ur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:41:23 -0700
>
>Since I was quoted on the bottom of this (I've edited it out), I want
>
Since I was quoted on the bottom of this (I've edited it out), I want
to make it quite clear that on many occasions I have stated that I find
the number one problem with digital is the poor archival nature of
storage, so I am in total agreement with Karl.
The problem of change of format, no easy
n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
> John wrote:
> >>the only "difference" that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is
> >>th
o boiling! Ah don't know how you'd
*do* it--Ah just come up with the ideas!" :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroo
> I have had LightJet prints made on a number of occasions, and
> they are beautiful. The native resolution of the CS-5000
> printer is 305 dpi. You cannot see any digital artifacts
> whatsoever on the print.
>
> The Pictro print that I own isn't a good showcase for resolution,
> alas. It
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
> understand the
> >> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent
output
> >> can be
> >> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference"
that
> >> see
>> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
understand the
>> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output
>> can be
>> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that
>> seems
>> still unresolved (to me, at least) is that
001 3:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
At 10:28 AM 6/19/01 -0500, John C. Jernigan wrote:
>Rafe,
>My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there
are many
>valid reasons to "discuss film scann
At 12:38 PM 6/19/01 +0800, youheng wrote:
[rafe b:]
>>There are hybrid solutions as well. Eg, output via
>>Lightjet or Lambda (onto archival print media, using
>>wet chemistry) to get around the print longevity issue.
[youheng]
>Is Fujix Pictrography 4000 considered a hybrid? It uses photogr
At 10:28 AM 6/19/01 -0500, John C. Jernigan wrote:
>Rafe,
>My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there
are many
>valid reasons to "discuss film scanning at all." And in many applications,
digital
>probably wins hands down. As I implied in my first query, permanence is
on 6/19/01 11:28 AM, John C. Jernigan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Admittedly, this is somewhat OT for this list. Can anyone direct me (and
> others
> who are interested in this issue) to another more pertinent list?
Try DigitalSilver, where this is exactly on-topic (and I should know cos I'm
t
Rafe,
My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there are many
valid reasons to "discuss film scanning at all." And in many applications, digital
probably wins hands down. As I implied in my first query, permanence is paramount
(all other things being equal) to me. And so
MAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:55:49 -0500
>
>I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
>issue. What "
>Excellent output can be
>obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems
>still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as
>great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the
>one with greatest longevity.
That's
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, John C. Jernigan wrote:
> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output can be
> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems
> still unresolve
t is a far better place to learn the information than the magazines,
> I've found. We're doing it, and they're only writing about it. ;-)
>
> Best regards--LRA
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
ve found. We're doing it, and they're only writing about it. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:26 +
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:46:03 +0800 youheng ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Simply, will Digital output surpass the Conventional Chemical
> Darkroom's?
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. It's just
different, and different enough to be unable to say which is objectivel
Sorry I'm not familiar with conventional chemical darkroom and planning to go directly
digital darkroom, with Nikon LS-8000ED, also I'm learning photography with few
experience. So if my question sounds stupid, just laugh.
Simply, will Digital output surpass the Conventional Chemical Darkroom's
19 matches
Mail list logo
