Buy Daguerreotype plates, not film

"Buy Daguerreotype plates, not film."

Sounds dumb, doesn't it.

I'm changing my viewpoint ...

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.

Digital has been around for ~10 years. 10 years into film we were still
in the round negatives era. I don't think we have seen anything yet
as regards non-silver imaging -- and God's all ahead of us with this
rhodopsin thing of his -- when we catch up with that it will be
'bye-bye digital'.

I am sadly coming to the conclusion that the analogy with painting,
that there are still plenty of paints and canvas to be found, may
not apply to film photography.

A modern painting is not analogous to a photograph - they aim to do different
things: one is to show what is, the other is to show the artist's impression
of what is. It seems realistic painters of portraits and the Hudson river are
no longer.

I do, however, plan to be one of the last Daguerreotypists^H^H^H^H film
photographers around. My guess is microfilm stock will be around for
a long time - Techpan Lives!

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"Buy Daguerreotype plates, not film."

Ah, that's the wonderful thing -- Daguerreotypy is a process that I
really can carry from start to finish with materials lifted from other,
less "threatened" hobbies. I can buy flat plate glass from Schott or
their distributors in the correct thickeness to fit my holders; I can
chemically silver that glass (to let the glass plate replace the
silvered copper plates of original Dags), and not have to burnish
because the fresh silver coat will already be chemically clean and flat.
I can fume the plate with iodine and bromine (iodine crystals are
available at tack shops, used to treat horse hoof ailments and hock
injuries; bromine vapor can be trivially obtained from swimming pool or
spa treatment chemicals), even chlorine (obtainable, frequently by
accident, from liquid bleach). I could, if I chose, obtain liquid
mercury (if necessary, by smelting it from mineralogical samples of
cinnabar, but preferably by purchasing a small quantity; a pound will
develop hundreds of plates) and use it in a vacuum and cold trap setup
to develop the plates in an environmentally, economically, and safety
conscious way, but I'm more likely to experiment with using modern
developing chemicals (potentially including coffee, which I'll still be
able to get as long as caffeine is legal) to develop the image on the
plate, fix it with normal fixer, burnish with a candle flame as was done
in the 1830s. Hmm. Better make sure I get borosilicate glass...

Sounds dumb, doesn't it.

Not as dumb as giving up photography just because film is dead.

I'm changing my viewpoint ...

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.

Digital has been around for ~10 years. 10 years into film we were still
in the round negatives era. I don't think we have seen anything yet
as regards non-silver imaging -- and God's all ahead of us with this
rhodopsin thing of his -- when we catch up with that it will be
'bye-bye digital'.

But digital is part of a culture that takes it for granted that what you
bought three years ago is no longer usable for any current operations
(even if it still functions, which is likely), and what you bought ten
to fifteen years ago is a museum piece, of interest only to gawkers and
those few trying to trace how we got to where we are. A
first-generation Sony Mavica was to today's digitals as that Dag camera
is to today's Sinar 4x5. And BTW, round images were a Dag icon first --
the first Voigtlander camera was a tiny Daugerreotype camera that looked
suspicously like a small brass telescope (surprise, the Voigtlander
family had made telescopes and lenses for a couple generations before
Niepce put bitumen on a plate inside a camera obscura) and used round
plates.

Digital hasn't even really gotten well started on the consumer
electronics path of delivering more and more capability for less and
less money until no one will both to buy one even for under $100 because
it's been replaced by a genuinely incompatible technology in the same
niche -- like portable CD players, now being replaced by MP3 players
with no moving parts.

I am sadly coming to the conclusion that the analogy with painting,
that there are still plenty of paints and canvas to be found, may
not apply to film photography.

A modern painting is not analogous to a photograph - they aim to do different
things: one is to show what is, the other is to show the artist's impression
of what is. It seems realistic painters of portraits and the Hudson river are
no longer.

No, they're not gone. There is still a photorealistic school, in fact,
painters who use traditional oils or acrylics, brushes, and canvas or
panel to produce renditions so strikingly realistic you need, in some
cases, a magnifying glass to tell it's not a photoprint. And there are
many, many "realist" painters who do landscapes and even portraits in
the "traditional" style of the 19th century (though very few who produce
the epic canvases many feet in each dimension). They don't get much
attention from the "art" world because they're not on the cutting edge,
but if they're good at what they do, and at selling their work, they can
make a good living, still.

And there are schools of photography that are more analogous to painting
than the "push the button and let Kodak do the rest" crowd. Look on
photo.net for Piotr Kowalik, who have a very distinctive personal style
and produces exquisite images -- he's very competent with Photoshop, but
his unmanipulated images still carry his signature style in lighting,
color, pose, etc., and (the opinions of others on this group
notwithstanding) are surely art. Asya Schween is another such; her very
disturbing images (in many cases) carry none of the earmarks of the
slavishly photographic, yet are apparently produced in the camera, not
on a computer screen (even though they are manipulated in terms of
cropping, etc. after scanning). There are others as well.

