PING: ALL YOU FILM LUDDITES !

Ken Nadvornick, you will love listening to this!

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW01...Foundation.mp3

or

http://tinyurl.com/35u4py

On Mar 20, 12:17 pm, "Annika1980" wrote:
Ken Nadvornick, you will love listening to this!

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW01...rtance%20of%20...

or

http://tinyurl.com/35u4py

I have to agree with the speaker. Have knowledge of both makes a
photographer better in being able to capture the image. Being able to
understand what is happening when the image is captured, either on
film or on a CCD, will allow how the final image will look.
Digital is here and nothing is going to change that. Film is here
and that shouldn't be changed. IMHO film is better than digital just
for the reason if something happens to the final image, it can be
recreated from the negative. In digital if there is a spike or surge
and wipes the computer out, all that work is gone forever. You can say
that about a fire and burning all the negatives too. But in twenty
years will you be able to open a digital file and print from it?
Maybe, maybe not. But you can print from a negative.

Just my two cents in the world of photographs.


Draco


Getting even isn't good enough.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ken Nadvornick, you will love listening to this!

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW01...Foundation.mp3

Blah, blah blah...

Here's the point: would Hemmingway have become a better writer if he had an
electric typewriter? Or a word processor? Nah. It isn't about the process,
and never will be. Only shallow-minded individuals will focus on the process
rather than the end result. If the process produces the end result you
desire, then have at it. Other than that, who cares?


or

http://tinyurl.com/35u4py

On Mar 20, 6:17 am, "Annika1980" wrote:
Ken Nadvornick, you will love listening to this!

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW01...rtance%20of%20...

or

http://tinyurl.com/35u4py

What I found interesting is he skipped over one whole area of current
photograph, using film and then scanning the film. Since this is the
workflow for a lot of people and places that still use film it seems
odd to divide the world of photography into digital or all optical.

As for needing to shoot film as well as digital, I think this is
likely to be an idea that won't be with us all that much longer. Film
is not the same as digital and much of what you learn with film you
have to unlearn when shooting digital. As an example when I was
shooting B/W negative film if I had a tricky lighting scene I would
error towards over exposing, I found it hard to get a good high
contrast print from a light negative. But with digital I do just the
opposite, in tricky lighting I will tend to under expose just a bit.

What I do believe is that you need to have a SLR, either digital or
film, to really learn photography. If the choice were to use a point
and shoot digital or a film SLR to learn on I would go with the film
SLR.

And in no way am I trying to say that you can't learn photography
using film, after all I did, I just don't believe it is necessary to
do so in this day and age.

Scott

In article . com,
"Annika1980" wrote:

Ken Nadvornick, you will love listening to this!

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW01...of%20an%20Anal
og%20Photography%20Foundation.mp3

or

http://tinyurl.com/35u4py

I gave away my wet darkroom, except for the film development tanks, to a
youngster just getting started in photography about a year ago. I don't
regret it for a minute.

I feel I can get better archival prints, with less effort, out of
Photoshop and a high-end printer than than I ever could with my trusty
Durst enlarger. And MY goal is a better print.

To advocate maintaining both a digital and wet darkroom, as this person
does, is impractical. The time required is beyond what most people have
at their disposal. I suspect that the young man now using my equipment
will eventually move toward a digital darkroom as well. But, to some
extent, his wet-darkroom experience will inform and enhance his digital
effort.

You may respond that I too will migrate away from film to digital
capture, eventually, and join the digicamerati. You may be correct, but
that's not in the near future. Luddite that I am.

Just a personal opinion.

HFL

--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address

"Annika1980" wrote:

Ken Nadvornick, you will love listening to this!


http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW01...20of%20an%20An
alog%20Photography%20Foundation.mp3

or

http://tinyurl.com/35u4py

Thanks for that, Bret. Couldn't agree more.

So the night before last my 16-year-old comes to me with his high-school
class registration stuff for his upcoming junior year. Film, it turns out,
is far from dead.

"Hey Dad. If I take this course, can I use the little Nikon camera?"

The "little Nikon" is a Nikon EM I found while working my college job many,
many years ago at Disneyland. Like new. Turned it in to Lost and Found and
no one claimed it for six months, so by the rules it became mine...

"Photography I? Don't you need a digital camera?"

"Nope. It's all about film. We get to [not *have* to, mind you --Ken]
learn how to make black & white prints from negatives. 8x10s the first
semester. 16x20s the second."

I look at the catalog. Sure enough. Traditional b&w film-based
photography. Supply your own 35mm film cameras. Darkroom work. US$40 lab
fee. Even a few lessons on digital cameras. And PhotoShop usage. (But
alas, no GIMP.)

What's going on here, I think. A respectful and well-rounded approach to
teaching and learning photography? Obviously the school district's
curriculum committee never logged onto rpe35mm.

"Why photography? You can do all of this here at home."

