really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

If film is so close to extinction as the doom and gloom prophets are so
fond of telling the consumer and amateur photographic enthusiast, why
are film companies like Ilford doing so well, selling their traditional
films and papers?
Why are photo-forums like APUG (Anologue Photography Users Group) etc
so popular?
Yes, digital is fast becoming the most popular way of taking
photographs, but film photography is far from dead and there are still
many photographers who thoroughly enjoy producing fine B&W prints on
good ol` traditional silver gelatin papers.
We`re not all hooked on using D-SLR`s, Photoshop and ink-jet printers
you know?
Digital Mono sucks.

I'm not so sure that Ilford is doing well. They're "reorganizing" and
outsourcing a lot of what they still sell. Lucky for them that Agfa and
Kodak are out of the black and white business entirely. We're one of the few
remaining custom labs who still offer true analog printing and processing
for both b&w and color, and let me tell you that in spite of the many
satisfied customers who travel long distances to get to us, there aren't
enough of them to make a business model out of it. We do it because we don't
know how to stop doing it if you know what I mean. There's certainly no
profit in it. The manufacturers see that as well and one has to ask if
there's enough business for them to make products either. Every time I order
it's a new experience. I waited two months for a 40" roll of Ilford glossy
paper to arrive from England. Time will tell, but you may have to go back to
mixing your own chemistry and coating your own plates if they cut back more
than they already have. I hope I'm wrong.

john castronovo
www.technicalphoto.com

In article ,
Keith Tapscott. wrote:

If film is so close to extinction as the doom and gloom prophets are so
fond of telling the consumer and amateur photographic enthusiast, why
are film companies like Ilford doing so well, selling their traditional
films and papers?

Because Kodak caved?

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Yes, digital is fast becoming the most popular way of taking
photographs, but film photography is far from dead and there are still
many photographers who thoroughly enjoy producing fine B&W prints on
good ol` traditional silver gelatin papers.
We`re not all hooked on using D-SLR`s, Photoshop and ink-jet printers
you know?

True .. but the number of film manufacturers and the amount of film required
and the number of labs required to service film users is rapidly decreasing.
It is easily forseable that your only choice for film development will be a
local specialty shop or mail order.

Digital Mono sucks.


Agreed .... unless you know what you are doing. C41 B&W photography equally
sucks.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

babelfish wrote:

I looked it up, and the profile we used for comparison was of the new higher
resolution variety. I also looked deeper into Drycreek and discovered that,
like us, also use Gretag Macbeth's Profiler Pro software to create their
profiles and Xrite spectros, so their equipment and software have the same
capabilities as ours. Having the same software doesn't necessarily mean that
they make their profiles in the same way though as evidenced by the fact
that they needed to upgrade to a higher resolution which they should've been
using all along for photo profiling. Generic profiles like this are better
than nothing, but not very accurate. As I've stated before, a really good
profile takes a lot more than Drycreek is doing no matter what they claim.
Whether or not the average image will show the difference is the question.
Often it will not, but in many cases it will be quite obvious when it's
wrong.


As an FYI ... Costco doesn't use a generic profile. Each printer that they
offer profiling on has its own profile per paper type that they print (i.e.
Coon Rapids, MN Costo printing on a Lustre paper has its own profile).



BTW ... Costco only offers a single paper, a Fuji Crystal Archive paper in
glossy and lustre versions.


We use a lot of Fuji also as well as Kodak and Mitsubishi depending on the
need. There are three kinds of Fuji Crystal Archive and only has a higher
quantity of silver in it. The cheaper version is what Costco and many
competing labs use and this is one reason why they have limited dmax and
gamut. They save a few pennies per square foot, but at the prices they
charge it adds up fast.

In fact, I am not sure which of the Fuji Crystal Archive papers they use ... I
will be sure to find out next time I am in there.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:42:09 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:


True .. but the number of film manufacturers and the amount of film required
and the number of labs required to service film users is rapidly decreasing.
It is easily forseable that your only choice for film development will be a
local specialty shop or mail order.

Process it yourself; it's not that hard.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

Keith Tapscott. wrote:
Yes, digital is fast becoming the most popular way of taking
photographs, but film photography is far from dead and there are still
many photographers who thoroughly enjoy producing fine B&W prints on
good ol` traditional silver gelatin papers.
We`re not all hooked on using D-SLR`s, Photoshop and ink-jet printers
you know?

True .. but the number of film manufacturers and the amount of film required
and the number of labs required to service film users is rapidly decreasing.
It is easily forseable that your only choice for film development will be a
local specialty shop or mail order.


Or You can do your own.



Digital Mono sucks.

Agreed .... unless you know what you are doing. C41 B&W photography equally
sucks.

Because it takes time to acquire skill and of course money, and its time
consumptive in ways digital is not. That does not make it inferior.

In my job I speak to a lot of people that feel otherwise- that digital
sucks. Most just aren't speaking out here.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
David Starr wrote:

Process it yourself; it's not that hard.

I've done E-6 in the past. I don't want to do it again.

In article , () wrote:

In article ,
David Starr wrote:

Process it yourself; it's not that hard.

I've done E-6 in the past. I don't want to do it again.

Some are better at it than others. Their are trade offs for and against.
I have had mixed results. If you invest the time and understand it am
sure you can get every bit as good results doing it yourself- perhaps
with calibration of your system even better than the labs.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

"Greg "_""
I've done E-6 in the past. I don't want to do it again.

Some are better at it than others. Their are trade offs for and against.
I have had mixed results. If you invest the time and understand it am
sure you can get every bit as good results doing it yourself- perhaps
with calibration of your system even better than the labs.

The question is really whether or not you'll be able to buy the film and
chemistry in a few years, not whether or not you can do it yourself. I've
been running a large custom lab for thirty years and I can't believe the
drop off in support from Kodak in just the last six months. I get the real
feeling that they want film and chemistry gone as soon as possible. Let me
qualify that. The friends in tech support that I have there are doing the
best they can under the circumstances and they are great people, but
management and marketing have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with
the film or the past.


"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

I love Mencken and this quote in particular. After Gore Vidal goes, there
will be no critical thinkers left of this stature on the American landscape.

In article X5Nah.36548$a_2.10967@trnddc01,
babelfish wrote:

I get the real feeling that they want film and chemistry gone as
soon as possible.

They do.