Slashdot Mirror
Kodak To Stop Making Black and White Paper
Swirsky writes "For those of us who remember spending quality time in a dark room with Kodak Rapid RC paper and a bottle of Dektol, here's some bad news - Kodak will stop making black and white photographic paper. Black and white photo work (especially because you can use a safelight!) is a wonderful way of introducing someone to photography. I guess if we want to do it, we'll have to use home-made emulsions on paper. As a pro photographer, I'm bothered by this, though admittedly I haven't done b/w darkroom work in years."
Black and white pr0n sucks. And we all know pr0n is the only useful application of photography.
Le français vous intéresse?
Ilford fine grain semi-matte was always way better than any muddy paper kodak made.
Or Portriga -- Agfa is good too.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Well another pre-press and printing technology gone. so what? I will never miss the chemicals and different kind of paper.
... or cave painting?
Anyone miss Lithography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithograph
Ilford is so much better, and Kodak relying on their band name is more expensive. I still use a few hundred sheets a year of black and white photographic paper and I hadn't even heard about this.
When Ilford stops making paper that will be a sad day. Kodak stoping isn't even newsworthy.
I'm bothered by this, though admittedly I haven't done b/w darkroom work in years.
This is exactly the reason why they are stopping the product. The poster is probably representative of alot of photographers (and people in general) with a "Hey that's a great thing to start people on this, but I no longer use it myself"
It's economics 101 if you don't make a profit out of something then don't sell it. Yes I know about loss leaders, but this couldn't be described as one of them. I'm sure there will always be a market for black and white photography, but so much is going digital that I think b&w specific film and paper are past their sell by dates
Kodiak paper is best, but it's a bear to work with. The real question isn't so much digital replacing conventional, but one of profit and user effort. Sure, professional photography will always have some sort of want of traditional methods, but which is more appealing to the tyro...having to buy special paper and mess with chemcials and the extensive setup required to render good images in the old method, or to shoot a dozen shots, delete the ones that weren't quite right, edit it on the computer, and throw it out to dozens of friends via email, DArt, et cetera. The I-gotta-have-it-now generation much prefers to spend a large chunk now and have easy, even if printer-limited, quality and the flexability of electronic distribution than muck with the consumables required for classic photography. So, let's sell digicams in bulk and get their money now, rather than take the ever-dwindling profit trickle of classical photography product subscription.
Most of digital camera uses a cheaper quality CCD with a shallow dwell depth, i.e., saturation occurs too quickly and hence only achieving low dynamic range. Spatial resolution isn't that great either, definitely not opimizing the quality of lenses available in some cases (Nikon D* series, etc).
And converting a color CCD image to B&W isn't the same, since the pixel filtering is likely involved (if it's a professional digital camera with multi-ccds and a beam splitter, it might be ok).
And obviously you never looked at mid-frame size camera. Digital media is approaching to 35mm camera, but nothing beyond that.
It's like asking why someone would load Linux on a G5 when they've already got Mac OSX pre-installed. The reason people stick with film is because it simply one of those old habits that die hard.
At ISO135, there is no film that can outperform a modern DSLR's sensor. In addition, a DSLR can take many more shots before a change of media is required. In many cases, the film winds up being computer-scanned anyway, so the loss of resolution during the scanning stage drops the "actual" film resolution by a huge amount. Once in the computer, the scanned film image can be digitally manipulated the same as any image from a digital camera, so there is no benefit either way.
If the photographer wishes to use an optical enlarger, the limitations of the enlarging lens is a factor in the quality of the print. Many enlargers have barrel distortion in the corners. DSLRs do not have this issue because the sensors are typically smaller than the image circle of the lens, so it is a crop of the "best" area of the lens (which is also why they refer to a 1.5x multiplier for lenses not specifically made for digital cameras).
Although I expect to see about a 100:1 ratio of B&W is dead to not dead, here's the thing. B&W is hardly dead, it's simply being moved into the realm of art rather than production photography. When was the last time you went to a major gallery and didn't see silver based prints? True, digital is overtaking, if it hasn't already overtaken, typical every day photography. But, silver halide is anywhere but dead. Remember platinum prints? Go to a high end gallery and you'll see lots of them. Not practical in any way for every day use, and even possibly for a lot of typical fine art work, but it's not going anywhere.
Other than in a classroom, you don't find all that many people printing on Kodak B&W papers anyway, and it's been that way for a long time. I'm a phto student/beginning pro photographer and the only time I've printed on Kodak is when it's been given to me. There are other papers that are cheaper and work as well, if not better.
Call it trolling, or flamebait, or whatever, but the biggest thing you have to understand is that the fine art world of photography is not going to die no matter what becomes popular. Hell, there are still people shooting tintype, because they can, and because that's the nature of art. Not what's popular, but what they create and what sells.
Kodak can sit and spin, they aren't the only supplier of B&W paper. It'd be worse if they got rid of their chemicals, which I do use, but also wouldn't be the end of the world. There are many alternatives besides Kodak.
Ranting maybe, but this has been a major topic on many photo boards (it's not new news really), and life goes on.
This is as stupid as arguing that RC paper is better than fiber base, or visa vie. It all depends on what you're doing.
And yes, I do shoot digital too. And large format. I won't give up any of them, they all have teir place, and each have their strong points and weak points.
I took an intro Photo class last year. We all used Ilford papaer. It was a hell of a lot cheaper...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Kodak makes great film (T-MAX 3200P, Tri-X), but their Variable Contrast paper has never really been of Fine-Art quality. The images always seem muddy. I've never really gotten a good print out of Kodak paper, and only really use it for contact prints.
Ilford makes a lot better paper, especially their Fiber VC glossy. And Agfa makes an incredible Resin Coated (RC) VC glossy (MPC 310), with incredible tonal depth.
I just can't wait to burn through my remaining Kodak polycontrast paper.
Nobody serious about B&W printing will miss Kodak. And if anything it will just mean Ilford and Agfa (who are both struggling) will enjoy a larger market-share. Maybe even Oriental will make an American surge.
For those of you who are curious about what traditional photography has over digital in an age where digital is approaching (and soon exceeding) the resolution of film, it mostly has to do with art, and the feel of the print. For journalism, tourist shots, birthdays, and pr0n, you won't get much for the hassle of chemicals. But there's an organic quality that digitial is missing, which affects artistic expression.
It's kinda like this: a CD of Jazz music played over a solid-state stereo has a completely different feel than a staticy record of Jazz music played over vacuum tubes.
Which is better? Well, it's purely subjective.
-j
--
photos @ http://www.ghostmanonfirst.com/
Sad troll really. You cannot beat B&W for an artistic medium. Many photos look far better in B&W than they ever could in colour.
well.. yes... you are... you are missing out on ALOT... I am a simi-pro photographer.. I grew up with a camera in my hands... I have had several years of professional schooling.. but I still don't call myself pro.. I don't know everything..
I have used digital and manual... I have used 1hour processing and I have processed by hand.. I have worked in digital dark rooms and real life dark rooms... all of these tools have a time and a place... their pro's and their cons.. but I still think my best work is done in a dark room...
the dark room is one of the few places that magic still occurs... there is something amazing about placeing a piece of blank paper and shining a light on it.. dipping it in a chemical and seeing an image appear before you...
This is very sad news that they are working on taking this away from us... This is litterally a dying art form... this is the difference between a hand woven tapistry and mass produced articals... this process is still young in so many respects.. photography hasn't even been around for 200 years...
I will agree with other posters that said that there are still other companies.. but how long until they follow suit?
What a load of bull. What digital camera can compete with with 25 ASA film loaded into a 10x8 large format camera?
Go look at someone like Ansel Adam's work in the flesh before you start spouting such nonsense. Digital cannot compete on resolution, contrast or tonal range and for some extremes, like Adam's, probably never will.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Even with colored paper, the black crayon is usually the first color to run out. Then I have to use the purple crayon to finish drawing Bruce Wayne's "other" car.
computers have always had more range of contrast than film.
What BS! The exposure latitude of print film is far higher (more forgiving) than current digital SLRs and point and shoots.
