If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
Ken Blake wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: develop on photo paper. You mean *print* on photo paper. Film is developed. The resulting negatives (or with some color film, it's positive, not negative) are printed. Well, "print" seems a term that got adopted long after I was toying around with developing film into light-resistant negatives and developing photo paper into photographs. Maybe it started when other methods were used to translate negatives to other media, like scanners for negatives, so "prints" were negatives to paper to differentiate other means of differently storing negatives. Developer is used on film following by a fixer, water/wetting bath, and drying. The same process is used (developer, fixer, wash, dry) for developing (printing) negatives onto paper. Whether film or paper, they're both use developer hence they are both developed. I suppose after 50 years the terminology changed a bit. To me, you developed film, and you developed paper. I only got into photography because of my dad back around 50+ years ago, and that lasted only a few years. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
In article , Ken Blake
wrote: Professional photographers still use film cameras and ...*most* of them do. I've known several who use digital cameras. almost none do, and only because they're selling nostalgia, not quality. I'm no longer a professional photographer, but many years ago when I was, digital cameras didn't exist and film was my only choice. therefore not applicable. develop on photo paper. You mean *print* on photo paper. Film is developed. The resulting negatives (or with some color film, it's positive, not negative) are printed. photo paper is also developed, sometimes even using the same chemicals, depending on film & paper. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On 8/7/2020 4:32 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Ken Blake wrote: VanguardLH wrote: develop on photo paper. You mean *print* on photo paper. Film is developed. The resulting negatives (or with some color film, it's positive, not negative) are printed. Well, "print" seems a term that got adopted long after I was toying around with developing film into light-resistant negatives and developing photo paper into photographs. I started developing film and printing negatives on paper about 70 years ago, when I was 12. It was called printing then. I'm almost certain it was always called printing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Weston, which says "In 1947 he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and he stopped photographing soon thereafter. He spent the remaining ten years of his life overseeing the printing of more than 1,000 of his most famous images." Note that it says "printing." Maybe it started when other methods were used to translate negatives to other media, like scanners for negatives, No,it started *way* before there were any scanners. so "prints" were negatives to paper to differentiate other means of differently storing negatives. Developer is used on film following by a fixer, water/wetting bath, and drying. Film is processed first in developer, then in a stop bath (usually a very dilute solution of acetic acid), them fixer. Then it is washed in water to remove the fixer, and dried. The same process is used (developer, fixer, wash, dry) for developing Yes, but you left out the stop bath again. (printing) negatives onto paper. Whether film or paper, they're both use developer hence they are both developed. Yes, the paper is developed, but developing the prints is part of the process of printing. The full process is called "printing," even though part of it is developing the print. I suppose after 50 years the terminology changed a bit. No, way before 50 years ago, and I doubt very much that it was ever called anything else. To me, you developed film, and you developed paper. Yes, that's correct. But again, the full process of creating the image on the paper and developing it is called "printing." I only got into photography because of my dad back around 50+ years ago, and that lasted only a few years. I started way before you (about 70 years ago, and it lasted much longer. I started as an amateur, but then did it professionally. My first job after college (1959) was printing in a studio. Feel free to disagree. I don't want to start an argument over this, so as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the thread. -- Ken |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
In article , Ken Blake
wrote: Film is processed first in developer, then in a stop bath (usually a very dilute solution of acetic acid), them fixer. Then it is washed in water to remove the fixer, and dried. true for b/w prints. not true for colour film, especially reversal. The same process is used (developer, fixer, wash, dry) for developing Yes, but you left out the stop bath again. stop bath is very brief and only to stop further development, thus its name. it doesn't actually do anything by itself. it can even be skipped entirely, although that rapidly weakens the fixer. in any event, the choice of the individual steps doesn't change the name of the entire process. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
