Where will B&W be in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 .... years

"bob" wrote in message
. ..
Gregory Blank wrote:


Me thinks you have stayed very far from the topic listed above.

Yes, we did get off topic. Tom stated that images created with digital
cameras are not photography.

Tom's been harping on that theme for so long it's stuck to him as surely as
the ten year-old dried up snot on his chin. Lost Cause!

"jjs" john@xstafford.net wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message
. ..
Gregory Blank wrote:


Me thinks you have stayed very far from the topic listed above.

Yes, we did get off topic. Tom stated that images created with digital
cameras are not photography.

Tom's been harping on that theme for so long it's stuck to him as surely
as the ten year-old dried up snot on his chin. Lost Cause!

WAIT! Whew. Almost forgot my honorary Ludite role! Okay, Tom is wrong but I
hate digital Photography anyway! Digital has no soul, none of the sweet
smells, stained hands, and taste of the darkroom. In fact, digital
photography is fundamentally wrong because people process the images in the
light of day! Shamefull! In front of God and everyone!

Let's keep photography where it belongs: In the dark!

Oh, did I say that Tom was wrong anyway?

Recently, Nicholas O. Lindan posted:

Forecast the future of B&W.

Where do you think it will be in:

5 years?

10 years?

20 years?

50 years?

I think b&w photography will be with us for much longer than 50 years. It
is an abstract expressive form that remains relevant regardless of what
color photography brings.

A question is how b&w photographs will be made... from film? Printed in
darkrooms using traditional chemical methods? I think these methods will
be used largely by photographic artists, while most every other
application for b&w images will be purely digital within the next 5 years.

Regards, "hi" to Olgierd, hope all is well.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media

In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:
bob wrote:
I don't know if he's biased or just sloppy. I've got files on my PC at
work that I created more than a decade ago.

O come on. 10 years? What is that, besides 10 years?
Most people DO suffer data loss. Other than you, I
don't know anyone who hasn't.

I have plenty of stuff that has been on-line since 1989.

And I have my email archives from 1992.

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

Recently, Nicholas O. Lindan posted:

Forecast the future of B&W.

Where do you think it will be in:

5 years?

10 years?

20 years?

50 years?

I think b&w photography will be with us for much longer than 50 years. It
is an abstract expressive form that remains relevant regardless of what
color photography brings.

A question is how b&w photographs will be made... from film? Printed in
darkrooms using traditional chemical methods? I think these methods will
be used largely by photographic artists, while most every other
application for b&w images will be purely digital within the next 5 years.

Its accurate.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Gregory Blank" wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Nicholas O. Lindan posted:
Forecast the future of B&W.

I think b&w photography will be with us for much longer than 50 years.
It
is an abstract expressive form that remains relevant regardless of what
color photography brings.

A question is how b&w photographs will be made... from film? Printed in
darkrooms using traditional chemical methods? I think these methods will
be used largely by photographic artists, while most every other
application for b&w images will be purely digital within the next 5
years.

Its accurate.

Heck, even I agreeg. Except that it should be _some of the photographic
artists working in B&W_. Hey, it's true now: the bimonthly B&W art rag here
(Natural Glow) has lots of digital shot B&W and even B&W originally shot on
color slide film.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

Forecast the future of B&W.

I think are onto something in your later posting, and it might be at a
level that will be reached . . . or not.



Where do you think it will be in:

5 years?

More third world producers of B/W films;
Durst produce a system that quickly outputs true B/W prints, with
computer user control, enabling true B/W prints at low cost to the
client;
Ilford reduces the number of available emulsions;
Kodak reduces the number of available emulsions;
Fuji have only one emulsion choice, other than C-41 B/W;
Polaroid will have a readily available 8" by 10" positive/negative
instant film;
Some inkjet based systems will finally be able to do B/W prints with
good tonality and no colour cast.



10 years?

