Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:



> Jeff, you have managed to take all of the least admirable aspects of
> my last two posts and have them add up to something a bit harsher than
> I intended, though I probably deserve it.

Yeah, I was focusing on the negative. Unduly, really. Actually, Tyler, 
I'm at least as grumpy and curmudgeonly as anyone here. No conclusions 
about my feelings about you, or about your perspective, should be made 
from my comments - to be frank, I was venting. I'm not feeling attacked 
and not meaning to make anyone else feel that way. Sometimes I just get 
a good bit of frustration going at some of the things I see happen, and 
have trouble keeping from writing quite explicitly about it....

It isn't that film users are stupid or evil; nor are digital users as a 
class especially brilliant in my experience. A lot of the film users I 
teach are really accomplished in that medium - they tower above me in 
that respect. I just find digital to be in many ways an apples to 
oranges comparison with film.


> I'm sure you know what I
> mean about the preponderance of mis-information,

Oooooooh yeah. Actually I can relate to what you said very closely. It 
is the "so-called" experts who load up our workshop participants with 
the misconceptions we have to work against in the first place. And it is 
far harder to correct misconceptions than it is to teach someone correct 
material to begin with.

I don't even consider myself much of an expert, except possibly at image 
capture - I might have better than average capability in that one 
specific technical area. But not in most others. You seem to know a lot 
more than I do about B&W output and film scanning, for example.

One of the guys I shoot with is looking at Noiseware; I'm planning to 
have a look when I get a little time at the end of the busy season here.


> Lastly, no one I know would accuse me of being fashionable.

Nor I. :-)

--
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska