The
disadvantage of the CRC News is that it only appears every three
months, so what may well be news when it is written is history by
the time you read it. You can easily see that this is not the way to
bring ‘up to the minute news’. For instance, as I write this I
know that Bill is putting the finishing touches to the July issue (I
know because I spoke to him only a few minutes ago). What is not yet
well known is that Paterson Photax, yes the people who hold such
trade names as Photax, Paterson, Benbo, Courtenay and Photocolor
have gone into receivership. The company has an annual turnover of
£5.5million but Price Waterhouse has moved in. With a bit of luck
the company will be picked up and we will still see the products on
the shelf.
The CRC News can only reflect general trends of the
photographic industry and because of the build of the CRC, that
related to colour reversal materials and related processing. So what
can we say about what I term conventional halide photography and
colour reversal materials. Well Kodak will have released two new
professional materials Ektachrome E100S and Ektachrome EIOOSW by the
time you read this with another film E100 round about now or at the
latest by the end of 1996. Kodaks intention is ‘to go for Fuji’
Fuji Provia 100 and Velvia have proved very popular and Kodak still
sees that this is a thorn in Kodaks otherwise smooth crown. Clearly
there is still a very important market to be had. The films are
designated ‘Professional’ but that does not mean that an amateur
cannot use them. You will find the cost is higher than the
‘Amateur’ versions and you will not find them on the shelves of
a well known chain of chemist who have a connection with waterproof
foot wear, however a good photographic shop should have them.
Just
to spoil Kodaks entrance in the limelight Fuji announced changes to
their colour negative film Reala . and so it goes on.
The
only comment I have about the new films, with only a short time and
little in the way of results, is that perhaps this is the first time
in years that I would consider using Kodak reversal film for general
use. The only time I have used Kodak (Ektachrome) is when another
manufacturer did not produce one in a certain speed or packageing. I
have always found Kodak floundering about to achieve the right
balance with no particular direction. I certainly think now however
that I may well return to these films for a second look.
There is a threat at the moment from the APS as it is not
suitable for home processing but as there is a large user base of
35mm and a lot of money invested in 35mm we are safe I think for a
long time yet. After alt, 35mm arose from the cinema industry and it
was going to be the death of large format i.e. 120 and larger. I
only have to open a magazine infront of me and see an advertisement
for a Gandolfi cameras taking films sizes 4x5, 5x7, or 10x8 and at
the top of the same page there is an advertisement for a Fujifilm
GA645 Professional medium format (120) camera. The conclusion
conventional silver halide, home processable colour reversal
materials will be with us for a good time yet.
Digital
Imaging - it
Is not that simple!!!
A
thought for those who discus the credibility of ‘Digital
Imaging’. The meaning of the word ‘Photography’ is ‘Painting
with light’. Thus an image which is produced solely by electronic
means i.e. a computer, cannot fall into the designation
‘Photographic’. An image which has been produced in what I term
‘conventionally’ i.e. exposure of a light sensitive material to
radiation either in the visible or invisible spectrum and the
resultant latent image developed by chemical means certainly falls
in the realm of being termed ‘Photography’.
If we now take a correctly termed ‘photograph’ (note
the correctly termed photograph has already been produced) and use
chemical means to alter the image it would still be
termed
a photograph, would we say ‘painting with light’? surly not!
this is ‘painting with chemicals. As we call an image produced by
electronic means a ‘digital image’ should we not term the
photographic image altered by chemicals a ‘chemical image’? This
chemical image is a composite of a ‘photographic’ image and a
chemical manipulation. A ‘digital image’ can be a composite of a
‘photographic’ image and electronic manipulation or a totally
electronically produced image - this image can only be produced by
the intervention of electronics.
The
real conundrum occurs when we view colour slides on a screen. If we
just project them this is ‘photography’. However if we do a
multi-projector presentation using effects which would be impossible
to achieve without the use of a piece of electronics i.e. the
perceived image can only be produced by the intervention of digital
electronics, should we now not term the image ‘digital imaging’?
I think not and I think that anyone who has seen our or anyone elses’
multi-projector presentations, would not say they have seen digital
imaging. As for the argument about the danger of a digitally
produced or altered image being passed as a ‘photograph’ no one
has ever asked me, when presenting a multi-projector slide
presentation if digital electronics were used to create the
illusion.
Oh! there is another contemplatable word ‘ILLUSION’ I
could go on about the word for ages, but perhaps I will leave that
for a another issue.