"Gotta' have a Fine Arts elective to graduate."

"Oh. You realize, of course, that you'll likely be the only student in
school in this class who is capable of actually doing real homework, right?"

"Yeah. Cool, huh?"

"I'd say so..."

Ken

On Mar 20, 3:41 pm, "Ken Nadvornick"
wrote:

"Oh. You realize, of course, that you'll likely be the only student in
school in this class who is capable of actually doing real homework, right?"

"Yeah. Cool, huh?"

"I'd say so..."

So Ken, did they let you sign up to "audit" the class?
Heck, you should probably teach it.

A friend of mine (who is quite insane ... obviously) kept bugging me
to take a photography course at the local community college just so I
could have unlimited use of the darkroom. I never quite saw the
point. It would be like taking an auto repair class that only works on
Edsels.

Annika1980 wrote:
Ken Nadvornick, you will love listening to this!

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW01...Foundation.mp3

or

http://tinyurl.com/35u4py

There was once a time when vehicles had 'crash' boxes, where one had to
match engine speed to road speed when changing gear, or else there was a
horrendous noise from the tortured gearbox. Then syncromesh boxes came
along, where you simply moved the gearstick to the next cog with no
worries about engine speed. But it remained fashionable to be able to
match road speed to engine speed when changing up, and
double-declutching when changing down, even though you were driving the
new syncro boxes.

Of course, things moved on to automatic transmissions, and then it was
fashionable to still be able to drive a 'stick shift', or a manual gearbox.

Today, relatively few people know how to drive a manual vehicle, at
least in the US - Britishers seem to still prefer manual boxes for some
reason - but double-declutching has long been forgotten, and eventually
so will manual boxes be also.

I see this as parallel to the progress of photography. At this time we
are about where auto boxes were overtaking manual, with the odd film guy
still in the crash box stage.

When photographic evolution gets to the stage that vehicles are now,
film will be forgotten entirely.

As for me, I drive an automatic, and a digital camera.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Colin_D" wrote:

Today, relatively few people know how to drive a manual vehicle,
at least in the US - Britishers seem to still prefer manual boxes
for some reason - but double-declutching has long been forgotten,
and eventually so will manual boxes be also.

I see this as parallel to the progress of photography. At this time
we are about where auto boxes were overtaking manual, with the
odd film guy still in the crash box stage.

Hee hee...

Until a couple of months ago, I never owned a vehicle that wasn't a manual
transmission. We just purchased our first automatic because my wife wanted
to try one. My son, now practicing for his first driver's licence, "hates"
(his word) driving it. He insists he instead wants to learn how to drive
our manual transmission, 200,000+ mile pick-up truck. He tells me that all
the kids in school want to learn on a manual. It's considered a badge of
honor among the 15-17 year old new driver set. If you're a boy and can't
drive a "real car" (his phrase) you're considered a sissy. Last time I
looked not one of these youngsters had a single wisp of gray hair.

Funny thing about the Internet. One of the most dangerous games to be
played is the game of absolutes. It's an awfully big world out there...

Kind regards,
Ken

"Annika1980" wrote:

So Ken, did they let you sign up to "audit" the class?
Heck, you should probably teach it.

Naw... you're too kind. But I do intend to introduce myself to the teacher.
I'm real interested to hear about the state of analog photography directly
from someone currently teaching these skills to brand new photographers.

(So how come I haven't seen any more b&w film from you in my darkroom?
Those earlier rolls I processed had some good work on them. And from a
completely different approach than your color stuff. Seeing in b&w from the
get-go really is a different way of seeing.)

A friend of mine (who is quite insane ... obviously) kept
bugging me to take a photography course at the local
community college just so I could have unlimited use of
the darkroom. I never quite saw the point. It would be
like taking an auto repair class that only works on
Edsels.

Maybe so. But just think how awesome it would be to tool around town in a
fully-restored, mint condition one. You'd stop traffic just 'cause people
couldn't stop themselves from looking while they drooled. Sorta' like
showing up somewhere with a vintage Nikon F2, then actually using it. (Yes,
I've had this very experience. Including the drooling.)

You and I both know that people *need* to purchase the (digital) 2007
Toyota. Why? Because it's easier to use and more convenient to own and
operate. And, of course, it's new.

We also know that, if given the choice, we'd *really* go for the (analog)
1970 Dodge Charger R/T with the 426-cubic inch Hemi, 4-speed manual
transmission and Dana 60 rear end. Go Man Go orange paint job, of course.*
Why? Well, if 'ya 'gotta ask...

Ken

*Note to 'Colin_D': I just now asked my son - a member of that new
generation of drivers who are supposed to be forgetting all about manual
transmissions - what automobile he would pick above all others if price
(and, god knows, insurance) were not a factor. This was his 16-year-old
choice. And trust me, he knows his cars better than most collectors.