I do, however, plan to be one of the last Daguerreotypists^H^H^H^H film
photographers around. My guess is microfilm stock will be around for
a long time - Techpan Lives!

I'll quit making images with light when I can't see them any more.
Until then, I'll be a chemical photographer, even if I have to find out
if roofing tar still hardens when exposed to UV. I might well use
digital -- in fact, I do now, for plain documentation; I have a 5 MP
digital with good controls, not a DSLR but capable of "bad" exposures
and focus if I choose those things, but for photography to suit my own
muse, I'll continue to choose film.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

There's an interesting book, _Primitive_Photography_ by Alan Greene, that tells
how to make your own camera & salted paper negatives, etc. You've probably
seen it. I'd be curious to know how to make pansensitive emulsions though;
the book only describes classical blue sensitive emulsions.

Travis Porco wrote:
There's an interesting book, _Primitive_Photography_ by Alan Greene, that tells
how to make your own camera & salted paper negatives, etc. You've probably
seen it. I'd be curious to know how to make pansensitive emulsions though;
the book only describes classical blue sensitive emulsions.

I've got a PDF file here somewhere, scans of a very old book that goes
into all the details of making "high speed" emulsions (ASA 100,
probably, given that the book dates to the 1920s) and panchromatic
films. Ping me by e-mail and I'll look for it; while I'm pretty sure
it's too big to send by e-mail, if I can remind myself of the title, I
can most likely relocate where I downloaded it. If not, I can break it
up with HJSplit and send the pieces. It's all in there, if you can just
translate the usages to modern language; even the names of the actinic
dyes used to sensitize and panchromatize (though you might need to
translate those to modern IUPAC nomenclature to find them in a chemical
catalog now).

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message ink.net...
"Buy Daguerreotype plates, not film."

Sounds dumb, doesn't it.

I'm changing my viewpoint ...

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.

Digital has been around for ~10 years. 10 years into film we were still
in the round negatives era. I don't think we have seen anything yet
as regards non-silver imaging -- and God's all ahead of us with this
rhodopsin thing of his -- when we catch up with that it will be
'bye-bye digital'.

I am sadly coming to the conclusion that the analogy with painting,
that there are still plenty of paints and canvas to be found, may
not apply to film photography.

A modern painting is not analogous to a photograph - they aim to do different
things: one is to show what is, the other is to show the artist's impression
of what is. It seems realistic painters of portraits and the Hudson river are
no longer.

I do, however, plan to be one of the last Daguerreotypists^H^H^H^H film
photographers around. My guess is microfilm stock will be around for
a long time - Techpan Lives!

Hay Nicholas
Yer right, but it really doesn't matter what rec.photo...... thinks or
does. We are a tiny, tiny minority of the photo buying public.
Communisn doesn't work. Capitalisn does. I'm sure God is B&W
Zoanansty, but if B&W silver doesn't sell, it ain't gonna be made. The
hard reality is that silver is dying.
I do see a hope, perhaps some medium sized company (like who.....? I
dunno) will buy out the formulation for the more popular products.
Several well know brands, products will be continued under a common
masthead, such as Tech Pan, Illforchrome, Accufine, etc.
But I'm not holding my breath. I do hpoe that color neg. films that
can be scaned survive in 35, 120, & cut film. Pure digital isn't yet
quite up to that combination, especially not in LF.
Best, John

In article et,
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Buy Daguerreotype plates, not film."

Sounds dumb, doesn't it.

I'm changing my viewpoint ...

snip..
Digital has been around for ~10 years. 10 years into film we were still
in the round negatives era. I don't think we have seen anything yet
as regards non-silver imaging -- and God's all ahead of us with this
rhodopsin thing of his -- when we catch up with that it will be
'bye-bye digital'.

Bio imaging technology?

I do, however, plan to be one of the last Daguerreotypists^H^H^H^H film
photographers around. My guess is microfilm stock will be around for
a long time - Techpan Lives!

Of course I'd rather it be on transparent substrate so
I could enlarge it. But I beg to differ on definitions...

As I see it, Daguerreotypes, and film, and digital, are all
photographic processes with the same goal: to reproduce what
the eye sees. And each generation has done a better job of it.

Digital is not a photographic process. It is an imaging process,
but not photographic. For starters, it would not and _cannot_ be
a different medium, which it is, and still be "photographic." If
it is a different medium, which it is, it must be something else.

