Digital BW, The Print

I think Clayton is ever so tolerant. 
 I cannot tell you how many boards, at some time or other, have a
discussion regarding the relative merits of film vs. digital etc. I
never participate in them since it really is a matter of very personal
feelings, attachments/bias and taste. The feelings often run high and
the topic comes to dominate an open exchange of ideas on other
subjects and issues that are less inflammatory and more fact-based.
 And, it is ever so rare that  one sees someone change their mind
regarding which is 'better'.
 I shoot film only but respect those who choose digital and would
never try to convince them otherwise, btw. I don't believe it is my
place to do so. It does not matter to me personally whether my friends
and collegaugues choose to use a digital or a film camera. What
matters is the final image, imho. That is what touches me personally.
  I'm not intolerant of 'open discussions' it's just that this
particular issue never seems to have any resolution. It heats up and
becomes a dead end, in my experience. 
 It's like stirring up a hornets nest.
 
 This reminds me of a very good friend of mine who is a marvellous
photograher. Whenever people would come to him with a debate regarding
equipment, or proudly show him their very expensive state of the art
equipment he'd say ever so calmly without confrontation, 
 "Please, just show me your prints."

 <S>

  BTW, sharing experiences is a whole other matter and I'm all for
that, Jack. I think that can enrich and enliven others. It is
specifically the debate as to which is better, film or digital, that I
object to.

 Best to all!

 Howard
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jack Winberg
<jack.winberg@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>