Forum Index
Get help with your Graflex questions here
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Inkjet saves Graflex
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Film Help
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 28 Sep 2001
Posts: 3543
Location: Mid Peninsula, Ca.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-26 18:33 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 26 Mar 2002
Posts: 616
Location: Western Kentucky Lakes Area

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for clearing that up, 45PSS. I've always known the world is flat. Thats's what happened to folks like Glenn Miller and Amelia Earhart...they fell....or the edge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David A. Goldfarb

Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 142
Location: New York City

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm trying to see the logic here--

If I shoot film and print digitally, I'm "saving film," but if I shoot the same film and print traditionally, then I'm somehow bringing about the demise of film?

Scanning may indeed be good for film, and I hope that many people use the medium in that way, particularly if it's good for film, but I don't particularly care to do it myself. Digital doesn't really need my help. It's doing fine by itself. If anything, I'm doing my part to keep traditional print media around by purchasing and using photographic paper, and making the best traditional prints I can, so that people will not forget what traditional prints look like.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 174
Location: New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

David G, please don't invent conflict.

I started this thread hoping that a few more of us might become as progressive as early Graflex users were, and might thereby help prolong the availability of film.

Print what you want and however you want.

SOME now rarely enter their darkrooms, shoot only for photolabs, or are drifting toward digital cameras...they might shoot LOTS of film if they learned to scan and print...this might prolong the availability of film, which is far more certain than the continued availability of common photo papers.

FYI the common B&W and color print materials, including dye transfer, were not "traditional" for early Graflex users before Edward Weston's time. They didn't even exist.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 24
Location: Missouri

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. djon-

I just noticed that Efke R100 in the 120 size is back in stock at J&C. Maybe now is a good time to stock up...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Nov 2004
Posts: 174
Location: New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the Efke news, I'll make an order...

I like that film a lot with Efke's R-O9 (Rodinal) at 1:50. Super sharp, fine grained, famous Rodinal "edge effect." The only drawback is its coiled-spring-steel-like film base...hard to get into sleeves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 16
Location: South Central Pa.

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


On 2004-12-11 08:31, glennfromwy wrote:
Yeah, but where's the fun of fumbling around in the dark while smelling stinky stuff?

I'm not sure I want to touch this one...well, OK. It should go something like, closet, flatulence, you know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 7
Location: Wisconsin

PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another Digitalite?! OK, well, I too am one of those "nobodies" who venture into dark places from time to time.

I saw the handwriting on the wall about two decades ago regarding digital imaging technology. The photo lab employees I talked to about it laughed at me. They're not laughing now.

The posts previous to mine have covered most of the arguments quite well. There is one issue that has not been addressed as of yet; permanence. Digital imaging is not a mature technology as of yet, and there is no proven archival storage medium for data. Even if there were, technology in this area moves so fast that there is no guarantee that even if the data were available in twenty years it could be accessed. Try to get a Beta tape player these days for a common example.

Properly processed B&W film/paper will certainly last hundreds of years. With proper storage and advancing preservation technology, that might be extended to thousands of years. Of course, this assumes archival processing with proper washing procedures and/or selenium toning of both negatives and prints... not a common practice today.

Fortunately, we still have film and wet darkrooms at most museums. This is a good thing, but still not enough. If you truly want to preserve technology, then you must use it. If you want to preserve images of family members, events, buildings, cars, or whatever needs preserving; shoot it on somthing less ephemeral than virtual reality photographs that can disappear completely with something as common as a solar flare or less common like a nuclear event.

I'll make another prediction about the future of photography now. I won't be alive when it happens or doesn't happen, so I am risking nothing by making the prediction.

B&W analog photography will continue to flourish into the foreseeable future. The materials needed for it can be manufactured at a very low tech level and do not require large scale production. Kodak will not be part of this future. They are too big a dinosaur. The future belongs to smaller and more flexible firms like Efke/Adox, and probably some others that nobody has heard of yet.

Analog color photography as we now know it will gradually fade away (pun intended). It requires a large market to sustain and does not lend itself to home production.

OK, let the flaming begin!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 412
Location: Montana, Glacier National Park

PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2006 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


On 2004-12-11 14:35, djon wrote:

If wishes were horses...

