so I know exactly what is possible, .... Getting a car into the Highlands of Papua New Guinea is definately not possible. So you know what's possible in logistics for automotive devices. The topic at hand would be providing electricity in minuscule amounts to mobile devices. That's not comparable to hauling motor cars into remote locations. It's been done since before WW I. However, if you don't understand about electricity, choosing a set of technologies which make you less dependent on electricity is a wise choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2010 Posted November 13, 2010 Hi pop, Take a look here Young people and film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #122 Posted November 13, 2010 Take them on a shoot so they can try 4x5, process the film with them and make a big print of the technically best frame. It ruins them for life. Not really, but it leaves a great impression. They can make up their own mind. Well that is pretty much my background. And when I was in school, all of the foundation work was with 4x5 although we were free to use other formats too. Except for one instructor who called 35mm "miniature" cameras and probably thought they were "crap." I think various challenges and qualities of large format photography may be the answer to "sell" film photography to some individuals in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 13, 2010 Share #123 Posted November 13, 2010 Young people can make up their own minds. In my modest experience (over 30 years in Higher Ed), they are less concerned about peer opinions regarding technology than we Olde Phartes are. Show them things like the analog versions of some Photoshop features, some prints from Large and Medium format, some from various digital cameras and they will find their own way. I was stunned a few years ago when a student said, "I want to make my own plates." and I couldn't do anything but point him to the technical library. I was clueless, and definitely not interested in such 'old' technology. Go figure! We were all young once. When I entered photography it was through 35mm which was shunned by some fellow newspaper photographers (most close to retirement.) A stunning comment was "so how do you cover two columns with that little negative"? Another was, "Yea, if you shoot twenty pictures!" They called it "Shotgunning" If I were starting today, it would 100% digital. I'd probably have two M9s. As-is,today I'm afraid to have one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #124 Posted November 13, 2010 Hi adanYours is a conditional statement it is valid only if one is wrong. So your quote is kettle calling pot black independent of color of pot? Do you have a post grad degree in sophistry? Noel Hi AlanG Film is cheap - at the moment, digital requires large initial investement - at the moment. There is so much surplus film... Most of my darkroom kit was given to me, & last film SLR was 25 GBP. I'll give you can gst a nice DSLR real cheap, but if it fails, it is waste bin... A web book and photo quality printer are necessary for d-prints, unless you make do with mini lab machines. 35mm replaced 5x4 speed graphics for hot news cause it was more immediate not cause it was better quality, Dig and 35mm are similar, but if dont need to wire (i.e.e-mail) photos to news room, dev & proof in evening is possible for free apart from chemicals, note the Dcamera needs a 3G Laptop for hot news, and a solar cell supply if there is no mains. It depends what your are shooting, if it does not repeat you cannot reshoot it on digital, or analogue, Ill give you you know you failed sooner, but one is supposed to assume that anyway... You dont need mains for analogue you can proof with sunlight, you do need a standby gen for enlarging. I dont tell any youngsters to get involved with digital or analogue, if they ask I let them try my rfdr, tell them about scale focus and depth of field scale, even kids who have been of PJ courses may never have seen a depth of field scale. The big risk is they drool over my M2, 'why is the viewfinder so bright', 'how much is one'... If you see problems with analogue stick with digital, lots of people could not use reel to reel machines but could use Phillips cassettes, so reel to reel was always a niche product. I dont like the d higlights, but that I'd accept is a subjective thing. Lots ofpeoplecannot stand dig pics, again a subjective thing. Noel Look, I think we all know the pros and cons of doing all this on film or digital. My film experience was different and more expensive than yours. We can find cheap or expensive ways to do either. If you think film photography is more affordable than digital, do you show young emerging photographers how to do it this way? I do encourage people to get a darkroom because I think you can get one for free today. I am trying to get away from the pointless film vs. digital rehash of the same things we all know and get into the nitty gritty of how do you overcome the hurdles of getting others to take up film photography and printing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #125 