Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
RichardTaylor wrote:
Going digital and using a laptop, with possibly a good external monitor and a printer, would make it a lot easier nowdays.
Yes, it would, Richard … but, it wouldn't be the same kind of ADVENTURE - now, would it?
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Jack 13088 wrote:
Velour Black R-3
Thereyago, yasee - you had some of the blackest, already at hand … nope - never used that particular one.
But, the blacks achieved in the normal Variogram - were quite acceptable to me …
Thanks for sharing that, Jack …
James R wrote:
OKay...
I was making a "silly" reference to the so-called "Instructions" that come with items to assemble from IKEA. That was all...
Sorry for being unclear.
Here--- This may help.....
=0=
Darkrooms aren't gone.
Businesses and consumers no long use them. Most consumers never did.
So what?
Man may be the measure of all things, but Joe Consumer isn't. He's a victim
of advertising, and his own laziness and hedonism. He loves electronic gadgets
and doesn't care about art.
Unfortunately, consumers now determine what photography gear gets made--
at least by the big manufacturers. Also, digital electronics are cheaper to manufacture
than just about anything else (analog electronics, clockwork, or purely electrical)
If good art was what sells the most, then Maxfield Perrish, Andrew Wyeth, Myrle
Medeiros (kids with big eyes) and Thomas Kinkade would be the best artists who
ever lived.
In photography, the consumer likes kids on ponies, photos of himself standing in
front of landmarks, and "selfies". He loves garrish, saturated colors, and cute
furries and fluffies. So much for the consumer's taste in art and photography.
Each photographer is on a separate journey of discovery. No two see the world in
exactly the same way.
Traditional photography and digital photography are different media. Neither can
replace the other. Photography needs both.
Bipod wrote:
Darkrooms aren't gone.
Businesses and consumers no long use them. Most consumers never did.
So what?
Man may be the measure of all things, but Joe Consumer isn't. He's a victim
of advertising, and his own laziness and hedonism. He loves electronic gadgets
and doesn't care about art.
Unfortunately, consumers now determine what photography gear gets made--
at least by the big manufacturers. Also, digital electronics are cheaper to manufacture
than just about anything else (analog electronics, clockwork, or purely electrical)
If good art was what sells the most, then Maxfield Perrish, Andrew Wyeth, Myrle
Medeiros (kids with big eyes) and Thomas Kinkade would be the best artists who
ever lived.
In photography, the consumer likes kids on ponies, photos of himself standing in
front of landmarks, and "selfies". He loves garrish, saturated colors, and cute
furries and fluffies. So much for the consumer's taste in art and photography.
Each photographer is on a separate journey of discovery. No two see the world in
exactly the same way.
Traditional photography and digital photography are different media. Neither can
replace the other. Photography needs both.
Darkrooms aren't gone. br br Businesses and consu... (
show quote)
============
BRAVO! - Bipod...
Yes!
Some people - even other photographers - ask of me to the why I "still" do the chemical thing. Not only because I Can - I want to.
Making use of the "old cameras" and the "old ways", I can keep myself doing everything that the photographic arts and sciences affords me to do.
AND as an extra - I have become a better digital photographer by "still doing that Old Chemical Thing". One of the obvious reasons, to me, is that working the cameras that are not digital, it S L O W S me down. I must think of everything I am about to do when I am under that "Dark Cloth". Even toward the entrance into that dark room under the safelight's red glow, and all those familiar smells.
Happy to be here with the others who have a great passion for the art and science of Photography.
:-)
=0=
I can just smell it now. Brings back some very nice memories.
James R wrote:
============
BRAVO! - Bipod...
Yes!
Some people - even other photographers - ask of me to the why I "still" do the chemical thing. Not only because I Can - I want to.
Making use of the "old cameras" and the "old ways", I can keep myself doing everything that the photographic arts and sciences affords me to do.
AND as an extra - I have become a better digital photographer by "still doing that Old Chemical Thing". One of the obvious reasons, to me, is that working the cameras that are not digital, it S L O W S me down. I must think of everything I am about to do when I am under that "Dark Cloth". Even toward the entrance into that dark room under the safelight's red glow, and all those familiar smells.
Happy to be here with the others who have a great passion for the art and science of Photography.
:-)
=0=
============ br br BRAVO! - Bipod... br br Yes! ... (
show quote)
Glad you're here, James.
It's great that there are so many different approaches to photography. Your portable darkroom
set-up is unique -- I don't know anybody doing exactly the same thing.
Photography itself is less than 200 years old--the blink of an eye in terms of the history of art.
How could any process be exhausted?
Only in consumer handheld gadgets does one technology force all older technologies into oblivion.
Microwave ovens didn't replace conventional ovens. And every microwave oven contains a
vacuum tube (a magnatron oscillator)! But most consumers don't know that, and would say they
don't own any vacuum tube devices.
If technology always improved performance, then the highest resolution image campture known
to man wouldn't be Daguerreotype. And since Daguerreotype was only in widespread use for
about 20 years, it's creative possibilities certainly aren't exhausted.
The idea that new products are always better than old ones comes from marketing. Unfortunately,
a lot of people believe it.
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
James R wrote:
============
BRAVO! - Bipod...
Yes!
Some people - even other photographers - ask of me to the why I "still" do the chemical thing. Not only because I Can - I want to.
Making use of the "old cameras" and the "old ways", I can keep myself doing everything that the photographic arts and sciences affords me to do.
AND as an extra - I have become a better digital photographer by "still doing that Old Chemical Thing". One of the obvious reasons, to me, is that working the cameras that are not digital, it S L O W S me down. I must think of everything I am about to do when I am under that "Dark Cloth". Even toward the entrance into that dark room under the safelight's red glow, and all those familiar smells.
Happy to be here with the others who have a great passion for the art and science of Photography.
:-)
=0=
============ br br BRAVO! - Bipod... br br Yes! ... (
show quote)
James - to each his or her own thing … I happen to believe - if you haven't ever done "the chemical thing" as you put it … you've deprived yourself of "the fun side" of Photography …
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Bipod wrote:
Glad you're here, James.
It's great that there are so many different approaches to photography. Your portable darkroom
set-up is unique -- I don't know anybody doing exactly the same thing.
Photography itself is less than 200 years old--the blink of an eye in terms of the history of art.
How could any process be exhausted?
Only in consumer handheld gadgets does one technology force all older technologies into oblivion.
Microwave ovens didn't replace conventional ovens. And every microwave oven contains a
vacuum tube (a magnatron oscillator)! But most consumers don't know that, and would say they
don't own any vacuum tube devices.
If technology always improved performance, then the highest resolution image campture known
to man wouldn't be Daguerreotype. And since Daguerreotype was only in widespread use for
about 20 years, it's creative possibilities certainly aren't exhausted.
The idea that new products are always better than old ones comes from marketing. Unfortunately,
a lot of people believe it.
Glad you're here, James. br br It's great that t... (
show quote)
Bipod, the Daguerreotype may only be less than 200 years old, but photography dates back much further.
The Camera Obscura - was developed in in 1267 by Roger Bacon. In 1553 - a 15-year-old Italian came up with a convex lens to be used with it. Daguerre, himself - started fiddling with early photographic processes in the 1820s. So, since it is virtually 2020 now … that'd make photography - AT LEAST 200 years old, now. Whilst I admire your idea the Daguerreotype is still in its infancy - having lasted only 20 years, the notion anyone will be returning to it, anytime soon - is a little bit brash. But, you never know!
Finally took a break from the darkroom for a few months. I had been constantly working in a darkroom for nearly the last ten years. Between working in my home darkroom and working 20 hours a week in the darkroom at my museum job it started to wear on me.
I've developed a bit of film over the past few months but I haven't done any major darkroom work. I'm starting to really miss it. Thankfully, I have easy access to the university darkroom but not enough time. Hopefully I will find time soon.
Chris T wrote:
Bipod, the Daguerreotype may only be less than 200 years old, but photography dates back much further.
The Camera Obscura - was developed in in 1267 by Roger Bacon. In 1553 - a 15-year-old Italian came up with a convex lens to be used with it. Daguerre, himself - started fiddling with early photographic processes in the 1820s. So, since it is virtually 2020 now … that'd make photography - AT LEAST 200 years old, now. Whilst I admire your idea the Daguerreotype is still in its infancy - having lasted only 20 years, the notion anyone will be returning to it, anytime soon - is a little bit brash. But, you never know!
Bipod, the Daguerreotype may only be less than 200... (
show quote)
The camera obscura dates back even further than that. Ibn al-Haytham is often mentioned in relation to the camera obsscura because of his Book of Optics.
http://www.ibnalhaytham.com/discover/who-was-ibn-al-haytham/ It is likely that the concept dates back further than this as well.
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Darkroom317 wrote:
Finally took a break from the darkroom for a few months. I had been constantly working in a darkroom for nearly the last ten years. Between working in my home darkroom and working 20 hours a week in the darkroom at my museum job it started to wear on me.
I've developed a bit of film over the past few months but I haven't done any major darkroom work. I'm starting to really miss it. Thankfully, I have easy access to the university darkroom but not enough time. Hopefully I will find time soon.
Finally took a break from the darkroom for a few m... (
show quote)
Kris - if you have a darkroom at home - what's stopping you? … I'll bet it's crying out for a little attention!
Chris T
Loc: from England across the pond to New England
Probably … look, Kris … I found THIS in my travels around the Net … a true Daguerreotype …
In more ways than one …
Louis Daguerre - Daguerreotype made in 1844 by Jean-Baptiste Sabatier-Blot
Chris T wrote:
Kris - if you have a darkroom at home - what's stopping you? … I'll bet it's crying out for a little attention!
Should have mentioned that I moved for grad school. I don't have my home darkroom near me and didn't bring any of the equipment with me.
The main thing that is stopping me at this point is time. The good thing though is that it has pushed me to experiment more.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.