I love it John .... balanced exaggeration. In my own defense, I'd like to point out that I've been using digital cameras longer than many people (most people?) on the list, and certainly a lot longer than those who started with the istD, I have seen digi B&W that I LOVE, but not like I prefer (which has a very specific look to it), although I continue to seek it out, and it's quite possible that I've made, or caused to be made through my lab, more very large digi prints (larger than 36-inches in the small dimension) than most people on this list. I neither eschew nor negate digital, but I do question a lot of the techniques used and the need for certain aspects of it and its processes often and loudly.
What I find most interesting is that when I (and others) ask a question or pose a hypothetical, a certain number of people jump up and try to shout down the questions claiming that I/we are Luddites or anit-digital. OTOH, a few people (you and Rob Studdert come quickly to mind) actually take time to answer the question or offer an explanation, although sometimes I think you're pretty close to your tolorence level <LOL> OTOH, I can't ever recall Herb being taken to task for his vociferous pro-digital stance, not even by the so-called Luddites (although I may have been annoyed at him a few times). Shel John wrote: > Well, allowing for a certain amount of journalistic exaggeration, I'd guess: > "well you can only do this with film, digital isn't good enough and can't > ever make a B&W print I like" > Shel > "digital is the only way this could ever be done" Herb
