On 27/3/06, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
POTS = plain old telephone service.
Thanks Scott. Well FM! :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
DBSHOY sheesh!
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
POTS = plain old telephone service.
Thanks Scott. Well FM! :-)
On Mar 27, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Cotty wrote:
I have POTS in my office, but
rarely use it.
I have pots in my kitchen but use them all the time. For the
benefit of
those of us less astute at understand American abbreviations, could
you
please enlighten me?
POTS -- Plain Old Telephone
: Bailing out.
Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:36 am
Size: 834 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 3/27/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank, have you seen my prints? Are my big, beautiful prints
products rather than photographs?
I didn't mean to say that a digital product couldn't
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Another thought here, Frank -- you can treat your digital images just like
film and go with the standard film workflow: take card to lab, get proofs,
agonize over proofs, return to lab for enlargements.
The pros
On 27/3/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed:
Another thought here, Frank -- you can treat your digital images just
like film and go with the standard film workflow: take card to lab, get
proofs, agonize over proofs, return to lab for enlargements.
Yeah but there's no heart in it.
Sheeezz.
Just when this thing was dieing out you had to do that..
vbg
Dave
Quoting Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 27/3/06, Aaron Reynolds, discombobulated, unleashed:
Another thought here, Frank -- you can treat your digital images just
like film and go with the standard film workflow: take
On 27/3/06, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sheeezz.
Just when this thing was dieing out you had to do that..
vbg
It keeps reminding me of that old joke about the moon being a nice place
to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. No atmosphere.
:-))
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Cotty wrote:
I have POTS in my office, but
rarely use it.
I have pots in my kitchen but use them all the time. For the
benefit of
those of us less astute at understand American abbreviations, could
you
please enlighten me?
POTS = plain old telephone
On 27/3/06, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
POTS = plain old telephone service.
Thanks Bob
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On Mar 27, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
POTS = plain old telephone service.
Thanks Bob
Interestingly, that's what the telephone company people here call
it. I first heard the term some years back from the man who was
installing
Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
POTS = plain old telephone service.
Thanks Scott. Well FM! :-)
Scott should reply with HTH HAND
Hello Lon,
I basically agree with what you are saying. The issue to me is not
digital vs film but serious SLR vs Point Shoot. Go get a
(comparatively) crappy film PS and compare that to your SLR's - same
thing. Or compare a 67 to your 35mm SLRs.
Basically, I am saying that your digital PS is
: Bailing out.
Another thought here, Frank -- you can treat your digital images just like
film and go with the standard film workflow: take card to lab, get proofs,
agonize over proofs, return to lab for enlargements.
WR The pros I work with that seem happiest are doing just that.
WR William Robb
The one sad thing about teh digital PS market is there is no
replacement for a Yashica T4 or Oly XA.
I'd love a pocketable PS with a moderately fast wide-angle (24-28
equivalent) prime. If it had decent ISO 200 and 400 performance I
suspect it would find its way into many serious shooter's
Adam Maas wrote:
The one sad thing about teh digital PS market is there is no
replacement for a Yashica T4 or Oly XA.
I'd love a pocketable PS with a moderately fast wide-angle (24-28
equivalent) prime. If it had decent ISO 200 and 400 performance I
suspect it would find its way into many
Adam Maas wrote:
The one sad thing about teh digital PS market is there is no
replacement for a Yashica T4 or Oly XA.
I'd love a pocketable PS with a moderately fast wide-angle (24-28
equivalent) prime. If it had decent ISO 200 and 400 performance I
suspect it would find its way into many
On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Moral is that if you are going to function like you did in film days,
then don't give out disks, unless you charge like you did in the past
for a lab to scan and correct them.
This is really no different than those wedding photographers who
On 3/27/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
POTS = plain old telephone service.
Thanks Scott. Well FM! :-)
Scott should reply with HTH HAND
WTF is FM?
--
Scott (dumb terminal) Loveless
Yes, you are correct. However, this was not a low end photographer -
quite pricey for the area. I don't think he was one to ever give the
negs out. Mostly I was surprised that he would hurt his reputation in
this way.
