[Leica] Film Lab

[dankhong at gmail.com (Dan Khong)]

Mark
You are such a smart chap and I cannot possibly outdo you in your way with
words.
All I know is that my B&W negatives that I souped in 1968 are still doing
fine in my dry cabinet. They will still be there when I bite the dust and
maybe even you as well. Chances are when you and I bite our dusts, our
digital files will go along soon after.
I love handling and looking at physical stuffs and that includes negatives
and prints. I like the analog workflow process from which I derive great
satisfaction.
In the meantime, you are entitled to your views and I am entitled to mine.
Civilized men should always agree to disagree.
Have a nice day.
Dan K.



On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:

> Robert, other people?s personal memories are great I?m all for them
> there?s not much I can say about them but when I read ?And my negatives
> will serve as my archival backup.? That?s a trigger for me. It?s an issue
> important to me which brought me to write what I wrote.
> His more full quote being:
> ?I just souped a roll of Tri-X and waiting to send it to the pro-lab to
> have it scanned into digital. After that, I have the options of two work
> processes ? digital and analog. And my negatives will serve as my archival
> backup.?
>
> It?s my point again that his negatives will probably bite the dust long
> before his digital files. Thinking of one?s negatives like this as an
> archival backup is being encouraged widely and is one of those alt-true
> truths. As in its just not true at all.
> And the idea that we must only respond to the main idea of a post and not
> the part of it which we have something to say about I don?t has ever been
> expressed or been in effect.
> I?m sure the archives are full of people responding to the point in a post
> which they have something to say something about.
>
> One reason why digital scanning and Photoshoping is such a nice thing is
> we can take our faded damaged off color old negatives and prints and scan
> them and process them and make them look much younger.  We can restore
> them. We have the technology
> There are people who specialize in in restoration they used to have their
> own place in the yellow pages and can do a better job of that then we
> probably can. Had those negatives or prints been digital captures the
> restoration people are out of business. It?s a main plus of the digital
> process and workflow. I hate to see more and more people get that turned
> around.
> Preservation of silver gelatin prints and negs is a tough ongoing job
> which is most often done way wrong if not ignored. It?s a shoebox in the
> bottom drawer.
> Preservation of Digital files is not a roll in the hay but is way easier
> to do partly because its possible to do. Digital files don?t fade. They
> don?t have to be kept in the dark in a humidity controlled room and
> handeled with white cotton gloves.
> --
>
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photographer
>
> On 6/7/17, 10:31 PM, "LUG on behalf of Robert Adler" <lug-bounces+mark=
> rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of rgacpa at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>     Ahh Mark, you missed Dan's point. Shooting/developing analogue brings
> back
>     memories. I agree with much of what you post, but it is irrelevant to
>     anything Dan said...
>     But that's ok..
>
>
>     Bob Adler
>     www.robertadlerphotography.com
>     *"Capturing Light One Frame At A Time"*
>
>     On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>     > I?ve seen this a lot on the internet and it?s not true or don?t
> agree with
>     > it? it?s not true. But it?s really out there being passed around big
> time
>     > and achieving some unfortunate credulity as that?s how information
> spreds
>     > now. The better virus wins. And you never know which Meme will fly
> and
>     > which will die.
>     > And that?s this backing up to analog as if chemistry based stuff is
> more
>     > archival than digital. Or just thinking you are covered if you have
> a film
>     > or paper copy of something.
>     > When we all first heard about this new digital thing coming out the
> basic
>     > idea behind the whole thing was the advantage of digital is its
> digital.
>     > You make a copy of the thing and the it?s a clone not a copy. It?s
> the
>     > same only it exists in a different space.  For photography that?s
>     > revolutionary. Because in the past when make a copy of a negative or
> of a
>     > print and hold them side by side and they are no way identical. The
> ?copy?
>     > of the thing in most cases is a sad joke.  So, you try to avoid
> copies. You
>     > cover yourself as you?re shooting. You go ?click? a bunch of times
> not just
>     > once or twice. The best copy or backup is another origional.
>     > More to the point is the reality that the minute your film is dry or
> your
>     > print is dry it starts decomposing; leaking gasses, fading, and
> staining,
>     > changing color. Film and prints exist in the organic carbon based
> world
>     > just like people and trees. Film is made from dead bunnies (the
> gelatin).
>     > Prints are made from that and cotton and wood. Just like people they
> are
>     > dying the minute they are born. Returning to the earth from whence
> they
>     > came?
>     > So your film based print and the film itself is not the same image as
>     > every day goes by. Every day in every way your print is worser and
> worser.
>     > Film too. Not as much.
>     > This is a main advantage not disadvantage of digital. It?s a plus
> check
>     > not a minus. You could claim to hate the ?digital look? but go with
> it
>     > anyway because it lasts forever. Its digital.  Other than the small
>     > possibility of an isolated file getting corrupted when you go to your
>     > digital file to Photoshop it again to print it or put it up on the
> internet
>     > again a decade or so later you?re NOT dealing with a faded different
>     > version of the thing. In digital if you can get that single file
> open it?s
>     > the same file you dealt the first-time decades going by.  Not one
> 100000th
>     > of a percent different.
>     > And if that file doesn?t open you grab another older backup hard
> disk and
>     > it will.
>     > In the past decade, my digital body of work is on hard disks and
> right
>     > here near me. My chemical body of work is in a storage cubicle with
> fumes
>     > coming out of each and every print and neg and slide.  I?ve not seen
> it in
>     > a few days I hope to soon and I don?t pass out from the gasses as I
> open
>     > the door.
>     > By the way if one print or roll of film is under fixed or under
> washed it
>     > gives off a lot more and nastier gases than the stuff which was
> properly
>     > fixed and washed sitting near it or in the same closet. So, the
> properly
>     > processed stuff is probably fading at an accelerated rate too.
>     > The chemical analog workflow is messy. The advantages are hard to
> find.
>     > And if there are any advantages to film archivalness is not one of
> them.
>     >
>     > --
>     >
>     > Mark William Rabiner
>     > Photographer
>     >
>     > On 6/7/17, 4:14 AM, "LUG on behalf of Dan Khong" <lug-bounces+mark=
>     > rabinergroup.com at leica-users.org on behalf of dankhong at 
> gmail.com>
> wrote:
>     >
>     >     I just souped a roll of Tri-X and waiting to send it to the
> pro-lab to
>     > have
>     >     it scanned into digital. After that, I have the options of two
> work
>     >     processes - digital and analog. And my negatives will serve as my
>     > archival
>     >     backup.
>     >
>     >     All said, 90% of my B&W pics (100% of color) are now taken on
> digital,
>     > but
>     >     it's the last bit that is analog that gives me memories that
> spans
>     > back 50
>     >     years when film was there in the most impressionable years of my
> life.
>     >     Those were the days of Nam and protest songs, and growing up into
>     >     adulthood.
>     >
>     >     Dan K.
>     >
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Leica Users Group.
>     >     See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> information
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Leica Users Group.
>     > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Leica Users Group.
>     See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information