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
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
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.
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.
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
The beauty of photochemical work is that it fails in interesting ways...
This sig intentionally left justified.
Exactly, "wet" photography has a significantly greater dynamic range than digital. However it is easier to make a photo with a very large dynamic range using digital cameras and Photoshop. Needs a tripod.
:) (mirror lock up blah blah blah)
Simply set up camera and tripod (this is excellend for landscapes). Expose for the sky, take image (foreground vastly underexposed). Expose for foreground, take image (sky blown out). Take a few more at other exposures, maybe to get the exposure of a flower or the sea or something. Important bit is that the tripod doesn't move
Put them all into PS and use the combine function whose name escapes me and it will stitch them together using the whole range of exposures. For example, the average decent digital SLR can expose around 6 levels of exposure (8 for generic film). Doing this you can easily get a photo with 10+ exposure levels which means everything in the photo is properly exposed.
To do the same with film requires various gradient filters and eitehr blind luck (me) or lots of knowledge (photo pro)
Hmm
Troc.
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
"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.
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
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