--
Bruce
Monday, March 27, 2006, 9:03:13 AM, you wrote:
BS On Mar 27,
i don't want to put fuel to the fire, but i am probably crazy, because i am
a snapshooter of slide film and then scan the pics to have the posibilities
of digital postprocessing.
oh dear...
vbg
Adelheid
--
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*!
Feel free mit GMX DSL!
On Mar 27, 2006, at 12:30 PM, AvK wrote:
i don't want to put fuel to the fire, but i am probably crazy,
because i am
a snapshooter of slide film and then scan the pics to have the
posibilities
of digital postprocessing.
Mongrel!! ;-)
Bob
On 3/27/06, AvK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't want to put fuel to the fire, but i am probably crazy, because i am
a snapshooter of slide film and then scan the pics to have the posibilities
of digital postprocessing.
oh dear...
vbg
Adelheid
Actually you are probably a good person to
Ryan Brooks wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
The one sad thing about teh digital PS market is there is no
replacement for a Yashica T4 or Oly XA.
I'd love a pocketable PS with a moderately fast wide-angle (24-28
equivalent) prime. If it had decent ISO 200 and 400 performance I
suspect it would find
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 3/27/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
POTS = plain old telephone service.
Thanks Scott. Well FM! :-)
Scott should reply with HTH HAND
WTF is FM?
--
Scott (dumb terminal)
I have one 1GB CF card, and a smaller card, I think a 128MB (I'd have to
look in the bag to find out). Since I shoot RAW, I can usually get
between 60 to 70 shots on my 1GB card. So that's what I keep in mind
when I'm out to photograph, that I have a finite amount of space, so I
better be
On 27/3/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hi Shel,
you're not entirely innocent of language abuse yourself! In the olden days
nobody made photographs, they took them. Personally, one of my bugbears is
the idea of 'making' photographs. I think it sounds really pretentious.
Where do you take
, a photograph is something specific.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 3/27/2006 10:40:50 AM
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
What really puzzles me is that, from my perspective, all the labour
in the dark room was just as much a work flow
Bob W wrote:
Perhaps some people feel, as I do, that the buzzwords
surrounding digital are annoying. For example, I did a lot
of darkroom work for many years.
Never once did I use the term workflow. I just went into
the darkroom and made some prints. Until recently, until the
advent of
frank theriault wrote:
I don't need or want to consider work flow or any of that crap.
Oh man, this is great! I was just talking about this very subject with
a photographer friend a couple of days ago.
Frank, you *do* have work flow and you *have* considered it, as all
of us have done. You
Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Ryan Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
Oops... linked to the film version. Here's the digi:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/ricoh/gr/digital_camera_EN1.html
-Ryan
Yummy!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 27/3/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
For instance, someone asked what POTS was earlier. POTS has been a
standard term in the telephony industry for 20 years or more, it was a
new term when the newer generation of telephony equipment started to
surface in order to distinguish
On 3/27/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
I don't need or want to consider work flow or any of that crap.
Oh man, this is great! I was just talking about this very subject with
a photographer friend a couple of days ago.
Frank, you *do* have work flow and you
Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
For instance, someone asked what POTS was earlier. POTS has been a
standard term in the telephony industry for 20 years or more, it was a
new term when the newer generation of telephony equipment started to
surface in order
Frank,
Nor I. It's the end product I consider important. In my case, when I
say I don't consider work flow, that means I don't allow it to
influence my choice of work. If my work involved high volume rapid
paced commercial image production, it might, of necessity, be
considered.
If I had a problem
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Yes, you are correct. However, this was not a low end photographer -
quite pricey for the area. I don't think he was one to ever give the
negs out.
That's probably why he wouldn't give out uncorrected digital files!
On 27/3/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
The acronym I was taught for POTS in electronics school
That must be the exact same electronics school that I didn't go to! ;-))
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: POTS (was: Bailing out.)
As you well know, the phone system in
Britain is neither plain nor ordinary!
Any time I try to phone my friend in Birmingham, I wonder if there is a
phone system at all in Britain.
William Robb
: Re: Bailing out.
Bob W wrote:
Perhaps some people feel, as I do, that the buzzwords
surrounding digital are annoying. For example, I did a lot
of darkroom work for many years.
Never once did I use the term workflow. I just went into
the darkroom and made some prints. Until recently, until
frank theriault wrote:
I'm like Shel. The word just bugs me is all.