Ken Blake wrote:
Feel free to disagree. I don't want to start an argument over this, so as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the thread. Over 50 years ago when I dabbled into film and a darkroom, but only for a few years, I never called them prints and didn't hear them referred to as such. Film processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. | Photo processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. And, yes, I left out some steps, like the stop bath which is not always used and a wetting bath to eliminate drying spots which can be separate of the wash bath. Both film and photos are exposed to light, both media use chemistry, and both were developed. Way back then, when dinosaurs still roamed (*), I was not a professional, there was not even a concept of Internet nor ARPANET to share information, and I read only a couple books but got most of my info from Dad. Back then, we /developed/ both film and photos in a darkroom. Old terminology tends to stick with old farts. We say "they said" instead of "they says" and "he wrote" instead of "he writes", and "light" is not spelled "lite". This was a short-lived personal hobby, so I was not exposed to the terminology used within the industry. (*) When I was a tyke, I'd ask Dad what it was like "back in the old days". He'd start to tell about the dinosaurs that roamed the Earth. After a couple minutes, I'd catch on and say, "Oh, Dad", and he'd laugh. The lingo you use is what you were exposed to. Sorry if I offended your lingo. Seems we are vehemently agreed, though, despite the triviality of using different words. Oh, the Wikipedia article you cited was written in 2019, not back in 1947. When writing, the current language and learned by the author gets used. Not many English-speaking folks today write using Old English or even with all the same terms or their definitions as of 70 years ago. Twas a bad citation referring to something written a year ago as to what was the terminology back then. I'll agree with you that it was and is called printing in the photographic industry. My terminology was based on a hobby and reflected the chemistry involved. Don't remember anyone having such an issue when I noted developing the photos. After all, not everyone that hears you say "byte" knows you didn't mean "bite". Language is fluid. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On 2020-08-08 3:13 a.m., VanguardLH wrote:
Ken Blake wrote: Feel free to disagree. I don't want to start an argument over this, so as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the thread. Over 50 years ago when I dabbled into film and a darkroom, but only for a few years, I never called them prints and didn't hear them referred to as such. Film processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. | Photo processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. And, yes, I left out some steps, like the stop bath which is not always used and a wetting bath to eliminate drying spots which can be separate of the wash bath. Both film and photos are exposed to light, both media use chemistry, and both were developed. Way back then, when dinosaurs still roamed (*), I was not a professional, there was not even a concept of Internet nor ARPANET to share information, and I read only a couple books but got most of my info from Dad. Back then, we /developed/ both film and photos in a darkroom. Old terminology tends to stick with old farts. We say "they said" instead of "they says" and "he wrote" instead of "he writes", and "light" is not spelled "lite". This was a short-lived personal hobby, so I was not exposed to the terminology used within the industry. (*) When I was a tyke, I'd ask Dad what it was like "back in the old days". He'd start to tell about the dinosaurs that roamed the Earth. After a couple minutes, I'd catch on and say, "Oh, Dad", and he'd laugh. The lingo you use is what you were exposed to. Sorry if I offended your lingo. Seems we are vehemently agreed, though, despite the triviality of using different words. Oh, the Wikipedia article you cited was written in 2019, not back in 1947. When writing, the current language and learned by the author gets used. Not many English-speaking folks today write using Old English or even with all the same terms or their definitions as of 70 years ago. Twas a bad citation referring to something written a year ago as to what was the terminology back then. I'll agree with you that it was and is called printing in the photographic industry. My terminology was based on a hobby and reflected the chemistry involved. Don't remember anyone having such an issue when I noted developing the photos. After all, not everyone that hears you say "byte" knows you didn't mean "bite". Language is fluid. These posts bring up old memories Of dark dark rooms. back in the 70s and 80s I built a darkroom in my basement for myself and my sons, Who were both into photography. My younger son took photo processing as a vocation and has been a Photolab technician since then. He assures me that Films are 'developed or processed' and The transfer of the film image to paper is still called printing as it was way back then. I did a lot of work in the