Film Photography: How any could masrer film and darkroom work?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
bford
Senior MemberPosts: 1,489
Like?
Re: my teaching frustration
In reply to The Davinator, 5 months ago

Dave Luttmann wrote:

bford wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

bford wrote:

Gato Amarillo wrote:

I was teaching photography at a university back in the film days. One of the great frustration for me and my fellow teachers was the number of visually talented students who could not master the mechanics of photography. That and the number of talented photographers who gave it up after they no longer had access to a college darkroom.

a shame since it was so easy to set up your own darkroom, even without the dedicated room. My first darkroom was in my bathroom and to save space my prints were developed in Cibachrome tubes on a rotary base. It took only a few minutes to set it up and put everything away.

In that sense I'm very pleased to see photography reach a point where almost anyone can express themselves.

yep.

Of course this is bad news for the old-timers who got by on technical facility. Very tough for those who made their living by this path, but on the whole good for photography, I think.

definitely, although I would like to see ink jets disappear though. The printer industry chose the wrong technology. They should have went with dye sub for continuous tone, better detail, and no clogged ink heads, among other reasons. A real shame since that forces me and many other people to continue to rely on labs for prints.

A little homework would bave shown you that current inkjet tech offers higher resolution the dye sub.

my Epson sprays down to 1.5 pico liters and it doesn't come close to the continuous tone of dye sub. my old little portable $100 Kodak dye sub printer had far better detail.

Gato

-- hide signature --

"We paint with our brain, not with our hands" -- Michelangelo
Portrait, figure and fantasy photography at Silver Mirage Gallery:
silvermirage.com

The Epson can lay down, with piezographic inks, over 720ppi in rez...more than your Kodak dye sub...

sounds good, in theory.

in fact, even with K3 inkset, it'll beat your Kodak dye sub. Sorry, but you are completely mistaken.

No, I'm not mistaken. My eyes can clearly see the difference. Inkjet is not continuos tone. Dye sub is, and so is traditional photo paper. If you only view your images from a distance then inkjet would work for you.

With dye sub you also never had to worry about banding, clogged ink heads and color shifts under different lighting conditions. Inkjet is also a money pit for the average consumer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow