Digital BW, The Print

Tom O'Connell wrote;

>I repeat my query: How many recent improvements can one find in the
>wet darkroom world vs. the almost daily refinements in the digital
>world? From where I sit and watch, the digital progress is
>overwhelming and the days film manufacturing are numbered. It would
>be nice to think both would exist side by side, but economic reality
>will eventually bring a halt to the world of film. Probably the only
>thing keeping it alive today is the hope that the millions of film
>cameras (mostly in closets) will get pulled out for pictures of the
>cousin's wedding or christening...but eventually this will stop.

>Such a
>product could end film manufacture overnight if it really worked
>well. I haven't seen one, but doesn't Leica now have a digital back
>for it's rangefinder and SLR cameras?

I think many will feel that I am anti-digital, but it is not the case. I
shoot film and no, it is not going to die anytime soon (I'll get to that
later). I do however scan and then print with inkjet . . . I like it and I
like the gelatin silver print. I used to have a custom built darkroom, and
if I wasn't constantly moving about I would do so again. I am happy with the
new challenge of squirting ink onto paper, but frustrated by the blind mob.

Hmmm?, "digital progress"?? Well the storage of imagery in a digital format
is a step forward (I do remember punch cards though), though there are many
industry voices who indeed are worried about the long term question for cds
and dvds, both just as fragile as film if not handled properly. As for what
we do now a "great leap forward"? That's funny, I was sure that I had seen
images of ink on paper that were produced hundreds of years ago . . .
predating silver imagery by a long time as a matter of fact, so I guess that
makes "traditional" silver photography the "real" new technology. Many on
this list, myself included, revel in the prints we can make with MIS carbon
inks . . . a product that is not too dissimilar from what Ugh used when he f
irst drew the sistine cavern, and as Paul R will be happy to point out . . .
some of that really old stuff is still around! ;-). Honestly, the only thing
that has really changed is how we deliver a variation of the same old, same
old, onto a substrate . . . we have gone from Ugh with his charcoal stick,
to the next big thing, furry ended mastodon sticks dipped in charcoal and
water (painting), up to the aerosol can . . . gee, if it wasn't for the punk
graffiti artist (aerosol . . . SPRAY!!!) we might never have gotten inkjet
printers that are out of date one minute after you get them plugged in.

As for film about to die??? This again is the narrow minded perspective
which I have seen on Stockphoto and other lists . . . "oooh! I bought a
digital camera, Kodak is going to collapse!!! . . . oooh!". Don't get hot
under the collar Tom . . . I am just pointing out something REALLY BIG that
you missed, that is exhibited by so many who march like zombies in "night of
the living dead" arms stretched in front as they parade to their electronics
store, saying in a monotone dirge, "digital . . . digital . . . digital . .
. digital . . . digital", what a really bad film! which brings us to, have
any of you seen that recent release of that abominable film "deuce bigelow .
. . something or other". I wouldn't go to see it, but I understand it is
pretty pathetic . . . there are many, many films released during the summer
that are pretty pathetic. They all have one thing in common though, they are
shot on 35mm film. So what?

Well here is so what. Two hours of 35mm film is 10,800 feet. When you shoot
a film, you have a shoot ratio that being the amount of footage actually
shot against the final footage used. In deference to the pro-digital group,
we will give a 3 to 1 ratio (which for any production is really, really
good), that gives  32,400 feet of film used for getting the final cut, of
which an answer print and then release prints are done. The above mentioned
film which is a dog, opened in at least 50 sites throughout North America. A
super major release like Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Godfather, etc would
probably have opened in twice as many locations. So? Well we have our
original film (3 to 1 remember) plus nominally 50 more release prints giving
us 53 x 10,800 feet, or 572,400 feet for one crappy film. That is the
equivalent of 114,480 rolls of 36exp 35mm film, or if you would like . . .
if you shot ten rolls a day, every day, seven days a week, NO vacation, you
would catch up in 31 YEARS, and that is just for one crappy film . . . there
are many, many releases (100s) during the year, and we haven't even begun to
count Europe and Asia (THE largest film producer and market on the planet),
and this goes on every year.

The movie industry embraced digital technology long before many on this list
even knew it existed. They still shoot more than 95 per cent on film, not
digital (Panavision and Arri do have equipment for digital capture, though
few use it). Most major TV series are shot on film (with the exception of
those braindead reality shows). Theatres across the world are virtually all
film . . . only a few have bought into digital projection equipment (there
are many, many, many, many, many zeros in the price tag), and those few are
in the largest cities on the planet . . . where there are still other
theatres showing the same release on film.

So what? again? Yes, this narrow, narrow, narrow, narrow  market that is
represented by the silver lovers will indeed take a couple of punches to the
jaw, but really folks, you guys going all digital and spelling the end of
"film" . . . please, you probably represent less than a tenth of one
hundreth of a percent of  Kodak's and Fuji's market. The only danger they
have is the possibility of dying from laughter listening to you.

Film is here for a long, long time . . . the varities and selection will
certainly narrow down, but it is here for my lifetime and probably yours.

Paul Aparycki