darkroom for years back then, including various processes including, E3, E4 E6 C41 and black and white of all types/ I bet not to many here did E3 which was very involved using about 9 steps and reversal under floodlights and yes 3 stop baths, one after each process. Also did Cibacrhome printing on 8x10 which was very expensive but gave brilliant colors, Anybody remember that one? We had a pretty good darkroom setup, Two enlargers, a Chromega color-head and a big Bessller condenser one about 5 feet tall for large format, An Ansco 5x7 large format camera and 2 or 3 print easels, A good color Analyser, Trays, 8x10 and 11x14 drums and rotators and film drums of various sizes and an 11x14 print drier. Greylab timers etc. Those were good times. Rene |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote: Also did Cibacrhome printing on 8x10 which was very expensive but gave brilliant colors, Anybody remember that one? i remember the incredibly strong stench of the chemicals. We had a pretty good darkroom setup, Two enlargers, a Chromega color-head and a big Bessller condenser one about 5 feet tall for large format, An Ansco 5x7 large format camera and 2 or 3 print easels, A good color Analyser, Trays, 8x10 and 11x14 drums and rotators and film drums of various sizes and an 11x14 print drier. Greylab timers etc. Those were good times. now all of that and a lot more can be done faster, easier and cheaper on a laptop or a smartphone, and with significantly better results. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On 8/8/2020 8:16 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2020-08-08 3:13 a.m., VanguardLH wrote: Ken Blake wrote: Feel free to disagree. I don't want to start an argument over this, so as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the thread. Over 50 years ago when I dabbled into film and a darkroom, but only for a few years, I never called them prints and didn't hear them referred to as such. Film processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. | Photo processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. And, yes, I left out some steps, like the stop bath which is not always used and a wetting bath to eliminate drying spots which can be separate of the wash bath. Both film and photos are exposed to light, both media use chemistry, and both were developed. Way back then, when dinosaurs still roamed (*), I was not a professional, there was not even a concept of Internet nor ARPANET to share information, and I read only a couple books but got most of my info from Dad. Back then, we /developed/ both film and photos in a darkroom. Old terminology tends to stick with old farts. We say "they said" instead of "they says" and "he wrote" instead of "he writes", and "light" is not spelled "lite". This was a short-lived personal hobby, so I was not exposed to the terminology used within the industry. (*) When I was a tyke, I'd ask Dad what it was like "back in the old days". He'd start to tell about the dinosaurs that roamed the Earth. After a couple minutes, I'd catch on and say, "Oh, Dad", and he'd laugh. The lingo you use is what you were exposed to. Sorry if I offended your lingo. Seems we are vehemently agreed, though, despite the triviality of using different words. Oh, the Wikipedia article you cited was written in 2019, not back in 1947. When writing, the current language and learned by the author gets used. Not many English-speaking folks today write using Old English or even with all the same terms or their definitions as of 70 years ago. Twas a bad citation referring to something written a year ago as to what was the terminology back then. I'll agree with you that it was and is called printing in the photographic industry. My terminology was based on a hobby and reflected the chemistry involved. Don't remember anyone having such an issue when I noted developing the photos. After all, not everyone that hears you say "byte" knows you didn't mean "bite". Language is fluid. These posts bring up old memories Of dark dark rooms. back in the 70s and 80s I built a darkroom in my basement for myself and my sons, Who were both into photography. My younger son took photo processing as a vocation and has been a Photolab technician since then. He assures me that Films are 'developed or processed' and The transfer of the film image to paper is still called printing as it was way back then. Thanks for agreeing with me. As I said, I know that's correct. -- Ken |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On 2020-08-08 10:24 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Rene Lamontagne wrote: Also did Cibacrhome printing on 8x10 which was very expensive but gave brilliant colors, Anybody remember that one? i remember the incredibly strong stench of the chemicals. We had a pretty good darkroom setup, Two enlargers, a Chromega color-head and a big Bessller condenser one about 5 feet tall for large format, An Ansco 5x7 large format camera and 2 or 3 print easels, A good color Analyser, Trays, 8x10 and 11x14 drums and rotators and film drums of various sizes and an 11x14 print drier. Greylab timers etc. Those were good times. now all of that and a lot more can be done faster, easier and cheaper on a laptop or a smartphone, and with significantly better results. Absolutely, nothing like a good DSLR and computer to do fantastic work, Due to my eyesight I prefer my 27 inch IPS monitor. Film is pretty much dead now, a thing of the past, like the model T Rene |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On 2020-08-08 10:39 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