Posted November 13, 2010 I was stunned a few years ago when a student said, "I want to make my own plates." and I couldn't do anything but point him to the technical library. I was clueless, and definitely not interested in such 'old' technology. Go figure! This one student is an exception, but there was a time when that was common. My first year at school, we had to build our own cameras, make liquid emulsion, and mix our chemicals from scratch. My fine art design instructor, from another department, who didn't know anything about photo technology, suggested I should try to make my own color liquid emulsions for my project. She didn't give any clues as to how I could accomplish this. 40 years later, I'm still wondering if I could have found a way to do it. I also used to make color posterized images using up to a dozen sheets of 8x10 litho film and a vacuum pin registration system. It might take a day or two of darkroom work before I had a print. I was hardly alone in experimenting with many aspects of film technology. Photo silk screen work and alternative processes too. But as you can do so much on a computer today, I don't know if there is any significant push to keep any of these techniques going. I know that some of this is still available, but without a critical mass of individuals sharing these ideas in a school, they might not be exposed to it much. I taught at one school (CDIA) and lectured at a local college, and neither place has anything to do with film. If I hadn't gone to photo school I might have not tried much besides 35mm and standard print making. Many of these techniques are only going to be done by a few dedicated individuals in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 13, 2010 Share #126 Posted November 13, 2010 ... My fine art design instructor, from another department, who didn't know anything about photo technology, suggested I should try to make my own color liquid emulsions for my project. She didn't give any clues as to how I could accomplish this. 40 years later, I'm still wondering if I could have found a way to do it. You could separate the colours into different films and print the composite with a traditional printing process such as lithography or screen printing. Then you'd be free to formulate your own pigments, I think. Don't know if it's worth the bother, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted November 13, 2010 Share #127 Posted November 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Look, I think we all know the pros and cons of doing all this on film or digital. My film experience was different and more expensive than yours. We can find cheap or expensive ways to do either. If you think film photography is more affordable than digital, do you show young emerging photographers how to do it this way? I do encourage people to get a darkroom because I think you can get one for free today. I am trying to get away from the pointless film vs. digital rehash of the same things we all know and get into the nitty gritty of how do you overcome the hurdles of getting others to take up film photography and printing? Hi There are no hurdles and I don't encourage people into film. I'm not an evangelical. I saw my Uncle doing contact printing with two bits of widow glass, two bull dog clips (sorry dont know USA words), and hypo, in tea cup saucer. He glazed them on window glass in the kitchen window. His were better than chemist shop prints. I was five, not forgiven him for that. Most kids with DSLRs ignore me when they are street shooting, only a few stop and ask. Most have no technical background, or training, some are using their PJ college loaner DSLR, the course has not necessarily empowered them, even for a DLSR. They can still ask why or how, or what,... Their questions are not necessarily about film, typical ones are about contrajour, exposure, depth of field,... how much is the camera (an M2, or CanonP) is easy, the lens (a CV) ditto. I've taken to confiscating RedDots business cards and handing them out, direction is too difficult... If I was an evan e.g. - I'd be sitting at a park bench with a pack of processed Bromoil paper, and a ink roller or brushes... - Or like Sally Mann a wetplate, portable droom and contact paper. I'm just street shooting with rfdr. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 13, 2010 Share #128 Posted November 13, 2010 Ach, just use or make a tri-color camera. Or try the simpler method of Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky in 1909! Leica made a color filter wheel for the Visoflex. I forgot what it was called. Is there anything new under the sun for analog photography? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 13, 2010 Share #129 Posted November 13, 2010 "Hi adan, Yours is a conditional statement it is valid only if one is wrong." Or if one is "not yet right." Being "not right" is pretty common, since perhaps 2% of human conceptualization is based on hard irrefutable fact, and the other 98% boils down to opinion of one kind or another. In a dispute of opinion, neither party is "right" until the dispute is resolved. At least as viewed by an impartial observer. I try keep an open mind about practically everything. The good news (on the original topic) is that young people almost always have open, receptive minds - about film, among other things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #130 Posted November 13, 2010 You could separate the colours into different films and print the composite with a traditional printing process such as lithography or screen printing. Then you'd be free to formulate your own pigments, I think. Don't know if it's worth the bother, though. I did stuff like that with screen printing. But color liquid emulsion is a stretch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #131 Posted November 13, 2010 Ach, just use or make a tri-color camera. My 2nd year color printing instructor, Robert Bagby, was an early master with the tri-color camera with carbro and dye transfer prints. He did major worldwide color advertising photography in the early 30s. One photo he showed us was an entire ship's ballroom filled with models for the Grace cruise ship lines. He said he used 120+ flash bulbs throughout the space and could only take a single shot. He was pretty old and we were all pretty impressed by him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 13, 2010 Share #132 Posted November 13, 2010 My 2nd year color printing instructor, Robert Bagby RIT? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearlight Posted November 13, 2010 Share #133 Posted November 13, 2010 Being "not right" is pretty common, since perhaps 2% of human conceptualization is based on hard irrefutable fact, and the other 98% boils down to opinion of one kind or another. 92% of all statistics are made up on the spot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted November 13, 2010 Share #134 Posted November 13, 2010 Hi Good point clear light, I understand. Received wisdom is we share 98% of our genes with the chimp. Perhaps that is why we take so readily to DSLR and the like. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted November 13, 2010 Share #135 Posted November 13, 2010 RIT? Yes 70-74 B.S. Pro Photo. Junior year at the Polytechnic of Central London. Bagby, Todd, Zakia, Stroebel, Wes Kemp, lots of good profs. Did you go there too? "Leica made a color filter wheel for the Visoflex." There was an early three shot digital system for Sinar that worked that way. And of course various other methods of shooting separations with digital still in use today. The Kodak Color Video Analyzer was a system for adjusting the color balance when printing from color negatives. It used a b/w video camera and synchronized filters that spun in front of the camera lens and the b/w video screen... conceptually similar to how some EVFs work today. I loved playing with that thing. We thought it was very very hi tech. Then the revelation of the first drum scanner to hit the printing department. Everyone there was so excited but we photographers didn't get it at the time. I also didn't get why the computer program was trying to get photographers and artists interested in what they were doing. Too bad I didn't see the value of computers at the time. I also remember when the school of printing got started with photo typesetting. This made a large room of Linotype machines obsolete overnight. I think if Mathew Brady came back to life and you gave him a current 8x10 view camera he'd say, "I would have expected a lot more change than this in 150 years." Our current methods of film photography has had a very long run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted November 14, 2010 Share #136 Posted November 14, 2010 Polytechnic of Central London. Now the "University of Westminster" which I suppose sounds posher! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearlight Posted November 19, 2010 Share #137 Posted November 19, 2010 As a postscript, there's a post over on the digital side implying that the M8 is old hat because Leica have released the M9. The suggestion is that the M8 is only useful for IR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted November 19, 2010 Share #138 Posted November 19, 2010 Hi Clearlight That post is from a well 'trolled' thread. The posters seem to ignore, that a M8 in shop is typically 1290 GBP and any M8 repair may be a large fraction of 1290 GBP, RD/1 in same condition about 900 GBP. RD/! smaller sensor fewer pixels, and not got the brand kudos of a Leica, so repairs may be cheaper. Leica are in the recycling world. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 19, 2010 Share #139 Posted November 19, 2010 The M8 is what it is - perfectly capable of producing color, straight B&W, or IR images. A little limited on the wide-angle side (which is why I, as a 21mm lover, switched to the M9). By contrast, IR film is most definitely only useful for IR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearlight Posted November 19, 2010 Share #140 Posted November 19, 2010 I can think of numerous uses for IR film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.