Kodak will produce another B/W only, direct digital SLR, only for the
professional market;
Kodak will buy Durst outright;
Fuji will have the largest share of the photofinishing industry, but not
offer B/W services;
Other than digital output, or output to colour films, true B/W printing
will become a rare speciality, with only a few dozen specialists
servicing the entire industry world-wide;
Further reduction in available emulsions from Kodak, Ilford, and AGFA
Photo;
Third world B/W films will become more numerous than major brands, more
emulsions, more choices;
Production of true B/W films will greatly decrease, except third world
companies;
Platinum and palladium printing will become simpler by way of speciality
pre-coated papers, though unfortunately not at any cost savings;
Polaroid will have a readily available 20" by 24" positive negative B/W
film;
Inkjet technology will offer prints that can be chemically washed to
offer tonality matching old style B/W, meaning that an entirely new
specialist invention will pave the way for future B/W prints.



20 years?

Inkjet to chemical B/W prints will prove to have been a dead end
technology, and a failure even amongst specialist fine art
photographers, all products will have become outdated by ten or more
years;
Commercial printing technologies will be available in greatly
miniaturized form (maybe desktop) that will allow high quality (think
photo books of 2005) volume printing in the home or office; using
commercial inks and a re-usable formable plate;
Inkjet printing will be a novelty item of the past, largely replaced by
desktop style CTP systems with re-usable plates, or by low cost
dye-sublimation printers;
Kodak, Fuji and AGFA Photo will only offer one B/W film to enthusiasts,
with no paper being produced;
Third world companies, and a few artists and enthusiasts, will support a
small industry of true B/W films and specialist paper products;
Ilford will be bought by a consortium of Croatian, Hungarian, and
Romanian companies, then licensed to a company in India for production
of four speciality B/W emulsions.




50 years?

Fine artists will be doing their own B/W printing, with some supplies
coming from Windsor & Newton;
Printing to plastic and flexible aluminium will be common;
B/W prints will remain popular, though the desktop lithography system
will be the only home user choice;
Commercial B/W printing (very high quality) will be available through
FedEx, with wireless transmission of images meaning final delivery in
less than one hour, no matter where you are;
The FedEx special B/W printing service will mean a resurgence of B/W
photography for weddings, though the entire photo album will now be
available at the reception;
Third world countries forty years before will see increased labour
rates, meaning the only production of old style B/W films and papers
will be in Africa;
B&H Photo will import B/W products from Africa, since no other sources
will exist.



If there is enough participation the average of the
predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate.

.. . . or not.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Chris Brown" wrote"

And I have my email archives from 1992.

I have mine from 1977, and until just recently could read the tapes. I
decided to let the whole lot go to the ether and erased 'em.

bob wrote:

If you want to argue that a small subset of the population use
the word photograph more restrictively I would not argue
against that, but to claim that all those other people
aren't allowed their usage of the word seems rather pompous.

This is a newsgroup for people who have a strong interest
in photography, and it is not much read by the greater
part of the population who have no such strong interest.
It isn't pompous to try to encourage precise use of
technical vocabulary in a technical forum.

The word "photograph" has long had a technical meaning
within the field of photography. In R. Child Bailey's
The Complete Photographer (10th ed. 1932) he writes:
"In the strictly literal sense of the word 'photograph'
a carbro print is not a photograph at all, since light
plays no part in its production" (p.212).

I think that the motivation for this insistence on
the strict meaning of the term may not be purely
based on a desire for accuracy in communication,
but that doesn't change the fact that communication
can be improved by insisting on technical meanings
of terms within the field even though those terms
have acquired looser meanings in popular use.

Peter.
--

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:25:34 -0500, Rafe Bustin
wrote:

As Dave Littleboy pointed out just a day
or two ago, the technology needed to make
today's color films is anything but mundane.
IOW, it's high tech and apparently in Fuji's
opinion, no longer worth the trouble to make.

Once the formulas, processes and equipment are produced, there
is very little R&D needed to manufacture a product. Also there isn't
much variation in output if the throughput is sufficient to maintain a
stable work flow. My nephew works for DuPont and says it can be one of
the most boring jobs a person can do. He just watches machines all of
the time and adds a can of something when needed.

BTW, the machine that Kodak is/was using to spool 220 had
outlived its' original creators by about 25 years.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email