Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/11/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity
From: benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:43:47 +1030
References: <ee8fa51c0911051626o36c57d26h90451b724ff5f3b5@mail.gmail.com> <C718E0E8.5801E%mark@rabinergroup.com>

Tina - I admire your determination.  Those processors were hard to
maintain.  Mark - I agree that for working photographers concentrating
on photos is the way to go.  I still like B&W darkroom work, but I
mostly only need to please myself.  Having said that, my last paying
jobs were all done all on film and was requested to do so by the
clients, who had seen some of my stuff from before digital was really
available.  I wouldn't, however, like to rely on that as a source of
income.

M


On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:
>>> She was about to learn C printing. What a waste! ?C prints were bad when 
>>> they
>>> were good.
>>
>> Indeed. ?The greatest single thing about digital processes is that
>> colour is freed from the intimate interlinking of hue, contrast and
>> saturation. ?I remember making colour and contrast masks for C type
>> and especially Ilfochrome prints - it was an awful job that provided
>> only best of a bad scenario results.
>>
>> In comparison, well made high end inkjet prints seem miraculous.
>>
>> M
>
>
> In the 70's only black and white was taken seriously in galleries and you'd
> get real money for.
> Cibachromes came in and it seemed evident that they'd last.
> Soon we'd see them up there costing the same or more. High gloss and jacked
> up reds.
> But also die transfers and a few other rare processes made for black and
> white not being the only thing.
> Then Kodak found out about this.
> C prints were overnight rated to 200 years up from 20. They changed the
> final bath water
> I believe the marketing departments with Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford set the
> archival attributes of their products. Neck in neck. Year by year. They 
> edge
> out each other.
> C prints soon became not a stranger on the walls of serious collectors and
> galleries. But the direct positive processes still held the edge. And then
> LightJet came in of course. ?But not for long.
> Then inkjet went pigment and quality archival color printing became 
> possible
> for everybody. Cream of the crop image making. Second to none.
> Learn to print C prints or direct positive and you're going to learn what a
> magenta blue print looks like; and how to correct for it.
> It just steals time away from you doing ?your serious work.
> Time learning Photoshop. Cranking out prints for your ongoing portfolio.
>
>
>
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity)
In reply to: Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity)