Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (
More info?)
In rec.photo.darkroom kashe@sonic.net wrote:
: On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:40:15 -0600, Frank Pittel
: <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
: >: In article <4185A69C.1050407@but.us.chickens>,
: >: David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
: >
: >: > I've been watching this debate unfold for a while now, and I have to say that
: >: > you (Colin) are right. Your opposition seems to come from folks who just don't
: >: > *like* digital and don't like the idea that it is about to supplant
: >: > traditional wet photography.
: >
: >: The question is how will that happen? The thing I don't like is that as a
: >: result of the unstable marketplace that caters to photo their is nothing like quality
: >: control. Its worse now then its been since I've started doing photo.
: >: Its not just film cameras, now you have to put up with manufacturers
: >: playing games like you want a fully functional digital camera here
: >: spend another 100 bucks and buy the software so you can convert
: >: raw files. (Total BS)
: >
: >: >
: >: > I should state my own prejudices up front: I don't particularly care for
: >: > digital myself, which should make my arguments (as a devil's advocate, as it
: >: > were) more believable. However, I'm sane enough to read the handwriting on the
: >: > wall.
: >
: >: Don't kid yourself you have no clue.
: >
: >: > Don't know if it'll be a decade or sooner, but it's inevitable that
: >: > digital is going to swamp everything else.
: >
: >: That can be stated about the whole world. War fare will be the scariest I believe.
: >
: >: > Just like the fact that practically
: >: > nobody prints from lead type anymore (outside of a few boutique printers).
: >:
: >: > By the way, it's interesting to note how this discussion has become distorted,
: >: > and people are no longer arguing the original premise. Pointing out the
: >: > problems of digital image storage and retrieval in no way proves that digital
: >: > photography is not "photography", nor does it prove either one superior to the
: >: > other. And the anti-digital crowd never admits the point you made, that one
: >: > can make infinite copies of a digital image with no degradation in quality,
: >: > unlike optical images.
: >: > I'm sure I'll regret posting this soon enough.
: >
: >: Digital copying certainly presents a very viscous ball of wax in terms of art
: >: in general- that is regarding worth and copyright, if your vision is the selling point
: >: unlimited copies sort of cheapens your value doncha think.
: >
: >I've always looked at my prints as being individual works art. No two are the
: >same.
: Poor quality control?
I see you've never done any quality wet darkroom printing.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram