Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (444)	6/23/2000 11:17:00 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Does the dye-transfer process use as much silver as the black and white process? I'm assuming you mean dye-coupler (dye-tranfer is another process altogether using three monochromatic matrix films shot through filters to separate out color and then soaked in dye and transferred to a receiver paper-not unlike dye-sublimation, only without heat). On first glance I would say that B&W uses a great deal more silver than color processes because the image on the negative and paper is formed by the silver (there are some new B&W films that are actually color film but monochromatic), but I don't know this for sure. The photographic industry has been quite secretive about the amount of silver used in it's film and paper. Only thing we photographers know for sure is that it is less and less as time goes on. (things are always being "improved", right?) Color might actually use more silver because it requires three layers, but then almost all silver can be reclaimed in color and in B&W how much can be reclaimed depends on the density of the image (only unused silver is fixed out). All of this is rapidly being replaced by digital imaging. But silver isn't going away completely, there are even some digital printing options that use silver halide like the Fuji pictography printers. The traditional photographic companies appear to be moving to all digital, but they have been dragged there kicking and screaming. They want to sell paper and film so they keep trying to create hybrids. It's difficult for a company like Kodak whose business is based on a process that really has not changed much in 100 years to compete with the more nimble computer technology firms. Us lab owners have been dragged into digital as well. It didn't take me long to figure out that the margins that I enjoyed in traditional photographic processes were going to be history when I moved to digital. Computers make everything easy, right? Things improved after I figured out the best way to buy digital equipment was to buy used equipment from competitors that had been driven out of business by jumping in with the latest and the greatest technology too soon. There are numerous instances where you can make more money by not buying equipment for a year or two than by buying it and putting it into production.