Digital BW, The Print

Hi Clayton (and others)

I must say that your advocating cutting off the historical 
discussions here, generate very mixed feelings in me.  Yes, I highly 
value the specific technical B&W information here (the primary reason 
I follow the list so avidly, and your contributions in particular), 
BUT I have been fascinated by the historical stuff, so eloquently 
expressed by people who have had their hearts and minds in the field 
for many years.  Their perspectives are fascinating and invaluable to me.

I don't know WHAT to advocate, but I am MOST reluctant to completely 
choke off the topic.  No vitriol, no grandstanding, just people 
sharing many years of experience and their personal perspectives 
about issues that most of us have contended with, each in our own 
way.  I'm older than the other "old photographers (73 11/12), had my 
first darkroom age 9, grappled with the transitions being discussed, 
now teach digital imaging at USF.  I wish I had a perfect solution, 
but this is an imperfect world!

Jack Winberg

At 10:38 PM 3/26/2006, you wrote:
> >As others have said before,  I believe our hearts and
> >minds in this forum are large enough to accommodate
> >practically all that has to do with making beautiful
> >(to us)  B&W prints where the final or penultimate (as
> >in digital negatives) output is digital.

(Clayton Jones)

>Thanks for your (as usual) well thought out and well expressed reply.
>If you were to somehow go back and read all the things I've posted
>here on the subject of OT threads you would find that I have often
>defended the idea that occasional OT threads are welcome, as you are
>doing now, and that they broaden and enrich the normal fare.  However,
>digi vs film and camera brand/lens debates also have a history here of
>getting out of hand ... (SNIP)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]