Hi ... I don't see digital printing as a replacement for silver gelatin prints, but I am concerned that, due to the contemporary business climate, over time, less and less in the way of materials will be available for those wishing to explore the process of a chemical darkroom. That said, my comments about longevity were mainly a broadside at those who believe everything put before them. I am a skeptic by nature, having seen many schemes and shames.
I ~do~ recognize digital printing as another way of expressing one's self and of putting an image into a viewable format. What few people know - at least on this list - is that, although I enjoy conventional photography, and reportage especially, in the past I have manipulated prints in very experimental ways, using inter negatives, litho film, reticulation, solarization, hand coloring, high and low contrast, collages, and who knows what else. I am not averse to going further and using other methods to produce a final print. I've just not done any of that sort of manipulation is a very long time. I am, however, slow to embrace new technology, in any area, not just photography. I make changes very slowly, only after carefully investigating the possibilities and alternatives. At this point I am ~very~ reluctant to give up film or embrace the digital camera as a recording tool. OTOH, I am not averse to finding an acceptable method for making prints using digital technology. The film/digital combination is appealing on several levels, but, as appealing as it is, I do not see changing from silver gelatin to digital output. Rather, I see digital printing as another way to express my point of view. I am, after all, scanning negs now, and learning a bit about that end of the process. The next step is printing. It may take a few months, or a few years, but I will be producing digital prints from film-recorded images at some point - once I know and understand what I want. There are a couple of well-regarded labs in the area that do exceptional work. I've already visited one of them, and, just today, have left word with another that I want to visit their premises. Bob Walkden wrote: > > Hi, > > it's a mistake for people to think of digital printing as being a > complete replacement of chemical printing. It's another way of getting > the picture off the film and onto some sort of paper (or paper-like > material such as cotton rag or plastic or whatever). Silver gelatin > prints are different from gum bichromates, which are different from > all the other techniques that have developed (no pun intended) in the > last 150 years or so. We shouldn't judge them by one single standard. > > Probably for most people, certainly at the consumer end, digital will > replace chemical prints, and that in itself is neither a good thing > nor a bad thing as far as I can see. If anything it's good because it > brings high quality in at a very affordable price. In the part of the > market that people like you and I inhabit we will, probably for our > lifetimes at least, be able to choose from the whole array of > different processes that are available, from calotypes to Piezo > prints and beyond. > > There's no reason why you _have_ to change to a different type of > print if you don't want to - although of course some of the materials > may become difficult to obtain and expensive over the next few years, > but that will probably give your photos an added cachet and value, > like gum bichromates. > > But if you won't change just because you haven't seen a 100-year old > print then you can never change - however much you might like some new > process we haven't heard of yet - because you will probably never see > a 100-year old anything that's produced using techniques or materials > that are younger than you are. It's even possible that the materials > you're using now, such as Tri-X, won't last 100 years. > > But the 'papers' such as cotton rag almost certainly will last for hundreds > of years - cotton rag predates paper as a technology and our libraries > are full of books printed 100s of years ago on the stuff. Also, some > of the pigments are quite old technology, I believe, and the way it > permeates the cotton rather than lying on the surface apparently > should guarantee very long lifetimes. To some extent this is a > better-proven, and longer-established technology than photographic > chemistry. Hell, if the worse comes to the worst you could even print > on vellum and that'll last for millenia! -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
