Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/06/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Film Lab
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 02:19:58 -0400
References: <CAH1UNJ0P+Fdw=cpGOO9yhvSFMGy4b77SVOME89tBehQ_TJ63tQ@mail.gmail.com> <FC4E534E-6F7E-46B1-A9E5-412FBB4AAB6B@gmail.com> <CAEFt+w9kgzW=HphOAUrSogRKDjZeTM107ouz82ayjX0h8R6Tdw@mail.gmail.com> <808C3BF5-BFBF-4BE7-B78A-F53528103C02@gmail.com> <CAH1UNJ0NW=M_+wqJzrO+1A+Hf+XBy4UL50QzU0iCV12iOk8Gpg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEFt+w_CvAev=+n_DXy3Uo8-3ek7c4GnTL=RyJCP_r1Y94r2GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1UNJ3ozS1A6Sc+z3yvT34yN0Gf7wq_d1V1qDit_Quw3UaVxA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+yJO1AeZsRGLXFGrL-gr0MdSex+ebD9ZT+tSG9tNU9HyKtbkw@mail.gmail.com> <C358D192938845828B19F475524113A3@OWNERPC> <CAEFt+w_7QjSNzmC=w_3NyEy-NREvsA57vgeR2ubEV1KG3QU9wQ@mail.gmail.com> <764F123B-F062-4097-B546-31447B882903@rabinergroup.com> <CAAsXt4Psq7YCXP3CCpGPBA9nxDZE_aq+rvvn51eSXFy4jqkWDA@mail.gmail.com> <FE69B07F-A2C0-4E59-A8DA-82136E6F9B11@rabinergroup.com> <CAEFt+w-U8TT1U70LjFRZQi-D+yHyA-Q+5ZQg55K6YQmQO6gTbw@mail.gmail.com>

Dan, I don?t blame you for thinking that what everyone is saying on every 
chat group is true. 
That your negs back up your scans. 
The real story is your scans back up your negs.

There seems to be a basic need for a lot of people to keep coming up with 
ways to put film on a pedestal.
That film has non-obvious redeeming values.
That after we?re done playing around with our silly digital files our film 
will still be there. Rocklike.




 
 

-- 

Mark William Rabiner
Photographer

On 6/8/17, 7:32 AM, "LUG on behalf of Dan Khong" 
<lug-bounces+mark=rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of dankhong 
at gmail.com> wrote:

    Mark
    You are such a smart chap and I cannot possibly outdo you in your way 
with
    words.
    All I know is that my B&W negatives that I souped in 1968 are still doing
    fine in my dry cabinet. They will still be there when I bite the dust and
    maybe even you as well. Chances are when you and I bite our dusts, our
    digital files will go along soon after.
    I love handling and looking at physical stuffs and that includes 
negatives
    and prints. I like the analog workflow process from which I derive great
    satisfaction.
    In the meantime, you are entitled to your views and I am entitled to 
mine.
    Civilized men should always agree to disagree.
    Have a nice day.
    Dan K.
    
    
    
    On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:
    
    > Robert, other people?s personal memories are great I?m all for them
    > there?s not much I can say about them but when I read ?And my negatives
    > will serve as my archival backup.? That?s a trigger for me. It?s an 
issue
    > important to me which brought me to write what I wrote.
    > His more full quote being:
    > ?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.?
    >
    > It?s my point again that his negatives will probably bite the dust long
    > before his digital files. Thinking of one?s negatives like this as an
    > archival backup is being encouraged widely and is one of those alt-true
    > truths. As in its just not true at all.
    > And the idea that we must only respond to the main idea of a post and 
not
    > the part of it which we have something to say about I don?t has ever 
been
    > expressed or been in effect.
    > I?m sure the archives are full of people responding to the point in a 
post
    > which they have something to say something about.
    >
    > One reason why digital scanning and Photoshoping is such a nice thing 
is
    > we can take our faded damaged off color old negatives and prints and 
scan
    > them and process them and make them look much younger.  We can restore
    > them. We have the technology
    > There are people who specialize in in restoration they used to have 
their
    > own place in the yellow pages and can do a better job of that then we
    > probably can. Had those negatives or prints been digital captures the
    > restoration people are out of business. It?s a main plus of the digital
    > process and workflow. I hate to see more and more people get that 
turned
    > around.
    > Preservation of silver gelatin prints and negs is a tough ongoing job
    > which is most often done way wrong if not ignored. It?s a shoebox in 
the
    > bottom drawer.
    > Preservation of Digital files is not a roll in the hay but is way 
easier
    > to do partly because its possible to do. Digital files don?t fade. They
    > don?t have to be kept in the dark in a humidity controlled room and
    > handeled with white cotton gloves.
    > --
    >
    > Mark William Rabiner
    > Photographer
    >
    > On 6/7/17, 10:31 PM, "LUG on behalf of Robert Adler" <lug-bounces+mark=
    > rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of rgacpa at gmail.com> 
wrote:
    >
    >     Ahh Mark, you missed Dan's point. Shooting/developing analogue 
brings
    > back
    >     memories. I agree with much of what you post, but it is irrelevant 
to
    >     anything Dan said...
    >     But that's ok..
    >
    >
    >     Bob Adler
    >     www.robertadlerphotography.com
    >     *"Capturing Light One Frame At A Time"*
    >
    >     On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:56 PM, 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
    >
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     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
    
    _______________________________________________
    Leica Users Group.
    See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information




Replies: Reply from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Film Lab)
In reply to: Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from lluisripollphotography at gmail.com (lluisripollphotography) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from dankhong at gmail.com (Dan Khong) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from lluisripollphotography at gmail.com (lluisripollphotography) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from dankhong at gmail.com (Dan Khong) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from tmanley at gmail.com (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from dankhong at gmail.com (Dan Khong) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from rgacpa at gmail.com (Robert Adler) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Film Lab)
Message from dankhong at gmail.com (Dan Khong) ([Leica] Film Lab)