Kodak To Stop Making Black and White Paper

Swirsky writes "For those of us who remember spending quality time in a dark room with Kodak Rapid RC paper and a bottle of Dektol, here's some bad news - Kodak will stop making black and white photographic paper. Black and white photo work (especially because you can use a safelight!) is a wonderful way of introducing someone to photography. I guess if we want to do it, we'll have to use home-made emulsions on paper. As a pro photographer, I'm bothered by this, though admittedly I haven't done b/w darkroom work in years."

OH NOS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ... wait... 8 MP digital cameras and a steady tracker... i guess my astrophotography is still going to be ok.

Re:Duh

[Leroy_Brown242]

Porn is the not-so-secret driving force behind all great technology!

Photography, The Internet, and I'm sure more!

Will stay on market as "arts" product

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if we want to do it, we'll have to use home-made emulsions on paper.

Still plenty of other manufacturers. Eventually b&w materials will stay on the market like oil colors and other arts materials. Fewer manufacturers, but will not disappear, either. Prices probably will rise, though.

That's how it goes..

[Zimok]

Out with the old, in with the new..

Haven't done B&W in years

[nzkbuk]

I'm bothered by this, though admittedly I haven't done b/w darkroom work in years.
This is exactly the reason why they are stopping the product. The poster is probably representative of alot of photographers (and people in general) with a "Hey that's a great thing to start people on this, but I no longer use it myself"

It's economics 101 if you don't make a profit out of something then don't sell it. Yes I know about loss leaders, but this couldn't be described as one of them. I'm sure there will always be a market for black and white photography, but so much is going digital that I think b&w specific film and paper are past their sell by dates

Follow the money.

[ViX44]

Kodiak paper is best, but it's a bear to work with. The real question isn't so much digital replacing conventional, but one of profit and user effort. Sure, professional photography will always have some sort of want of traditional methods, but which is more appealing to the tyro...having to buy special paper and mess with chemcials and the extensive setup required to render good images in the old method, or to shoot a dozen shots, delete the ones that weren't quite right, edit it on the computer, and throw it out to dozens of friends via email, DArt, et cetera. The I-gotta-have-it-now generation much prefers to spend a large chunk now and have easy, even if printer-limited, quality and the flexability of electronic distribution than muck with the consumables required for classic photography. So, let's sell digicams in bulk and get their money now, rather than take the ever-dwindling profit trickle of classical photography product subscription.

Re:Image editing..

[Deanalator]

I think the point was that working with black and white film is fun. A more extreme case would be a pogo stick company not selling pogo sticks any more. There arent alot of people these days that go to work on a pogo stick, although many people do enjoy the occational pogo now and then, just for old times sake.

B&W is hardly dead...

[Shadowell]

Although I expect to see about a 100:1 ratio of B&W is dead to not dead, here's the thing. B&W is hardly dead, it's simply being moved into the realm of art rather than production photography. When was the last time you went to a major gallery and didn't see silver based prints? True, digital is overtaking, if it hasn't already overtaken, typical every day photography. But, silver halide is anywhere but dead. Remember platinum prints? Go to a high end gallery and you'll see lots of them. Not practical in any way for every day use, and even possibly for a lot of typical fine art work, but it's not going anywhere.

Other than in a classroom, you don't find all that many people printing on Kodak B&W papers anyway, and it's been that way for a long time. I'm a phto student/beginning pro photographer and the only time I've printed on Kodak is when it's been given to me. There are other papers that are cheaper and work as well, if not better.

Call it trolling, or flamebait, or whatever, but the biggest thing you have to understand is that the fine art world of photography is not going to die no matter what becomes popular. Hell, there are still people shooting tintype, because they can, and because that's the nature of art. Not what's popular, but what they create and what sells.

Kodak can sit and spin, they aren't the only supplier of B&W paper. It'd be worse if they got rid of their chemicals, which I do use, but also wouldn't be the end of the world. There are many alternatives besides Kodak.

Ranting maybe, but this has been a major topic on many photo boards (it's not new news really), and life goes on.

This is as stupid as arguing that RC paper is better than fiber base, or visa vie. It all depends on what you're doing.

And yes, I do shoot digital too. And large format. I won't give up any of them, they all have teir place, and each have their strong points and weak points.

Other people make it...

[sTalking_Goat]

I took an intro Photo class last year. We all used Ilford papaer. It was a hell of a lot cheaper...

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make pr0n black and white, it automatically becomes "art".

What About Schools?