On 8/8/2020 8:16 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2020-08-08 3:13 a.m., VanguardLH wrote: Ken Blake wrote: Feel free to disagree. I don't want to start an argument over this, so as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the thread. Over 50 years ago when I dabbled into film and a darkroom, but only for a few years, I never called them prints and didn't hear them referred to as such. Film processing:Â* developer, fixer, wash, dry. Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* | Photo processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. And, yes, I left out some steps, like the stop bath which is not always used and a wetting bath to eliminate drying spots which can be separate of the wash bath. Both film and photos are exposed to light, both media use chemistry, and both were developed.Â* Way back then, when dinosaurs still roamed (*), I was not a professional, there was not even a concept of Internet nor ARPANET to share information, and I read only a couple books but got most of my info from Dad.Â* Back then, we /developed/ both film and photos in a darkroom.Â* Old terminology tends to stick with old farts. We say "they said" instead of "they says" and "he wrote" instead of "he writes", and "light" is not spelled "lite".Â* This was a short-lived personal hobby, so I was not exposed to the terminology used within the industry. Â*Â* (*) When I was a tyke, I'd ask Dad what it was like "back in the old Â*Â* days".Â* He'd start to tell about the dinosaurs that roamed the Earth. Â*Â* After a couple minutes, I'd catch on and say, "Oh, Dad", and he'd Â*Â* laugh. The lingo you use is what you were exposed to.Â* Sorry if I offended your lingo.Â* Seems we are vehemently agreed, though, despite the triviality of using different words. Oh, the Wikipedia article you cited was written in 2019, not back in 1947.Â* When writing, the current language and learned by the author gets used.Â* Not many English-speaking folks today write using Old English or even with all the same terms or their definitions as of 70 years ago. Twas a bad citation referring to something written a year ago as to what was the terminology back then.Â* I'll agree with you that it was and is called printing in the photographic industry.Â* My terminology was based on a hobby and reflected the chemistry involved.Â* Don't remember anyone having such an issue when I noted developing the photos.Â* After all, not everyone that hears you say "byte" knows you didn't mean "bite". Language is fluid. These posts bring up old memories Of dark dark rooms. back in the 70s and 80s I built a darkroom in my basement for myself and my sons, Who were both into photography. My younger son took photo processing as a vocation and has been a Photolab technician since then.Â* He assures me thatÂ* Films are 'developed or processed' and The transfer of the film image to paper is still called printing as it was way back then. Thanks for agreeing with me. As I said, I know that's correct. You're Welcome, Yep, correct, the truth prevails. :-) Rene |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:20:33 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:50:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 05:15:16 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:59:41 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 05:02:58 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 00:47:50 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 19:42:58 +0100, Bennett Price wrote: On 7/9/2020 5:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote: Every time I buy a new printer, it's changed. New stupid quirks, different ink cartridges. But not faster, not better quality, nothing useful. There was no need to make it different. So far I've seen only 1 response that answers your question - parallel-serial to USB to wifi-Ethernet and the addition of slots for various sorts of memory cards. To these I'd add that features like duplexing, and increases in speed have gone up while prices have gone down. Ditto cost/higher resolution. I don't think the changes/improvements are simply marketing ploys - how often does anyone buy a new printer to get the latest? I'd guess most folks replace an old printer because it has failed or can't connect to a new computer. (I added an LPT/Parallel card to my desktop PC to connect to a fairly old Laser.) I had that problem where I worked which had Apple computers - in that case I bought adapters to go into the serial ports, cheaper and easier to fit/swap around than a card. But PCs tend to keep the old ports for a decade afterwards. I bought a motherboard with a serial and parallel port on the back about only 5 years ago. When was it USB came out? So I think there have been improvements and corresponding cost reductions. I'm still waiting for the print-what-I'm thinking about feature. But you've listed only