I’m not sure the film recorder was invented to do this, but I have an acquaintance whose entire carer has been spent ’saving’ digital files through conversion to film. Larry claims his most popular conversion size is 4x5”. The difficulties with film are such that in the printing process through a darkroom or by developing film in a spot with slightly unclean water (like AA’s workshop in Yosemite), following the old tried and true method of soaking b/w film in PhotoFlo and then dipping one’s fingers in the solution before sliding the fingers down the film to squeegee off excess liquid can result in scratches which used to be invisible. I recently had the idea to scan some fiber prints of images including from a former lab in DC called Image, the White House darkroom, a print from my darkroom, a Judy Dater, a Cunningham, and a Walker Evans. All were scratched in the emulsion in various ways and I estimate that the scratches mostly occurred in the wash from having too many pieces of paper bump around into each other. Some film exhibited vertical scratches made by fingers and PhotoFlo and impure water å la Yosemite. Only after I complained, my lab in Copenhagen admitted they did not filter the water. They said, “Why? It’s perfectly drinkable.” Yeah, and I’m sure wash water is better with vodka in it. Some of the scanned prints exhibited small black bubbles from not being agitated enough in the developer and emulsion scratches look like the grand Canyon when scanned.But I imagine the film recorder which ’saves’ digital files, also has issues, including scratches. The problems are from the damned scanners: they just see everything. prints
Art Faul The Artist Formerly Known as Prints ------ Art for Cars: art4carz.com Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com Camera Works - The Washington Post . |
