Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/06/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]After my father died, I went through his photos, and found many from before the war, in eastern Poland. The B&W prints are very well preserved. They were clearly professionally printed and processed. In contrast, prints from the 1950s and 1960s, from Poland also, but now in Communist times, have faded. People back then worked according to the saying ?you pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.? Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu <http://www.frozenlight.eu/> http:// <http://www.greatpix.eu/>www.greatpix.eu PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws <http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws>Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ <http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/> Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator <http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator> YNWA > On 07 Jun 2017, at 22:56, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > I?ve seen this a lot on the internet and it?s not true or don?t agree with > it? it?s not true. But it?s really out there being passed around big time > and achieving some unfortunate credulity as that?s how information spreds > now. The better virus wins. And you never know which Meme will fly and > which will die. > And that?s this backing up to analog as if chemistry based stuff is more > archival than digital. Or just thinking you are covered if you have a film > or paper copy of something. > When we all first heard about this new digital thing coming out the basic > idea behind the whole thing was the advantage of digital is its digital. > You make a copy of the thing and the it?s a clone not a copy. It?s the > same only it exists in a different space. For photography that?s > revolutionary. Because in the past when make a copy of a negative or of a > print and hold them side by side and they are no way identical. The ?copy? > of the thing in most cases is a sad joke. So, you try to avoid copies. > You cover yourself as you?re shooting. You go ?click? a bunch of times not > just once or twice. The best copy or backup is another origional. > More to the point is the reality that the minute your film is dry or your > print is dry it starts decomposing; leaking gasses, fading, and staining, > changing color. Film and prints exist in the organic carbon based world > just like people and trees. Film is made from dead bunnies (the gelatin). > Prints are made from that and cotton and wood. Just like people they are > dying the minute they are born. Returning to the earth from whence they > came? > So your film based print and the film itself is not the same image as > every day goes by. Every day in every way your print is worser and worser. > Film too. Not as much. > This is a main advantage not disadvantage of digital. It?s a plus check > not a minus. You could claim to hate the ?digital look? but go with it > anyway because it lasts forever. Its digital. Other than the small > possibility of an isolated file getting corrupted when you go to your > digital file to Photoshop it again to print it or put it up on the > internet again a decade or so later you?re NOT dealing with a faded > different version of the thing. In digital if you can get that single file > open it?s the same file you dealt the first-time decades going by. Not > one 100000th of a percent different. > And if that file doesn?t open you grab another older backup hard disk and > it will. > In the past decade, my digital body of work is on hard disks and right > here near me. My chemical body of work is in a storage cubicle with fumes > coming out of each and every print and neg and slide. I?ve not seen it in > a few days I hope to soon and I don?t pass out from the gasses as I open > the door. > By the way if one print or roll of film is under fixed or under washed it > gives off a lot more and nastier gases than the stuff which was properly > fixed and washed sitting near it or in the same closet. So, the properly > processed stuff is probably fading at an accelerated rate too. > The chemical analog workflow is messy. The advantages are hard to find. > And if there are any advantages to film archivalness is not one of them. > > -- > > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > > On 6/7/17, 4:14 AM, "LUG on behalf of Dan Khong" > <lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of > dankhong at gmail.com> wrote: > > I just souped a roll of Tri-X and waiting to send it to the pro-lab to > have > it scanned into digital. After that, I have the options of two work > processes - digital and analog. And my negatives will serve as my > archival > backup. > > All said, 90% of my B&W pics (100% of color) are now taken on digital, > but > it's the last bit that is analog that gives me memories that spans back > 50 > years when film was there in the most impressionable years of my life. > Those were the days of Nam and protest songs, and growing up into > adulthood. > > Dan K. > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information