a handful of proper feature changes. I bet you there are about 250 models of Epson inkjet ever made. I bet there is a damned sight more than that. In Desktop printers there is the Workforce Series, ET Series, XP Series, Artisan Series and the Stylus Series. In large format printers they currently list 24 different models. They currently list 10 different models of Point of Sale printers. Leaving out the point of sale printers, the various printer models currently listed under 'Support & Downloads' a Eco Tank Multifunction printers 18 Eco Tank printers 3 Multifunction Printers 118 Inkjet Printers 113 Large Format Printers 72 ---- 324 Apart from that, there will be a long tail of utterly obsolete printeres trailing into the distant past. Indeed. And since 324 improvements have not been made to printers in that time, most of those were a complete and utter waste of time and money. Presumably making a new one requires a lot of expense of tooling. If one manufacturer just stuck to a single model and only changed it every 10 years, they could make a fortune. Why don't you find a financier and set up in business? Preferably one who remains unaware of the impact that CNC has had on the cost of tooling. It's not just the tooling cost. It's ****ing off the customers when they can't get the same model again. Imagine if you could buy an identical model the next time, you'd keep your old one for spare parts. And don't say that would reduce sales. It may do that, but it would increase your customer base from companies that ****ed them around. The point I'm trying to make is the the advent of computers has brought the cost of making press and molding tooling down to a fraction of what it was. It is now cheap to set up a production line for a new product and anyone who expects to go on selling the same printer for ten years will quickly find themselves several generations behind the competition. They won't, since printer tech doesn't advance very often. You only need to make a new model if there's tech in it that wasn't in the last one. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 23:23:15 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote: On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:20:33 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 17:50:43 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 05:15:16 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:59:41 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 05:02:58 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 00:47:50 +0100, "Commander Kinsey" wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 19:42:58 +0100, Bennett Price wrote: On 7/9/2020 5:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote: Every time I buy a new printer, it's changed. New stupid quirks, different ink cartridges. But not faster, not better quality, nothing useful. There was no need to make it different. So far I've seen only 1 response that answers your question - parallel-serial to USB to wifi-Ethernet and the addition of slots for various sorts of memory cards. To these I'd add that features like duplexing, and increases in speed have gone up while prices have gone down. Ditto cost/higher resolution. I don't think the changes/improvements are simply marketing ploys - how often does anyone buy a new printer to get the latest? I'd guess most folks replace an old printer because it has failed or can't connect to a new computer. (I added an LPT/Parallel card to my desktop PC to connect to a fairly old Laser.) I had that problem where I worked which had Apple computers - in that case I bought adapters to go into the serial ports, cheaper and easier to fit/swap around than a card. But PCs tend to keep the old ports for a decade afterwards. I bought a motherboard with a serial and parallel port on the back about only 5 years ago. When was it USB came out? So I think there have been improvements and corresponding cost reductions. I'm still waiting for the print-what-I'm thinking about feature. But you've listed only a handful of proper feature changes. I bet you there are about 250 models of Epson inkjet ever made. I bet there is a damned sight more than that. In Desktop printers there is the Workforce Series, ET Series, XP Series, Artisan Series and the Stylus Series. In large format printers they currently list 24 different models. They currently list 10 different models of Point of Sale printers. Leaving out the point of sale printers, the various printer models currently listed under 'Support & Downloads' a Eco Tank Multifunction printers 18 Eco Tank printers 3 Multifunction Printers 118 Inkjet Printers 113 Large Format Printers 72 ---- 324 Apart from that, there will be a long tail of utterly obsolete printeres trailing into the distant past. Indeed. And since 324 improvements have not been made to printers in that time, most of those were a complete and utter waste of time and money. Presumably making a new one requires a lot of expense of tooling. If one manufacturer just stuck to a single model and only changed it every 10 years, they could make a fortune. Why don't you find a financier and set up in business? Preferably one who remains unaware of the impact that CNC has had on the cost of tooling. It's not just