No DSLR uses multiple CDDs (AFAIK). You'll get rather a good B&W by just taking the green channel.
Finally film resolution is always quoted for some tiny contrast ratio (20%? something like that). Digital resolution is at 100% contrast ratio so it can actually look sharper even when the lpi is lower.
If anyone's not seen it, this DSLR vs medium format shootout from a few years ago has some interesting stuff in. Has a film person made a rebuttal? I'd be interested to see.
I introduced my daughter to photography the same way I learnt. I gave her a Pentax K1000 with a few lenses and an extension tube set, a good supply of ilford b/w 400 and a book on the Zone System. There's so much to learn that starting with the basics is mandatory. Taking pics by point and shoot is to photography what using Windows and using a mouse to point and click is to computer literacy.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Maybe, I'll be able to pull this off easier with my (future) kid
http://www.jasonadamreed.net/images/cartoons/calvi n/ch941106.gif
Care to see any of my Black and White Photography?
Dada Mail - Program, Art Project or Absurdity?
I haven't done b/w photography in years, but I remember there were other brands than Kodak. There still must be.
So if something like this happens, a big player quits because he's not interested in the market anymore, a smaller one quickly steps in.
Don't worry, b/w-photography guys.
I don't need a signature.
The beauty of photochemical work is that it fails in interesting ways...
This sig intentionally left justified.
We've got good consumer home equipment printing options and affordable big commercial labs (filled with automated equipment and button-monkey "technicians") and digital photo everything within easy grasp and price. Digital photography is cheaper all around and has many noteworthy advantages over traditional photography.
Also, even the most weenie digicams one step above the Wal-Mart toys has a B&W and Sepia setting, and the good digicams have tons to offer.
So why fuss or lament ??
Because the collective body of knowledge, experience and artistry in photography is formiddable, and black & white process is an inseperable part of that. Because printing photos (again, where the discontinued paper comes in) is a whole different world from actually taking the photos. Because artists use B&W and it's the most sensible place for newcomers to start learning since it's easier and cheaper than traditional color process.
I'm not sad that Kodak for business reasons decided to quit making B&W paper. That was a business decision from an old company that's confused about it's current and future place in an industry it helped define, and trying to survive. I AM concerned that some will view this as the demise of traditional photograhphy. I don't believe it is.
If traditional small format (8 and 16 mm) motion picture film can survive in a digital imaging world, then traditional photography certainly can.
Photography has a history of invention and evolution, this is just another step.
B&W process will move to the edge, the background. It will step away so that newer processes can rise, but it will not be lost, not for a very long time at least.
While digital process photography will take over the mainstream, B&W process will remain in the hands of the artists and those who wish to learn the craft of photography.
Bottom line, B&W is not dead, one important company's decision to get out of the business is not it's tombstone, and the value of having a significant body of knowledge + traditional options + modern innovation and evolution leading the way makes the craft all the more rich and strong.
- Marching Band: It's not just for breakfast anymore
Sure, Kodak is stopping production, but they are not the only ones that make quality B&W photo paper. Ever heard of Ilford?
When the news came out a couple days ago I thought it was a shame since I used to develop my own B&W film, but quickly realized that even back then I was scanning my films. I almost never printed them so at least in my particular case there is no real loss.
And sure, we got digital, but in over 5 years shooting digital I am still not too happy with my B&W results. It is nice to know that I can grab a manual camera and shoot some Kodak PLUS-X 125 if I feel like it.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
"There is no reason for black and white anything today" - You insensitive clod. You obviously have no eye for art and no feelings for Penguins, Zebras, Pandas and other monochromatic life forms.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Although many people are switching to DI (Digital Imagery) I am sticking with my old-fashioned manual focus film cameras. (may the gods of /. smite me for my ass-backward ways. No you cannot install Linux on my camera.) To answer your question, Black and White photography is a matter of aesthetics. There are simply some things that photograph better that way. I have found that architecture, aircraft (especially vintage planes), machinery and the human form are all photogenic in black and white (Pr0n is in color, Art is in Black and White). By removing color the photographer can force the viewer to focus on the shape, texture and contrast of the subject. Have you ever photographed Christmas in Black and White? Most people who do tend to find their photos are uniform gray. This is because similar shades of red and green appear as the same shade of gray on film. A photographer who is aware of this can capture images that show the world from a perspective unseen by the human eye. Color can distract from the form and lighting of the subject and dazzle the eye. Black and white images are simple and classy. Some of my best and most rewarding work has been with B&W film in the camera and paper in the darkroom.
