Wow, A casual reader might get confused with these comments and think that HN means Haters News.
Here we have a product that a curious person (like myself) interested in learning how photography used to work would buy in a heartbeat, and still the top three comments (as I write) are " Who is this for?", "This is so goddam stupid." and "That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen".
If these guys are doing this is because they would buy it. It doesn't matter if the size of their potential market is ridiculously small, it is still a market and they want to test it. There is no need to verbally destroy somebody else ideas.
Sometimes we should keep in mind that phrase : "If you don't have any positive thing to say, don't say anything"
Not commenting on the article, just want to comment on the title for a sec.
"The King is dead, long live the king!" is a special phrase used only when a ruler is dead and there is an immediate and available heir to assume the throne. It implies uninterrupted line of accession.
"Analog photography is dead, long live analog photography" is not a correct usage of this phrase. A better way to phrase it would be : "Photography is dead, long live photography!" Implying that the old way is dead (analog) but the new way (digital) will immediately succeed it.
I used to own a B&W enlarger and made prints from my own negatives. I remember the bulb in the enlarger having significantly more power (photons emitted/sec) than a smart phone display has.
I wonder by how much this will increase exposure times, and if it works at all...
A big part of my dislike for this is that this isn't going to teach anyone how photography "used to work" or anything like that. It's a toy.
I work in a darkroom, I have a lot of experience processing film by hand and making prints. I know a bit about it.
This seriously looks designed by someone who has never spent more than two hours in a darkroom. Encouraging people to set up tiny darkrooms in closets or wherever they can with trays of open chemistry, is a bit irresponsible.
Here's the MSDS for Ilford Multigrade, the developer they recommend: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2007117133512849.pdf And for the Rapid Fix: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2012430120381541.pdf It's not super dangerous stuff, but you still need to take some reasonable precautions with it.
And that tray rack? Anyone who has ever worked in a darkroom would never think of stacking trays like that. You need to pick up the print from the chemistry and let the excess drip off before moving to the next tray--this setup is going to be having people spilling photo chemistry all over the place, in a room with no ventilation. Smart.
All the text on the indiegogo site just sets off my rage. Everything at Ilford is not "vintage technology", they have been churning out new products for years. And this? "Old school print development makes every print slightly different, due to microscopic imperfections in the silver halide coating on paper and the chemical reaction that turns parts of the coating black or grey." This is just plain wrong.
This isn't preserving analogue photography. It's trying to sell the idea of being a darkroom. The indiegogo has lots of text about red light bulbs (most darkrooms use amber lights, but I digress), prints hanging on a line, the smell of chemicals, but almost no examples of what the prints made with this thing look like. Why? Because that's not the point.
Who is this for?
Any serious photographer would not want this as the results are going to be complete crap.
Any casual photographer would not want this because it does nothing to get their shitty photos onto Facebook.
The only people who would like this would be pseudo-intellectual hipsters who think they are "keeping it old school". This is a scene straight out of Portlandia. Let's open an "artisanal" cupcake shop that makes everything in an original, 1963 Hasbro Easy-Bake Oven!
What a dumb idea. There is no reason to do this other than it can be done, which is not a good reason.
This is like trying to make a gourmet sandwich out of a Hot Pocket.
because your time is worth less than your money. we are fully descended into the first level of mediocrity.
I think I must be getting time-trolled. People come up with ideas to deliver me 5 minutes of hate on a Monday morning.
Let's put together cheap things to waste massive amounts of time in the pursuit of crap, disposable techno-folk-art. Thank goodness the bombing starts right after football kicks into high gear.
Seems like the fun part of developing prints is taken out of the process. It would be at least educational to have a guide where you make the adjustments to the photo on screen then the app gives you the choice to make those adjustments before exposing the film or give instructions on how to dodge and burn during exposure to get the same results.
One big problem I see is photo chemical disposal. We have gotten to the point in understanding the chemistry of photo chemicals and it's effects down the line that you really shouldn't pour most of it down the drain any more. The stop bath is usually equivalent of vinegar but the developer and fix have some mildly toxic stuff in them as well as trace amounts of silver. I would think the hobbyist with a dedicated darkroom would have a better chance of knowing this as opposed to something like this meant for a more causal user.
Pretty cool idea but unless you knock the focus off on the enlarger, it's going to look like shit. If you consider photo paper to be around 300dpi then your 400x480 cheap ass smartphone display is going to be pretty obvious.
So blurry or pixelated. Your choice :)
N.B this might be desirable from an artistic point of view though.
What is the source of "X is dead. Love live X" posts? I know about the historical chant where X=the king. But who started the first blogpost with such a title? IMHO it is now a cliche. I get a twang of pain when I reach such titles on HN.
It does look like fun! Someone should put some designs online to build your own. I would only be using it once or twice so buying it seems wasteful, but it would be a nice project to put together on a rainy day.
The next logical step is to create a mount for the back of a holga to replace the film plane with a smartphone camera. Or, to create a holga look-alike that interfaces with a smartphone's camera.
Devere has been selling digital enlargers for at least 10 years[1]. Results on fiber based papers are very very good.
I gotta wonder -- is a photograph that was on physical support end-to-end a more reliable witness than a digital photo? It's harder to edit.
Analog vs Digital:
A photo sensor in a digital camera is an analog device. The "digital" camera requires an ADC (Analog to digital Converter).
Camera film records information digitally, the light sensitive film (silver halide) either lets light through, or it doesn't. Basically the silver halide crystal is either "on" or "off".
That is not dead which can hipster lie.
This is so goddam stupid.
"Because you can" does not mean "you should ever" create, sell, or buy such a thing.
Maybe if the iPhone screen had an 8K screen, it could be interesting. But come on.
Why don't we photocopy ourselves, take a picture of that, and fax it instead?
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen ... speaking as someone who used to spend hours and hours as a kid in the 1980s in our garage, making prints in our home-made darkroom.
If one is already going to go to the trouble of printing on photographic paper in a darkroom, then why not just go out and get a real enlarger, a real film camera and use real negative film? The quality will be so much better. Also you can buy professional film cameras that used to cost thousands of dollars for peanuts these days. You can send your film out to be developed if you don't want to do that step yourself, e.g indiefilmlab.com or ilfordlab-us.com.
Slightly off topic but I hate to see another lower-quality digital "reinvention" of a highly developed, high quality analog thing again (think audio).