the tooling cost. It's ****ing off the customers when they can't get the same model again. Imagine if you could buy an identical model the next time, you'd keep your old one for spare parts. And don't say that would reduce sales. It may do that, but it would increase your customer base from companies that ****ed them around. The point I'm trying to make is the the advent of computers has brought the cost of making press and molding tooling down to a fraction of what it was. It is now cheap to set up a production line for a new product and anyone who expects to go on selling the same printer for ten years will quickly find themselves several generations behind the competition. They won't, since printer tech doesn't advance very often. You only need to make a new model if there's tech in it that wasn't in the last one. You should tgake courses in both manufacturing and marketing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 18:21:42 +0100, VanguardLH wrote:
"John C." wrote: Paul wrote: Commander Kinsey wrote: Colour lasers are **** at photos. They can't mix the colours like inkjets can. It comes out looking like a 256 colour image (remember those?) Page 3 "Multi-level printing". http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/getpdf....A6-1605ENW.pdf Strange, that isn't my experience. I often put human portrait image files on a thumb drive, take it to a print shop that uses a color laser printer to have them print a copy. The result is always something that is beautiful and that I can frame and hang on a wall. Some good friends have a 2 year old Samsung color laser printer and they have an entire portion of one wall in their house covered with 3x5" pictures they've printed with it. All of the pictures look like they're store bought, don't have any color stepping. And don't assume that my visual capabilities are limited, because I routinely process color images on my computer, over the last 15 years I've processed literally thousands of color images. Inkjets bleed preventing fine detail or sharp delineation. Bleeding is how blending is achieved. If you want a good photographic-quality printer, don't get laser or inkjet, but get a dye-sublimation printer. The printer will cost more as will the photo quality paper ink ribbons. Or revert back to analog photographically to recapture the high density, contrast, and brilliance of that photography technology. If the photo shop is producing high-quality photo prints, unlikely they are using a laser printer. Much more likely they are using a commercial sublimation printer. What manufacturers call "photo printers" are not actually photo-quality printers. They're just good enough for the majority of consumers, but not for professional photographers. Digital cameras and inkjet/laser printers are for amateur photographers looking to produce sufficient quality at reasonable cost. Professional photographers still use film cameras and develop on photo paper. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm When have you seen a 175 MP digital camera in a retail store to get the detail of 35mm film, or 313 MP or 2 GP digital cameras to get the detail of 2-1/4" or 4x5" film? And not in their rated megapixel, but in their *native* megapixel rating? There are native 100 MP professional digital cameras at $10K to $26K USD! And still they're deficient to film. Bloody hell, what film are you using? The 35mm film I used before digital came out was equivalent to about ONE megapixel. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 16:16:46 +0100, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2020-08-08 3:13 a.m., VanguardLH wrote: Ken Blake wrote: Feel free to disagree. I don't want to start an argument over this, so as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the thread. Over 50 years ago when I dabbled into film and a darkroom, but only for a few years, I never called them prints and didn't hear them referred to as such. Film processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. | Photo processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. And, yes, I left out some steps, like the stop bath which is not always used and a wetting bath to eliminate drying spots which can be separate of the wash bath. Both film and photos are exposed to light, both media use chemistry, and both were developed. Way back then, when dinosaurs still roamed (*), I was not a professional, there was not even a concept of Internet nor ARPANET to share information, and I read only a couple books but got most of my info from Dad. Back then, we /developed/ both film and photos in a darkroom. Old terminology tends to stick with old farts. We say "they said" instead of "they says" and "he wrote" instead of "he writes", and "light" is not spelled "lite". This was a short-lived personal hobby, so I was not exposed to the terminology used within the industry. (*) When I was a tyke, I'd ask Dad what it was like "back in the old days". He'd start to tell about the dinosaurs that roamed the Earth. After a couple minutes, I'd catch on and say, "Oh, Dad", and he'd laugh. The lingo you use is what you were exposed to. Sorry if I offended your lingo. Seems we are vehemently agreed, though, despite the triviality of using different words. Oh, the