Photography was a very precise term selected by the eminent
scientists and photographic researchers of the day to mean
exactly what it is: a photochemical phenomenon that literally
transforms the light reflected from objects onto sensitized
substrates into a physical form. The terms light writing,
photogenic drawing, etc., were deliberately selected to describe
a phenomenon which was similar to drawing with pen or pencil on
paper: a permanent, tangible image remained when light was used
to chemically "draw" an original object projected as an optical
image. Photography literally means Phos Graphos or light writing.

Digital does not do this. Digital is a technological process of
_transferring_ regenerated data through an electronic medium.
Even the term "digital image" is misleading. Digital is based on
photoelectric phenomenon, so essentially there is no image in the
process, not even an optical one (beyond the original analog
image projected by the lens during the scan.)

Digital capture is a process by which photoelectric charges
(electrons, _not images_) are transferred off a silicon sensor
via a voltage, then regenerated into digital signals using an
analog to digital converter, then stored as binary coded data on
a storage card, magnetic hard drive, or CD-R. Again, no image.
When output, the binary information is utilized by software to
create inkjet or sometimes photochemical _reproductions_ of the
stored data. But as data, digital images exist in name only, not
in actuality. What one sees on a monitor's display is not an
optical image, nor when it's reproduced as output are images
"written" by the direct action of light. Digital images and
outputs are software representations and reproductions of stored
binary data.

Now, most people think of digital camera sensors as "recording"
optical images the same as film, then just storing that image in
electronic form. Nope. Doesn't happen. The photodetector sites on
silicon sensors do not inherently record images, or anything
else. Rather, they _sample_ (collect) discrete allotments of data
known as pixels. This is not a photographic process. The term
data sampling, rather than imaging, is a more accurate and
proper description of what silicon sensors do since each
photodetector site collects photoelectron data relevant only to
it's unique area. Photodectors are buckets of charged electrons
("wells") filled and drained repeatedly in order to transmit the
electronic data for each capture. Photons are converted to
electrons, a voltage, digital signals, then read by software and
represented in pixel-image form on a monitor. There is no actual
image, ever.

Why is this so confusing to people? Photography has come to be
defined many ways because photochemical, photomechanical, or
electronic methods of producing images for consumptive
publication have become so ubiquitous in society. But this
doesn't mean anything we call a photo or image is "photographic."
In our vernacular we tend to call any image we see a "photo" --
calendar, newspaper, computer image. But in reality these are
reproductions of photographs created by processes other than
photography (lithography, xerography, digital, inkjet.) The terms
photo, photograph, and photographic have become mere idiomatic
words in our society used for any image or process that produces
an "image," rather than a literal photograph.


--
Tom Phillips

Donald Qualls wrote:

Travis Porco wrote:
There's an interesting book, _Primitive_Photography_ by Alan Greene, that tells
how to make your own camera & salted paper negatives, etc. You've probably
seen it. I'd be curious to know how to make pansensitive emulsions though;
the book only describes classical blue sensitive emulsions.

I've got a PDF file here somewhere, scans of a very old book that goes
into all the details of making "high speed" emulsions (ASA 100,
probably, given that the book dates to the 1920s) and panchromatic
films. Ping me by e-mail and I'll look for it; while I'm pretty sure
it's too big to send by e-mail, if I can remind myself of the title, I
can most likely relocate where I downloaded it. If not, I can break it
up with HJSplit and send the pieces. It's all in there, if you can just
translate the usages to modern language; even the names of the actinic
dyes used to sensitize and panchromatize (though you might need to
translate those to modern IUPAC nomenclature to find them in a chemical
catalog now).

Or, you could just upload it to a website wehere we could
all download it while we sleep or watch tomorrow nights debate :-)

I'd like to see it myself.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

Digital is not a photographic process. It is an imaging process [...]

There we are! I'm making that my wallpaper. Most pertinent, excellent. Thank
you for that!

jjs wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

Digital is not a photographic process. It is an imaging process [...]

There we are! I'm making that my wallpaper. Most pertinent, excellent. Thank
you for that!


People just need to wade through the misinformation and
examine the differences in the processes directly. You'd
be surprised how many photographers I know (not shooting
digital) who think digital is "photographic."

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

A modern painting is not analogous to a photograph - they aim to do different
things: one is to show what is, the other is to show the artist's impression
of what is. It seems realistic painters of portraits and the Hudson river are
no longer.


Photo journalists might but the rest of us don't. We decide what we want
to see. Even if you take a wide shot of a view it's possible to leave out
the chemical plant behind you.

I don't even think in the end PJs show what is. Any time you click the
shutter you are imposing your biases,interests and anything else that might
have led you to make the choice you did.


Nick