[geekboybt]

I took a photo class last Fall at Moorpark College [moorparkcollege.edu], and their photo program begins in the black and white darkroom. Sure, digital is the wave of the future (or today, depending upon your views), but with the hours I spent in that safelight, I really learned to appreciate b&w photography. Furthermore, since color can be more difficult, what would you prefer students do to learn photography? There IS more to the art than Photoshop 1337 skillz. Note that I am somewhat biased; I used the Kodak paper almost exclusively, and enjoyed its results.

Re:It's about time

[grolschie]

Sad troll really. You cannot beat B&W for an artistic medium. Many photos look far better in B&W than they ever could in colour.

Re:Image editing..

[Pax00]

well.. yes... you are... you are missing out on ALOT... I am a simi-pro photographer.. I grew up with a camera in my hands... I have had several years of professional schooling.. but I still don't call myself pro.. I don't know everything..

I have used digital and manual... I have used 1hour processing and I have processed by hand.. I have worked in digital dark rooms and real life dark rooms... all of these tools have a time and a place... their pro's and their cons.. but I still think my best work is done in a dark room...

the dark room is one of the few places that magic still occurs... there is something amazing about placeing a piece of blank paper and shining a light on it.. dipping it in a chemical and seeing an image appear before you...

This is very sad news that they are working on taking this away from us... This is litterally a dying art form... this is the difference between a hand woven tapistry and mass produced articals... this process is still young in so many respects.. photography hasn't even been around for 200 years...

I will agree with other posters that said that there are still other companies.. but how long until they follow suit?

Re:Image editing..

[darkov]

What a load of bull. What digital camera can compete with with 25 ASA film loaded into a 10x8 large format camera?

Go look at someone like Ansel Adam's work in the flesh before you start spouting such nonsense. Digital cannot compete on resolution, contrast or tonal range and for some extremes, like Adam's, probably never will.

Re:Duh

[grolschie]

You gotta use a high grain, high contrast B&W medium though. :-)

Mod parent DOWN

[grolschie]

computers have always had more range of contrast than film.

What BS! The exposure latitude of print film is far higher (more forgiving) than current digital SLRs and point and shoots.

The Way to Learn Photography

[Quirk]

I introduced my daughter to photography the same way I learnt. I gave her a Pentax K1000 with a few lenses and an extension tube set, a good supply of ilford b/w 400 and a book on the Zone System [wikipedia.org]. There's so much to learn that starting with the basics is mandatory. Taking pics by point and shoot is to photography what using Windows and using a mouse to point and click is to computer literacy.

Anyone Remember that Calvin and Hobbes?

[skazatmebaby]

Maybe, I'll be able to pull this off easier with my (future) kid

http://www.jasonadamreed.net/images/cartoons/calvi n/ch941106.gif [jasonadamreed.net]

Care to see any of my Black and White Photography [prolix.nu]?

Re:It's about time

[koi88]

I haven't done b/w photography in years, but I remember there were other brands than Kodak. There still must be.
So if something like this happens, a big player quits because he's not interested in the market anymore, a smaller one quickly steps in.
Don't worry, b/w-photography guys.

Re:Image editing..

[cei]

The beauty of photochemical work is that it fails in interesting ways...

Re:The Way to Learn Photography

[zakezuke]

There's so much to learn that starting with the basics is mandatory.

Why not start more basic than that with a pin hole quaker oat box and contact prints? I know i'd be less sad if my niece killed a quaker oat box than my Olympus OM-1.

Right, and thier film

[scotty777]

Ilford HPs film was my choice. Much, much better than Tri-X from Kodak. And when you pushed it, it kept a nice smooth range. I only used grade 6 Kodak paper for the junk going into the newspaper.

Re:Image editing..

[Blind_Io_42]

Although many people are switching to DI (Digital Imagery) I am sticking with my old-fashioned manual focus film cameras. (may the gods of /. smite me for my ass-backward ways. No you cannot install Linux on my camera.) To answer your question, Black and White photography is a matter of aesthetics. There are simply some things that photograph better that way. I have found that architecture, aircraft (especially vintage planes), machinery and the human form are all photogenic in black and white (Pr0n is in color, Art is in Black and White). By removing color the photographer can force the viewer to focus on the shape, texture and contrast of the subject. Have you ever photographed Christmas in Black and White? Most people who do tend to find their photos are uniform gray. This is because similar shades of red and green appear as the same shade of gray on film. A photographer who is aware of this can capture images that show the world from a perspective unseen by the human eye. Color can distract from the form and lighting of the subject and dazzle the eye. Black and white images are simple and classy. Some of my best and most rewarding work has been with B&W film in the camera and paper in the darkroom. As a photographer today, I have found myself to be very distrustful of images I see. It used to be that you could trust that a photograph was a True image, simply because it was not feasible to edit and change the photo. Anymore I doubt the authenticity of images since anyone with a mouse and copy of Photoshop can take a crappy snapshot and turn it into a potential prizewinner. At what point does the image stop existing as a real photograph and become the fantasy of a digital painter? Film will always have some advantages over digital sensors. For one thing, film is an analogue, within it exists infinite possibilities for shade and color. Digital images will always be limited to what can be mathematically defined within the confines of the sensor, and storage medium. With film I can change from a 1600 ASA to 100 ASA, something that digital cameras cannot do. Once the sensor is installed it cannot be changed. To match film in this way you would need a different camera body with a variety of sensors to simulate various speeds of film. I have used both film and digital and I find film photography to be far more rewarding. For me photography is not just the act of capturing an image, DI does that reasonably well, it's also about the process. Of course this is just one man's opinion, but I hope film never dies. I would hate to shop at antique stores so I can shoot with my Rollei 35 (1970's vintage).

