Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> It's worth something. Not a single one of the photographers you
> mentioned, if they were in the prime of their career would NOT be
> shooting digital capture, especially Ansel Adams. He told us himself 
> decades ago before he died that he wished it was available to him
> then. It wasn't. 
> 
> 
> 

retrophotographic.com  freestyle.com www.jandcphoto.com  ...sell all
sorts of B&W film, paper, chemistry...as do Calumet, B&W, Adorama. 

I don't think "a single one of the photographers" that were mentioned
would have taken part in this discussion. They were photographers,
they made images, they found the images of others interesting. 

Wanting decorative images, one may not want grain. It's "unpopular."
Ansel was a POPULAR photographer, unlike Weston, who was driven more
passionately (read both Ansel and Weston to understand). Popularity
has implications, brings baggage, doesn't necessarily relate to deeper
significance of the image. 

Someone will continue to make scanners, presumably Epson. Of course
Nikon won't make the successor to V/5000/9000 forever. So what? There
are tremendous collections of fine negatives that will have eternal
merit...how many digital files with eternal merit are there, so far? 

Importantly, film photographers can simply revert to darkrooms. Many
of us have them in storage...good darkrooms are dirt cheap these days,
and there's no shortage of papers & chemistry: 

retrophotographic.com  freestyle.com www.jandcphoto.com  ...sell all
sorts of B&W film, paper, chemistry...as do Calumet, B&W, Adorama.