As a photographer today, I have found myself to be very distrustful of images I see. It used to be that you could trust that a photograph was a True image, simply because it was not feasible to edit and change the photo. Anymore I doubt the authenticity of images since anyone with a mouse and copy of Photoshop can take a crappy snapshot and turn it into a potential prizewinner. At what point does the image stop existing as a real photograph and become the fantasy of a digital painter?
Film will always have some advantages over digital sensors. For one thing, film is an analogue, within it exists infinite possibilities for shade and color. Digital images will always be limited to what can be mathematically defined within the confines of the sensor, and storage medium. With film I can change from a 1600 ASA to 100 ASA, something that digital cameras cannot do. Once the sensor is installed it cannot be changed. To match film in this way you would need a different camera body with a variety of sensors to simulate various speeds of film.
I have used both film and digital and I find film photography to be far more rewarding. For me photography is not just the act of capturing an image, DI does that reasonably well, it's also about the process. Of course this is just one man's opinion, but I hope film never dies. I would hate to shop at antique stores so I can shoot with my Rollei 35 (1970's vintage).
No one of consequence
Digital has thus far failed to meet one unavoidable reality.
We observe in analog...
the pixels in a digital image shouldn't be aligned.. they should be slightly random.. the frames in video/computer monitors should be a constant sequence of random photons. Digital audio should be Hi Def and slightly fuzzy and data storage should have a level of redundancy.
Until that is met, purists will continue to dislike the tech.
That said, HDR cameras (http://www.cybergrain.com/tech/hdr/) and HD cameras will revolutionise (even more so) the imaging world.
If I can see a scene, capture it with a single click and later frame it, adjust the colours display it on a high dynamic range monitor, or modify the image so the mountains are as visible as the sun setting behind them, then I say this overcomes a *massive* shortcoming of current and previous cameras.
I don't care for the "art" of technical photography. The real art is in seeing and capturing the images.. the technical side is a clumsy romanticised inconvenience.
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
The general shrinking of the market is worrying though - my digicam just doesn't do what I want it to (big enlargements, shallow depth of field, nice grain) but I can see film and processing getting a lot more expensive. I don't think it will ever disappear though; the lab I use have just bought a few millions' worth of new processing equipment and black-and-white was never completely killed off by colour. I don't think there'll be much R&D going into film any more, but Tri-X is decades old and people still like it :-)
It depends on how you're trying to compete. If it's making a shot without a tripod, many relatively cheap digital cameras will beat the 10x8 for overall quality. If it's resolution, well, check out The Gigapixel Project.
Digital is pretty darn good these days, and is competing reasonably well in the 35mm world. Within five years it will likely be the better choice for all small and medium format users except those who specifically like to use chemical processes for that sake alone, or due to computer-aversion. As a photographer who does all of his own processing and printing, I may not like this, but I still don't see how black and white is going to do any better than analogue audio.
But I do suspect, in the long run, black and white might actually last longer than C41. Black and white is both much easier for a hobbiest to do and much more flexible. And it's fun. I can't see why anybody would bother with their own C41 processing, though they might possibly still have some interest in printing from colour negatives.
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
How long will these cameras last? How long does the storage medium last? Yes, they have inkjet printing inks and paper that will last 70 years now...but that's just the print. What about the "negative"?
Here's my point...I could go into a camera store that sells used equipment, buy a Leica from the 40's or 50's and still run film through it. Will people still be running a digital camera they buy today 60 years from now? Will they even be able to get the info off of it?
You could take a negative from Ansel Adams that he made way back in the 20's and still make a very find, high quality print today. Don't have to worry about making any interface or program to read the data or worry if the media is still viable on a disk somewhere. Hell, with his 8x10 negs you don't even need an enlarger, could make a contact print with a lightbulb if you wanted.
Digital photos taken today won't be around 60 years from now...sorry, but that's the fact. You would constantly have to keep upgrading and transfering your shots to the latest storage medium just to keep up. Can anyone honestly say that you'll be able to read a CD 60 years from now to get the pictures off? Maybe if you find an old computer in an antique shop...maybe.
Not to mention the fact that the camera you buy today is obsolete a year from now when something better AND cheaper comes along.
I don't know, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I've probably made thousands of black and white prints and I have never printed on kodak black and white paper. Although I do like their color papers when I print color.
I shoot digital as well as traditional film and I do my own printing for color and black and white as well as color and I also send stuff out to digital printers as well. Traditional film printing, especially from larger negatives can be a lot nicer than digital. Especially when it comes to black and white. A nice hand printed black and white print on fiber paper has a certain depth and richness that you can't achive on dye based papers.
There's no need to start making your own emulsions. There are still plenty of other options.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
I guess they're really heavily banking on digital
As someone who lives in Kodak's home town and has worked at the place, I can tell you that's probably not the reason. Much more likely than not, the manager in charge of B&W paper probably ate the lunch of the manager in charge of "digital stuff" and the digital guy convinced the senior managers to eliminate the other's division.
I joke, of course. Kodak's core decisions are usually based on less rational reasons than the one I gave...
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Many large format photographers are already printing in the digital realm with archival black and white inks and inkjet printers. Why? because after many years in the darkroom with poor ventilation, they have realized that their health has been effected. Digital cameras will get better. It is just safer for the environment and humans to go digital...and alot cheaper.
I must be wakewalking through dreams.
It is way too bad that the parent posting here was AC instead of somebody who posted with his name. I wish it would be modded up more.
I have experience with both chemical (traditional) photography and digitial photography and imaging. In the latter I've spent quite a bit on display systems on a professional engineering basis and am quite familiar with the issues on that end as well.
Digital photography can be as good as traditional photography, but there is a long road ahead when you find companies that suggest color depth and range are "good enough". This is usually the result of some manager who knows little if anything about the underlying technology but instead doesn't want to throw more money at improving technologies when the end customer, in their opinion, won't notice a difference. Often they are correct in terms of immediate need, but that also effectively kills any future push to improve once the line has been drawn.
To Kodak's credit, when they developed the PCD image format, they included by far the best dynamic range specification than any other digital encoding format. Unfortunately for them (and the rest of us), they kept it propritary, under lock and key with annoying patents and licensing issues incompatable with the GPL (and other nasty problems) so it is seldom if ever used.
The problem with digital imaging is that when you get to extreme ends of the color space (near black or near white, deep red, etc.) is where you most often notice color differences. Particularly near black your eye can percieve a tremendous difference in shades, as your eyes are logrithmic in nature in terms of sensitivity. This is true even with gamma corrected images, but the gamma does help out quite a bit.
Another huge issue that occurs with color (as opposed to monochrome or greyscale images) is that the RGB colorspace (or related CMY) is almost written in stone as the only possible color space, ignoring that people can see more than just three colors. I won't belabor this point, but most people are simply blind on what could be seen with digital photography simply because digital camera and display equipment forces you into seeing through the RGB blinders. It is so common and pervasive that few want to go beyond and try for more color richness. Traditional photography, while still using color filters on its negatives, offers more dynamic range even on colors than what you would see on a computer monitor.
I would also have to agree with the parent poster that people going into photography for the first time (young kids just starting out) are going to get the ultimate garbage digital photographs.
On the other hand, from my experience with digital photography and unlike chemical photography, you can get those kids to take hundreds if not thousands of photographs, and dump the garbage ones that don't have any value. This is a two-edge sword as well because good photographers will try to follow some artistic guidelines in terms of framing the shot, composition of the scene, etc., while somebody taking random shots of everything they look at is going to produce much more garbage shots that should be immediately discarded.
Still, I've handed my kids a digital camera to take on class field trips, and I have been able to get a few very good photos from their experience. And it is neat to get a visual view of life as a 7 year old... something that I have taken for granted at times.