Actually in my world I have a slightly different viewpoint.
As most major labs and institutions are mothballing their darkrooms , we in fact have increased the size of our darkrooms. We just installed a 55inch x 480inch wet sink to accomodat 4x8 ft fibre prints from enlargers and lambda.
We are still getting clients landing in Toronto and dropping off film and producing prints on enlargers to be exhibited .
Increasingly we are printing from digital files to fibre *wet* , in fact I think today digital prints outweigh the enlarger prints. But as I find that there still is those who do appreciate a crafted enlarger print and are willing to invest in film cameras and wait for the results.
I have been working in both area's as a exhibition and portfolio printer for 20 odd years in TO and as Michael points out the conversion to digital is a done deal. No argument .
But I strongly believe there is a place for both in the ** art ** and ** commercial ** world .
In fact I think most of the best advances are when digital and wet technology is combined, and that is where I believe we are headed.
As an aside,
The major schools should take a moment to pause and keep some of the darkrooms open, my bet is the ones that do will attract the new wave of students.
Colour Carbon prints off digital negs , I think will pass the grade with any one on this form , I think.
Today , I just spent two hours at a local highschool accessing their needs for enlargers, sinks, and digital printers. All which we will donate to a very appreciative Principle and dedicated photography teacher.
Those who feel film cameras are obsolete and useless are more than welcome to donate any and all film cameras, 35-8x10. as well any digital slrs are also very welcome.
send me a email at
bob@elevatordigital.ca and I will make sure all this equipment gets into the hands of some very appreciative students.
ps. I too shoot famly snaps and vacation snaps, but I use a digital point and shoot for this and keep the Noblex and Fuji 6x9 loaded with HP5 for the art prints.
It really amazes me that here, in mid-2008, there are still some people that maintain the image quality superiority of film. To me this simply shows that they have little real world experience. This was a heated topic back in 2001 - 2003 but has long since been laid to rest.
Are there still people shooting film and doing darkroom prints or making scans? Yes of course. Some simply like the process. That's cool. But most of the leading photographic schools, like RIT, now teach the chemical darkroom as an alternative process, not mainstream technology any longer.
Does anyone seriously think that the majority (I'm not saying all) of the world's leading fine art and commercial photographers use digital is simply because of convenience. Not!
No, pundits and knowledgeable reporters laid the digital vs film argument to rest some years ago. When leading large format fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Alain Briot give up film for digital you know that the battle has been won, and it's all over except for a few die-hards who haven't yet gotten the message.
Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have to go to the mailbox and pick up this month's checks from the major camera makers, all of whom are paying me to preach the advantages of digital. And, if you want to see how effective that program is, go to any camera store in the world and compare the number of film cameras on the shelves to the number of digital cameras. Boy, I must be powerful.
Cheers,
Michael
Ps: I still own and use at least three film cameras, more for fun than anything else, and for when image quality is less important than fun or a special application. I use my Hasselblad / Imacon scanner, and curse every time when I have to spend an hour or more cleaning dust spots, but that's another story.
As for my chemical darkroom of 30+ years. Gone, finished, closed, no regrets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]