Re:Image editing..

[ameoba]

What happens when somebody makes a high-quality digital back to that same camera body that Ansel Adams was using?

Re:B&W is hardly dead...

[frostman]

Your point about photography as art is spot on.

One of the long-term effects of that shift will of course be higher prices for all the materials and services.

It's also worth noting that photography's share of the art market (both galleries and auctions) has grown tremendously in the last ten years. A lot of people get into collecting through photography.

Re:Image editing..

[LMariachi]

Then they'll have to figure out how to make gelatin silver prints from digital. It's not all about the negative.

Re:Image editing..

[cjs]

What digital camera can compete with with 25 ASA film loaded into a 10x8 large format camera?

It depends on how you're trying to compete. If it's making a shot without a tripod, many relatively cheap digital cameras will beat the 10x8 for overall quality. If it's resolution, well, check out The Gigapixel Project [gigapxl.org].

Digital is pretty darn good these days, and is competing reasonably well in the 35mm world. Within five years it will likely be the better choice for all small and medium format users except those who specifically like to use chemical processes for that sake alone, or due to computer-aversion. As a photographer who does all of his own processing and printing, I may not like this, but I still don't see how black and white is going to do any better than analogue audio.

But I do suspect, in the long run, black and white might actually last longer than C41. Black and white is both much easier for a hobbiest to do and much more flexible. And it's fun. I can't see why anybody would bother with their own C41 processing, though they might possibly still have some interest in printing from colour negatives.

Digital isn't always better

[sgant]

How long will these cameras last? How long does the storage medium last? Yes, they have inkjet printing inks and paper that will last 70 years now...but that's just the print. What about the "negative"?

Here's my point...I could go into a camera store that sells used equipment, buy a Leica from the 40's or 50's and still run film through it. Will people still be running a digital camera they buy today 60 years from now? Will they even be able to get the info off of it?

You could take a negative from Ansel Adams that he made way back in the 20's and still make a very find, high quality print today. Don't have to worry about making any interface or program to read the data or worry if the media is still viable on a disk somewhere. Hell, with his 8x10 negs you don't even need an enlarger, could make a contact print with a lightbulb if you wanted.

Digital photos taken today won't be around 60 years from now...sorry, but that's the fact. You would constantly have to keep upgrading and transfering your shots to the latest storage medium just to keep up. Can anyone honestly say that you'll be able to read a CD 60 years from now to get the pictures off? Maybe if you find an old computer in an antique shop...maybe.

Not to mention the fact that the camera you buy today is obsolete a year from now when something better AND cheaper comes along.

I don't know, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Re:Digital always win

[Ucklak]

We also see in 3 dimensions but when digital resolution gets to the point where megapixel => atom count, than the 2d viewing crowd will match that so-called reality.

Re:Digital isn't always better

[Asic Eng]

My grandfather was an avid photographer, and because of that I have a photograph of my great-great-grandfather, which I cherish. I only have a fraction of my grandfather's photographs though.

There used to be a huge stack - mostly he used glass plates. Very durable this stuff, but heavy - so of course some 20 years after his death someone threw them away. Most of the pictures were lost, only the slowly-fading paper prints were left. My uncle painstakingly scanned all these and put them on CDROM. Now almost everybody in my family has the CD.

Sure, the CD-format won't be around forever, but once the next format comes around I can easily copy stuff over - it will be very little work (especially compared with the first conversion to digital). As long as somebody cares enough about the pictures, it will be easy to preserve them. And of course, if nobody cares about the pictures enough anymore they will be lost eventually - just as happened with those glass plates.

Re:Image editing..

[JSRockit]

Many large format photographers are already printing in the digital realm with archival black and white inks and inkjet printers. Why? because after many years in the darkroom with poor ventilation, they have realized that their health has been effected. Digital cameras will get better. It is just safer for the environment and humans to go digital...and alot cheaper.