Digital BW, The Print

Indeed, and surely all their photographic prints must have been taken on a
camera that did NOT have auto-anything, and they used a light-meter and a
slide-rule thing to convert their candelas reading into an exposure.

Hmmm. It really is too easy to make them sound rediculous ;)

<sidenote; for some reason, I actually do think that there is some 'romance'
to the use of large format, some sense of 'endeavour'. But then again, I've
seen enough technically excellent tat from 5*4 and the like, to remind
myself that the end result is what is important>

Oh yes - and don't forget how environmentally friendly all those processing
chemical are! Of course, we'd have to see a fully investigated environmental
impact study to compare, say, manufacture of Pro Digital SLR / memory /
batteries over lifetime of camera with Pro Camera, film, chemicals,
potentially batteries, etc over the life of that camera! Mind you - who's
gonna use the gelatin when we don't? European Gelatin mountain, anyone???

Oh the joys of sending your printing-companie's technician into a darkroom
to poison themselves ;)

Nij


> -----Original Message-----
> From: toomagenta@... [mailto:toomagenta@...]
> Sent: 27 February 2002 17:28
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Magazine "drops" digital prints
>
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2002 11:46:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> michael.kravit@... writes:
>
>
> >  Capturing
> > an image on silver halide particles or silicon chips is irrelevant.
> > The message and artist's vision is what is important.
> >
>
> Hey, maybe we should drop a line to the writers magazines, asking them to
> follow suit. After all, a story written on a keyboard must be inherently
> inferior to one written with a pencil. As a matter of fact, even the
> modernist technology of a pen invalidates anything a writer would like to
> say. LONG LIVE THE PENCIL!!!
> George J Kunze
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>