Digital BW, The Print

Hello Jack,

I understand your sentiments, and I share them to a large degree.  I
think if you will go back and reread my reply to Michael you will see
that I am not trying to take a hard nosed or close minded approach.  I
too love discussing photography and could spend many fascinating and
happy evenings chewing the rag with other long time experienced
photographers.  However experience has shown that these types of
discussions, either the fascinating sharing kind or the debate type,
can grow and dominate the forum to the point that people who come here
for help with printing issues go away disappointed.

I love ice cream and could consume large quantities of it daily.  But
I know that would not be good for my health so I exercise discipline
and restraint and consume it in moderation.  That is all that the
forum needs for its long term health and ability to fulfill it's
purpose.  There are times when I have an urge to contribute something
to these threads, and many times I don't because they have already
gone on for a long time and would only perpetuate it.  

As I said before, the reason this forum has remained so popular and
successful is because it has remained on topic for the long haul. 
There have been numerous occasions over the years when the moderators
have had to step in and halt an out of control thread because the
participants were unable to exercise self discipline.  This is not
something new. 

I enjoy it when these subjects come up and I often participate in
them.  Most of the time they exist for a short period and die a
natural death.  I like them and, as I said before, I think they deepen
and enrich the forum experience.  It's only on rare occasions that
they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and
on and on and on and on - until at some point somebody needs to say
something.  I was trying to be a good citizen of a self-policing forum
and keep it from getting to the point where one of the moderators
would have to step in and drop the axe.  

As much as I love the subject, this is not a general photography
forum.  I accept that.  I hope others will too.  If we all will keep
that in mind we will instinctively know when it's time to cease
comments and let these threads die off, which is what happens most of
the time.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm



>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]
>