Ha, in the old days you had to learn photography. Now you need to take a class to learn how to operate the camera so it can do photography. <grin>
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: Fw: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE Color Negatives? > Marnie asked me to forward this. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Dumb Newbie Q - What Color ARE Color Negatives? > > > > You have mentioned a change in film technology a couple of > times > > now. What sort of changes do you have in mind? > > I've been somewhat tongue in cheek, but I will try to be > serious. > > You know I don't know enough to say for sure. Just that DX > coding wasn't once there -- as my example. I guess I am a > believer in technology, and that sometimes we can't anticipate > the changes that can come down the pike. But that changes are in > store, yes I think we can anticipate that. And there could be > changes that would apply to film. But, overall, I am probably > thinking digital. Little cards that can pop in and out. Which > already exist. But there is no reason there can't be changes in > an analogue technology too, like with film. > > Anyway, I don't know enough which is why I am vague. I just > don't rule out further advances in film technology. Reading this > list it seems film companies keep coming out with new types of > film. So advances in film technology seem likely as well. > > I can say all the photography classes in my area are full, and > more adult schools are offering more and more. So digital is NOT > taking over the world yet. (Sure, some of the classes are > digital, but not the majority.) I think all that is because > cameras have gotten more automated, and people want to learn how > to use them. Everyone in my last class but three had newer > automated cameras. And most of those people didn't know how to > work all the features of their cameras. > > Just like with computers, the more options, the higher the > learning curve. Thus people take classes. > > > Regarding standardization, I am not sure exactly what else > could > > be standardized on the machines. > > We already have standardized chemistry and processes. The > > filters used in the dichroics are standardized with relation > to > > the spectrum they cut. Anything that touches an emulsion, > either > > film or paper is standarized throughout the industry, > worldwide. > > Often chemical formulaes are so close that you can change > > chemical brands and not have to change tank solutions. Just > > start using the new replenisher, and maybe adjust your > > replenishment rates a bit. > > Okay, here I wasn't clear enough. And I must admit I haven't > read your treatise thoroughly yet (second read with print out). > And I realize what you are saying about the process -- that it > is pretty standard -- but this is the part I haven't totally > absorbed yet, the process. > > But I also meant more standardization between machines in labs. > Like this lab has this machine and that lab has this machine. I > mean if machines are going to be used, ergo mass production is > already there, why not the SAME machines (well, yes, cost is a > factor). Like how Microsoft took over the world -- I don't know > what the figures are, but MS is probably on 80-90% of current > home computers. So when you call technical support for some > program, if you are using Windows, they can provide support for > how it interfaces with Windows. (Bad example, since technical > support for some products is terrible, but first one off the top > of my head.) > > Standardization. > > Or machines could be a selling factor. OUR LAB USES THE LATEST > SUPERDOOPER FANTAPHOTO! I was thinking of what Herb said about > old machines still in use at various labs, which leads to > problems. There could be "name brand" machines that labs > advertise (I realize there are probably name brand machines now, > but the average consumer would be clueless about them). In other > words, it could be a marketing ploy as well as adding > standardization. Our lab is better than their lab because we > have the SUPERDOOPER! (I am clueless about Afga film and > processing but one lab here seems to plug that as a selling > point.) > > So more standardization re the machines used FROM lab to lab. > > > > > > > So I wouldn't rule out something like that happening again. > My > > color wheel idea obviously is dumb and wouldn't work, but > > something else might. Cameras which write back to the film, > for > > instance, the exposure and shutter speed of each shot. Down > the > > road, why not? And printers capable of reading that (Sorry my > > brain is still throwing off dumb ideas.) > > > > This is already in use by the Advanced Photo System. The film > is > > encoded with data that tells the printer what format to print, > > and can also transfer what is called "print quality > information" > > data, which is supposed to tell the printer how to print the > > picture. > > Aha. My dumb brain throwing out ideas ain't so