You know and I know that nobody's going back into the darkroom. Done, finished. The photo classes in colleges are using Polaroid 55PN and scanning it.

I would have to say your in a weird part of the country, most of the colleges out my way are actually getting an increased enrollment in their wet darkroom photography classes, in fact the local community college right here in town has recently asked for an upscaled opperating budget for the traditional photography dept.

As far as the shake out on films, this is the norm for any industry when new technology comes along, there are still companies making films and if you look at some of the websites that specialize in film sales you will note and increase in different types of film being available, just because some of the big boys have shifted directions like Kodak, is not a full picture of the industry, the new group that is now Illford is increaseing availability of products and still doing R&D work on film, and in reality, Kodak has been doing R&D on film as well, Fuji is bringing new films out, etc.

Digital is not going to be the saving grace of graflex cameras, I work in a digital arena for certain things, but still work the majority of time in the traditional area.

If my ground glass sales are any indication, the traditional photography business is not going anywhere soon, this years sales are all ready up by over 1000% over 2005 and 2005 was a 1500% increase over 2004, so you can not tell me that film photography is going anywhere at all.

We have two labs here locally that would be considered upscale labs/pro labs both of them are reporting that they again are processing more rolls of film every month and have had increases in their requests for B&W developing services. I know of hundreds of people who have spent big dollars this last year building dedicated darkrooms, I myself have built a dedicated darkroom, so I am not worried about film going away.

Dave Parker

Focus on the Picture, Not on the Glass.
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass

[ This Message was edited by: Rangemaster on 2006-05-18 07:31 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 2
Location: NE Alabama

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


On 2004-12-11 22:28, djon wrote:
I don't know what "standard" B&W chemicals might be, but if you're thinking about Pyro, which causes Parkinsons, or Rodinal, which is too weird to fly these days, you'll have to rethink your theory.

You may be forgetting that literally most film has been color negative for decades, and that B&W is getting scarce today (check dealer inventories).

As well, press cameras have been shooting lots of color since before WWII, including Kodachrome sheet film, so it's unfair to our Graflex ancestors to pretend they left B&W cameras for us.

You're right that computers cause landfill (and other environmental) problems, but of course they are necessary to our stupid economy, unlike B&W film and paper (sadly).

Visit a few camera stores, ask about their inventory of B&W film and paper as compared to six months ago, and ask what they
rely on to pay their bills.

As for platinum, I mentioned earlier that I like it... it's easy enough to make the paper at home, but that's not going to justify Kodak keeping any coating lanes open for B&W film (it's also not too tough to make glass plates at home, so there's always that ).

The hostile responses are amusing. Flat earth types, evidently.

I didn't cause Kodak's near total conversion to digital, Agfa's or Ilford's failures, those realities were caused by didn't shoot and process film TODAY caused those changes.

Today I shot and processed a paltry 4 rolls of Efke 100 (now no longer in stock at J&C) in Rodinal. I'll shoot and process a half dozen of Ilford Delta 100 tomorrow, mostly out of nostalgia for that sad company's memory. If you shot and processed today, congratulations. If you didn't, you're part of the problem.

Ask your local mini-labs if they're half (1/2) as busy now as they were a year ago.

Ask your local professional labs if they're doing half (1/2) as much photochemical color work as they were two years ago.

If I had a buck for every twit that posted "Pyro causes Parkinson's!" I could retire to Las Vegas and be living with two showgirls. There is NO proof of this.
One of the other things these same people post is that "well, Margret Bourke-White died of Parkinson's" Uh....MBW NEVER did any of her own darkroom work!
One of Ansel Adams last wishes was that after his death,tissue samples be taken and tested for chemical traces from his 65 years of darkroom work-and Ansel worked with Pyro for a time and was a heavy user of selenium toner for many years.
The tests found nothing !
Also,consider this...I doubt there are 3000 people in America right now using Pyro. If 3000 people with only one linking factor suddenly showed up with Parkinson's,don't you think the press would be all over it ?
Also,how do you explain all the people that never did darkroom work (ie: Michael J. Fox)who have Parkinson's ?
FYI, the reason you can't ship Rodinal is that it is highly corrosive-not that it's some deadly poison. Frankly,Red Devil Lye or Draino is far more dangerous

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Film Help All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group