[Leica] Film Lab

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

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