Ah well, if it's the *word* that's the problem that's a different
matter. I *like* the word because it made me think about something I'd
never thoroughly examined before.
Whatever the hell it is I do only became called
Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
The acronym I was taught for POTS in electronics school
That must be the exact same electronics school that I didn't go to! ;-))
You didn't miss much. The girls were ugly and the parties were
boring...
:-0
On 3/27/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You left out shake the camera while making the exposure... :-P
And ~you~ left out tilt the camera...
snip
You're such an *artist*!
Them's fightin' words, pilgrim!
LOL
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri
On 27 Mar 2006 at 21:43, Cotty wrote:
On 27/3/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
For instance, someone asked what POTS was earlier. POTS has been a
standard term in the telephony industry for 20 years or more, it was a
new term when the newer generation of telephony equipment
On Mar 27, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
Oops... linked to the film version. Here's the digi:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/ricoh/gr/
digital_camera_EN1.html
Yummy!
Indeed. Now how to get one here in Canada, with no Ricoh
distributor. Not cheap either, but it's what I'm
On 27 Mar 2006 at 13:53, John Francis wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 06:57:20AM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I've gone for walkarounds with my *istD and never recorded a single
image. I find I'm now shooting just as I did with film.
It's taken you long enough :-)
That's pretty much
But in this case, he did give out uncorrected files. I'm not sure if
he was thinking too much - not realizing how much work the lab does,
or just didn't care or what...
--
Bruce
Monday, March 27, 2006, 12:56:56 PM, you wrote:
MR Bruce Dayton wrote:
Yes, you are correct. However, this was
On 28/3/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
When I was in training 20 years ago here in Oz we also used the POTS
acronym,
the telecoms industry is powered by acronyms and the POTS term simply
meant a
wired voice telephone service.
When I was in training (nearly 30 years ago :-( we
On 27 Mar 2006 at 23:11, Cotty wrote:
When I was in training (nearly 30 years ago :-( we used many terms and
acronyms but it is pointless me repeating them here as they would mean
nothing to someone not involved in film production. I have never been in
the telephone industry (whatever that
On 27/3/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
Any time I try to phone my friend in Birmingham, I wonder if there is a
phone system at all in Britain.
It's a well-known fact that Brummies are not fussy who they befriend.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
On 28/3/06, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
You should get out more :-)
LOL
I deserved that
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: POTS (was: Bailing out.)
On 27/3/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
Any time I try to phone my friend in Birmingham, I wonder if there is a
phone system at all in Britain.
It's a well-known fact that Brummies
On 3/28/06, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm like Shel. The word just bugs me is all.
Workflow doesn't bother me. But closure, argh, I want to hit
something whenever I hear someone utter it.
Whatever the hell it is I do only became called workflow since the
advent of
an excellent summary!
best,
mishka
On 3/27/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The art of photography is the same, and is separate from the
technology of capture or rendering. If you don't understand that, you
don't understand the art of photography.
...
i have one pots in my office, but i am trying to not
pay attention to him.
best,
mishka
On 3/27/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/3/06, Bob Shell, discombobulated, unleashed:
I have POTS in my office, but rarely use it.
I have pots in my kitchen but use them all the time. For the
You have to use the de-heart, de-art or de-soul filters. Just opening it in
Photoshop isn't enough.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Perry Pellechia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:04 pm
Size: 778 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Actually you
-
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:48 pm
Size: 2K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
I'm like Shel. The word just bugs me is all.
Whatever the hell it is I do only became called workflow since the
advent of computers and scanning and digital
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Monday, March 27, 2006, 12:56:56 PM, you wrote:
MR Bruce Dayton wrote:
Yes, you are correct. However, this was not a low end photographer -
quite pricey for the area. I don't think he was one to ever give the
negs out.
MR That's probably why he wouldn't give out
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
You have to use the de-heart, de-art or de-soul filters.
Just opening it in Photoshop isn't enough.
According so some people, my copy of Photoshop has a Not Wales
filter!
the legend The Kodak girl
at home. Emblazoned across the bottom of the ad, in
Believe-It-Or-Not lettering was THE DARKROOM ABOLISHED BY THE KODAK
DEVELOPING MACHINE!
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Bailing out.
Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:48
For Cripkes sake.
