(Non-Profit Society Links:) Home | Photo Development Newsletters | Photo Links | Events | Contacting Us
Photo Developments Newsletter July, 1998
Meeting place:
The Science Centre, 701 11th Street S.W., Next Meeting - Wednesday August 5th 7:30pm.
Newsletter Web site: http://website.lineone.net/~wbaziw/cps.html
Critique Themes for 1998-1999
Aug 1998 Special Effects
Sep 1998 Alone at Last
Oct 1998 Junk
Nov 1998 Off the Wall
Jan 1999 Sleep
Feb 1999 Crooked
Mar 1999 Ice
Apr 1999 Time
Presentations ...
Presenter: Ted Wingate from the Camera Store presented three different methods of doing Polaroid transfers.
1.Polaroid SX-70, print manipulation using clay modeling tools.
2.Polaroid 669, paper negative transfer to water color paper.
3.Polaroid 669, Hot 74 degrees F. emulsion transfer to water color paper.
Calendar of Events
August 5th - At the next Calgary Photographic Society meeting - Jack Benu presents his Infra-Red photography in the Badlands.
August 16th - Calgary Photographic Society Scavenger Hunt, contact Brian Hensen.
May 30 - August 16 - Glenbow - Exhibition of Prairie Photographers and Film makers , 1858-1950.
If you know of any events coming up, please let me know. Wayne Baziw 256-0976 Email: baziw@calcna.ab.ca
Critique Results for July:
The theme was Red Judges- Wayne Baziw, Bob Lee, Jose Guillen
| Novice Open | ||||||||
| No Entries | ||||||||
| Novice Theme | ||||||||
| No Entries | ||||||||
| Intermediate Open | ||||||||
| Stan Brzeski | A Small Station in the Mountains | 8.3 | ||||||
| Intermediate Theme | ||||||||
| Fran Williams | The Color of Danger | 8.6* | ||||||
| Pamela Jones | Layers | 6.7 | ||||||
| Advanced Open | ||||||||
| Brian Hensen | Cliff Dwelling | 7.3 | ||||||
| Scott Winter | Robin | 7.8* | ||||||
| Advanced Theme | ||||||||
| Scott Winter | Trumpet Valves | 9.0* | ||||||
Controversy Corner...
Submitted by: Rinus Borgsteede • RINUS PHOTOGRAPHY (403) 547-9661 FAX (403) 239-2705This letter is a users report of the recently introduced Kodak T400CN Cromogenic black and white film.
Kodak finally got the bright idea that Ilford's XP-2 was actually a good idea. If that is not their official answer it will probably be for the same reason as always, the strange need to deny that other companies are taking their business in large scoops at the time.
I have always respected Kodak's film materials as being very high in quality and their excellent specsheets and other consumer information but I have never liked their philosophy of market denial.
When I started photography in the middle sixties in The Netherlands I was very impressed with Kodak's ability to explain tone reproduction from original scene to final print. All the little details were explained in their excellent data guides and manuals. I think marketing has become more important than turning out useful products.
This is not to say that the products are not useful but from the literature Kodak supplies (if you can get it at all) you get the exact same story from film to film. It is no great wonder that most of my friends have absolutely no idea what type of films they are buying. They have never heard of acutance, spectral sensitivity, contrast (film and or subject ) and whether a film will yield great color separations. Maybe because of a lack of education or lack of interest in education these people fall victim (yes victim) to the advertising schemes of Kodak.
I myself prefer to see some pretty pictures on a brochure so the potential client will actually take one home but you better explain quickly how this photograph was produced. For years the printing industry has been using unsharp masking so that photographs looked super sharp in the brochures and magazines. What a joke when it prompts people to buy new lenses because the original film does not look so hot. What is even worse is that there is nobody at Kodak that will or can explain it to the serious professionals that in wedding photos details in the white wedding gown simultaneously with details in the black tuxedo in bright sunlight cannot be recorded and then printed on any paper if they insist on using todays high contrast lenses with high contrast films. There simply is no proper match in printing paper available. Has Kodak sacrificed a smooth tone scale and natural color for the brash and rich overdone taste of the amateur market. Have you given up on excellence and purity and given in to trends.
I don't think that a market can grow when principles are sacrificed. And I don't think that Kodak or any other film maker can keep up with trends. I have seen a wave of new Kodak films coming on the market and I still don't know what they are all about. I think there are too many mediocre films rather then a small but select group of great films in Kodak's stable. I think marketing has gone crazy if they think we need all that junk. Rather then to sell massive amounts of a few select films they chose an abundance of choices and sell these to a confused consumer who after constantly picking the wrong film for their project will simply come to one conclusion, Kodak's films are lousy and I from now on I will only buy brand X. The fact that brand X has only a few choices will help the photographer in becoming a master with that film.
Kodak had that opportunity again when they introduced their new line of transparency films the 100, the100S and the 100SW.
As a replacement for their older far grainier Ektachrome this was going to be exciting. Finally a film worthy of the name Ektachrome with the choice of contrast and color-tone. I read the announcements and was overjoyed until I got to the suppliers and found out that the 100 was not going to be produced. Stock agencies and printing houses are always asking for lower contrast films (due to the nature of reprographic needs) and I was hoping to replace the beautiful but course grained and somewhat fuzzy Ektachrome EDP. (also the closest match to Fuji's older RAP which was my customer's most requested film till its demise) I guess only large format workers get the benefit of accurate low contrast films like the 5116. Which they can use because grain is much less of a problem in large formats. Why is it that special purpose films are only available in 35mm and larger sheets, particularly the grainy varieties that are almost useless except for a few lonely experimenters. Why is it that medium format cameras that can handle these characteristics and need much faster films due to low lens speed and less relative depth of field get so little choice? Would it not make more sense to optimize some films for the medium formats, especially since medium format users often have a much greater need for speed or color accuracy. Why is Internegative film available on 35mm and not on 120 spools where size won't matter as much ? Am I asking stupid questions or is it because there is no visible market to give you these requests. If we stop buying a particular type of film will you pull it off the line and stop producing it even if it is the best film in this world. I suspect you may take this course of action. I believe however that if you dilute our choices with a myriad of other films we may buy less of a particular type and in your books it will look like popularity, taste or quality may have dwindled and to film heaven it goes. (Another manufacturer tried this already and lost their shirt as people simply would not buy their new and improved replacement. These people switched to other brands and even though that film was reintroduced, the damage was done, the consumers confidence dwindled and they will have a hard time getting these consumers back to their brand. I suspect that brand recognition keeps people buying unless you mess with them too often.
(Non-Profit Society Links:) Home | Photo Development Newsletters | Photo Links | Events | Contacting Us