Wikipedia article you cited was written in 2019, not back in 1947. When writing, the current language and learned by the author gets used. Not many English-speaking folks today write using Old English or even with all the same terms or their definitions as of 70 years ago. Twas a bad citation referring to something written a year ago as to what was the terminology back then. I'll agree with you that it was and is called printing in the photographic industry. My terminology was based on a hobby and reflected the chemistry involved. Don't remember anyone having such an issue when I noted developing the photos. After all, not everyone that hears you say "byte" knows you didn't mean "bite". Language is fluid. These posts bring up old memories Of dark dark rooms. back in the 70s and 80s I built a darkroom in my basement for myself and my sons, Who were both into photography. My younger son took photo processing as a vocation and has been a Photolab technician since then. He assures me that Films are 'developed or processed' and The transfer of the film image to paper is still called printing as it was way back then. I did a lot of work in the darkroom for years back then, including various processes including, E3, E4 E6 C41 and black and white of all types/ I bet not to many here did E3 which was very involved using about 9 steps and reversal under floodlights and yes 3 stop baths, one after each process. Also did Cibacrhome printing on 8x10 which was very expensive but gave brilliant colors, Anybody remember that one? We had a pretty good darkroom setup, Two enlargers, a Chromega color-head and a big Bessller condenser one about 5 feet tall for large format, An Ansco 5x7 large format camera and 2 or 3 print easels, A good color Analyser, Trays, 8x10 and 11x14 drums and rotators and film drums of various sizes and an 11x14 print drier. Greylab timers etc. Those were good times. What happens in the darkroom stays in the darkroom. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Why are printers constantly redesigned with no improvements?
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 16:51:46 +0100, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2020-08-08 10:39 a.m., Ken Blake wrote: On 8/8/2020 8:16 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2020-08-08 3:13 a.m., VanguardLH wrote: Ken Blake wrote: Feel free to disagree. I don't want to start an argument over this, so as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the thread. Over 50 years ago when I dabbled into film and a darkroom, but only for a few years, I never called them prints and didn't hear them referred to as such. Film processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. | Photo processing: developer, fixer, wash, dry. And, yes, I left out some steps, like the stop bath which is not always used and a wetting bath to eliminate drying spots which can be separate of the wash bath. Both film and photos are exposed to light, both media use chemistry, and both were developed. Way back then, when dinosaurs still roamed (*), I was not a professional, there was not even a concept of Internet nor ARPANET to share information, and I read only a couple books but got most of my info from Dad. Back then, we /developed/ both film and photos in a darkroom. Old terminology tends to stick with old farts. We say "they said" instead of "they says" and "he wrote" instead of "he writes", and "light" is not spelled "lite". This was a short-lived personal hobby, so I was not exposed to the terminology used within the industry. (*) When I was a tyke, I'd ask Dad what it was like "back in the old days". He'd start to tell about the dinosaurs that roamed the Earth. After a couple minutes, I'd catch on and say, "Oh, Dad", and he'd laugh. The lingo you use is what you were exposed to. Sorry if I offended your lingo. Seems we are vehemently agreed, though, despite the triviality of using different words. Oh, the Wikipedia article you cited was written in 2019, not back in 1947. When writing, the current language and learned by the author gets used. Not many English-speaking folks today write using Old English or even with all the same terms or their definitions as of 70 years ago. Twas a bad citation referring to something written a year ago as to what was the terminology back then. I'll agree with you that it was and is called printing in the photographic industry. My terminology was based on a hobby and reflected the chemistry involved. Don't remember anyone having such an issue when I noted developing the photos. After all, not everyone that hears you say "byte" knows you didn't mean "bite". Language is fluid. These posts bring up old memories Of dark dark rooms. back in the 70s and 80s I built a darkroom in my basement for myself and my sons, Who were both into photography. My younger son took photo processing as a vocation and has been a Photolab technician since then. He assures me that Films are 'developed or processed' and The transfer of the film image to paper is still called printing as it was way back then. Thanks for agreeing with me. As I said, I know that's correct. You're Welcome, Yep, correct, the truth prevails. :-) Tell politicians that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|