A friggin picture is a friggin picture. Who gives a shit if its film or
digital.
If you paint with light..
Dave
Quoting Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
frank theriault wrote:
I'm like Shel. The word just bugs me is all.
Ah well, if it's the *word* that's
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Sorry. Typo. I meant that's why he doesn't give out *corrected*
files. I wouldn't expect him to give out corrected digital files any
more than I would expect him to give out the negatives.
I dunno. If I am giving
On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
According so some people, my copy of Photoshop has a Not Wales
filter!
Well, your ISP still doesn't love me. E-mail me off-list.
-Aaron
in my book.
--
Bruce
Monday, March 27, 2006, 6:50:47 PM, you wrote:
WR - Original Message -
WR From: Mark Roberts
WR Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Sorry. Typo. I meant that's why he doesn't give out *corrected*
files. I wouldn't expect him to give out corrected digital files any
Quoting Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Monday, March 27, 2006, 12:56:56 PM, you wrote:
MR Bruce Dayton wrote:
Yes, you are correct. However, this was not a low end photographer -
quite pricey for the area. I don't think he was one to ever give the
negs out.
MR
On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:50 PM, William Robb wrote:
I dunno. If I am giving out negatives, they are readily printable at
any photolab or I haven't done my job in the first place.
Why shold digital be held to a lower standard?
It's supposed to be better.
The uncorrected negatives are just like
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
On Mar 27, 2006, at 9:50 PM, William Robb wrote:
I dunno. If I am giving out negatives, they are readily printable at any
photolab or I haven't done my job in the first place.
Why shold digital be held
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
what this guy
did was a big mistake in my book.
yup.
William Robb
On Mar 27, 2006, at 10:39 PM, William Robb wrote:
I don't know about that. I find most complaints are generated because
it looked good on the customers' screen, and I can't get a good print.
My own experience tells me that if I can't get a good print at home,
taking it to work isn't going to
the ball in his hands, and suddenly I duck behind the protective wall,
bailing out of the way (aha! On topic!) like a drunk.
-Aaron
True, Bruce. From my own (hard earned) experience that's right
Regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 28. marts 2006 05:21
Til: William Robb
Emne: Re: Bailing out.
For me, I wouldn't ever give out
These files looked like many were shot in incandescent light with
white balance set to daylight - not a little shot of auto levels -
more serious color correction and brightness adjustment - they weren't
just a little off, they were way off. If the customer hadn't already
seen some good prints,
I should add that he charged them an extra $300 for the cd's on top of
the wedding package price.
--
Bruce
Monday, March 27, 2006, 9:07:07 PM, you wrote:
BD These files looked like many were shot in incandescent light with
BD white balance set to daylight - not a little shot of auto levels -
I only give finished work to customers, unless they contract in
advance for unfinished work at which point I don't give them *any*
finished work. By signing up for that option, they are committing
themselves to finishing the work and releasing me from liability for
that part of the
On Mar 28, 2006, at 5:30 AM, AvK wrote:
i don't want to put fuel to the fire, but i am probably crazy,
because i am
a snapshooter of slide film and then scan the pics to have the
posibilities
of digital postprocessing.
Nothing wrong with that... but considering that's also what I do, I
On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
I also had a brilliant old Kodak ad from the 1920s that I glued to
the side of one of my monitors (I was running three computers --
one scanning, one doing the heavy lifting of correcting etc, and
one running the printers) -- it had a
This one time, at band camp, David J Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For Cripkes sake.
A friggin picture is a friggin picture. Who gives a shit if its film or
digital.
If you paint with light..
allow me to finish
If you paint with light.. you use an enlarger.
The painting
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[...]
Digital photography may well not be artistically rewarding for Kevin. I
sometimes feel the same way.
There's really no need to be judgemental and critical, Paul.
Shel
I suggest that Paul sometimes just needs to be Paul.
He succeeded. Again.
keith
Wheaters wrote:
I am sure you will get basted and cooked over a slow fire for
that post,
Mmm. Tastes like chicken.
I have found that there are two camps out there at the moment.
One camp say that all that matters is the picture, how you
get there doesn't
matter, and digital
]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:14 AM
Subject: Bailing out.
In recent times, I seem to have lost the joy of photography.