dumb. Makes sense > it would be around already. Nifty keen. I obviously did not know > this, though I have seen the words "Advanced Photo System" > somewhere. That is exactly the sort of advance in film > technology that I mean. Why should it stop there? Just because I > can't think of something specific doesn't mean someone isn't > right now. > > > Of course, you still have an operator looking at a screen, > > making decisions about how he or she thinks the picture should > > look. > > Right. This is where I will be real serious. The human error > thing, that's the big problem. I do not dispute that some lab > people are visual artists. And I've thought long and hard about > that aspect of things. You recall the post I made about the guy > saying, "Oh, I see what you were going for." and you said it > resonated with you? > > That is the part I am still thinking about. And considering what > I want. I didn't really anticipate that to get good photos I > would have to be in collaboration with another visual artist > (the guy at the lab who looks at the prints and makes judgment > calls -- admittedly sometimes slight judgment calls when the > roll is first printed, but judgment calls nevertheless). This is > the part my brain is still circling. I don't mind the idea of > collaboration -- for now. > > But the more I think about it, the more I mind it. And in the > future, if money ever allows, I will do my own printing using > whatever technology is the best at the time that I can also > afford. > > Why? I want the camera to be like a paint brush. The film to be > like a canvas. The lens and how it directs the reflected like to > be like paint. I want the technology of what I am doing to be > fairly static, to be (what is a good word?), just sort of > "inert" material for me to manipulate. I want the end product to > be a result of how I framed and exposed etc. With the variables > being what equipment and film I used, etc. I do not want the end > product to also depend on someone's subjectivity. Because that > is what someone else's judgment call is, their subjectivity. I > want the end product to be MY subjectivity. Within the > parameters of the material I used. I don't want someone else's > hand on the paint brush, or anywhere near the paint brush. (Bad > analogy, but best I can come up with right now. Besides my > subject matter, if it is moving and/or alive, may already be > subjective or dynamic enough.) > > And I suspect that is what everyone who is doing their own > printing wants. And why good digital SLRS, reasonable priced, > will eventually sell like hot cakes. (I guess digital P&S > already are selling like hot cakes.) > > I want to thank you very much for this clarification in my own > thinking; clarification in my own approach to photography. > Because now I understand the factors involved better. And I am > literally going to STUDY your treatise about the process (later > this week when I have a bit more time). Because I want to be > sure my understanding is as good as I can make it without > actually developing film myself. > > > > > > > And I wouldn't totally blame the consumer. I mean, if > someone > > can save a few cents and be satisfied, why not? Most people > use > > P&S anyway, so they are not aiming for great photography (or > > even very good photography). They want to record visiting > > relatives and holidays and stuff. Of course, maybe part of the > > problem is people expect to be able to pick up a camera a > couple > > times a year and turn out great shots. I never did, but some > > might. > > > > I won't rebut to this, beyond saying that in a free enterprise > > market, the consumer has 100% control over what level of > quality > > and service they will pay for. > > And, they get what they pay for, no more, and no less. > > > > > > > > When it comes to labs, me, I saved a few cents and I am not > > satisfied anymore. > > > > Hopefully, there is still a good lab in your market area. > > > > > > > > Mass production always loses something in the process. It > also > > gains something. Standardization that one can rely on. Sort of > > like eating at Denny's -- not great, but you can go from state > > to state and sort of know what to expect. While at some local > > restaurants you may get a nasty surprise. > > > > You can also get a very pleasant surprise. Check out > Clementines > > Pizza Parlour in Gillette Wyoming sometime. They are right > next > > door to the Pizza Hut. > > > > >But you're talking about art vs mass production. IMHO, that's > > appears to be what you are talking about. > > > > I didn't intend to, but in that context, can a person > > expect to > > get good art from an assembly line production process? > > No argument with that. > > I hope I was not too wordy. Sometimes when I get going it's hard > to shut me up. ;-) But I wanted to thank you again and clarify > my obviously vague ponderings as much as possible. I could do no > less considering your clarification. > > > William Robb > > Doe aka Marnie :-) >