What started over 20 years ago as a small concern has grown to an
enjoyable and profitable lifestyle. Then along comes digital
Den 26. mar. 2006 kl. 03.57 skrev Paul Stenquist:
On Mar 25, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
As mentioned, I dont deny the artistic merits of digital technology.
b
But you did in your earlier post. You said, If you want to shoot
film, fine. I will certainly shoot with my
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Bob W wrote:
Aaron got there before me and identified a 3rd camp:
I like taking the pictures and I like having the finished images. The
middle part is tedious, where it used to be half the fun.
Although I never thought the middle part was any fun at all, whether it's
On 26 Mar 2006 at 10:31, Bob W wrote:
Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once
the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next.
Hunters, after all, aren't cooks - Henri Cartier-Bresson
All else equal I'd bet that a cook would make a
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem is that photography has become more of a production line
than an art.
There's another thing that's nagging me about digital:
With analog, it takes very little money to produce a technical quality
that can't be distinguished from what you get
graywolf wrote:
While I am not doing any serious photography at
this time, I do agree
with you.
Light and chemicals is a different media than
light and pixels. I am
using digital for record shots, ebay shots, and
snapshots thus I get by
with a decent PS.
Film is what I enjoy, and
Very high quality analog equipment is certainly much more attainable
than comparable digital equipment at the present time. But this will
change as the digital market matures. Of course that will take time.
What matters more to me is that I can achieve very high quality color
printing at home
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
A little more curve-tweaking and you'll
clearly see the fringing and posterizing.
Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to
save the thing in post.
-Aaron
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Colin J wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Digital is powerful and
versatile. But it's a chore. I didn't take up
photography to be tied to a computer. You might
be able to do much more with Photoshop than a
traditional enlarger, but where is the
satisfaction in
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I like to control the entire process.
Me too. Which is why it stinks that I find the process so godawful
boring.
-Aaron
Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to
save the thing in post.
Won't help. I have to use colour negative film, exactly because of the
limited dynamic range of slide film.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG -
At 07:56 AM 3/26/2006, you wrote:
Ralf,
I'm in general agreement.
For those who enjoy and want the best out of film large format is a
relatively inexpensive venture.
(That is, compared to what I've seen in some 35 outfits.)
4x5 -- a. $150 for a good press camera to start with (Busch
Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At one time, if you didn't like something you saw in the viewfinder,
you either waited until it moved, or found another picture to take.
Now, you just take the picture and clone the offending bits out.
And you call yourself an artist for doing it.
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished picture.
isn't that the case always?
best,
mishka
I used to have to make twenty or more BW prints for every magazine
article. It would frequently take me at least ten hours. It wasn't art.
It was hard, smelly, backgreaking work. Now I can turn out 20 digitals,
color or BW in a couple hours at the most. And the convenience of
digital means I
I don't find either process terribly boring -- darkroom or digital. But
I don't process other people's work, only my own. That is much more
rewarding than operating a lab. I tried doing custom BW printing at one
time many years ago. I got plenty of business in a hurry, but soon
learned that I
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Some people, and Kevin seems to be one of
them, prefer working with film and chemicals. It's not only the results
that matter, but how they're obtained, and the satisfaction one gets from
the process.
This is absolutely right. I still vastly prefer the darkroom to the
No ... and that's been stated here several times in several ways.
Shel
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's the mentality that says that all that matters is the finished
picture.
From: Mishka
isn't that the case always?
So working with photography using digital process doesn't appeal to
you. Fine. Enjoy what does appeal to you, do photography.
Why write a big song and dance about it, with the implication that
something is wrong with digital? That's what I don't understand.
There's nothing wrong with film
It would be difficult to separate the process from the satisfaction of
producing a pleasing finished image. Anticipating the end product is
what drives the learning and doing process.
Jack
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No ... and that's been stated here several times in several
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Both camps are right. But I'm in the latter, well, mostly. I prefer
printing digitally. I prefer shooting with film.
When I had my darkroom set up, and shot BW film, I printed quite a few
pictures.
I like darkroom
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Bailing out.
Bill, I think the danger lies in ease and productivity. If one goes
digital all the way through, one may become over-trigger-happy, if you
know what I mean.
I'm finding there is too much ease in shooting
201 - 300 of 425 matches
Mail list logo
