Digital BW, The Print

To agree with Dave here, let's be honest - how long will it be until there aren't any of we wet darkroom bods left! When I retired some 13 years ago, I did a night school photography course, and only two of us, the lecturer and myself, had had any previous darkroom experience, with none of the others having any intention of repeating the experience. Should Adobe therefore do the same as Microsoft and say enough is enough, and stop this pseudo backwards compatibility, albeit just in terminology? As I said in my previous post (and thanks for the answer, btw - it is trapped on a very unhappy PC and so I have not been able to reply directly!), I still use film, but then scan the negs in for printing. I would be happy to use modern terminology for what to me is a completely new process, carried out in daylight!

TonyW.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dave 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: photos by Jean-Michel Berts


    
  My point Eric, was that Jacob is doing digital photography. It's easy 
  to see how a photographer with little or no experience in a wet 
  darkroom can misunderstand terminology that was coined for that 
  process. Fortunately, the designers at Adobe have seen the potential 
  for confusion and they've avoided using those terms in Lightroom, 
  opting for words that are specific to the digital process or identical 
  in both processes.

  As for the retirement of old terms, we'll just have to agree to 
  disagree. New technology deserves its own terminology, especially in a 
  area like photography, where the older methods are still very much in 
  use.

  All best,
  Dave

  http://davereichertphoto.com/



  Reply to sender | Reply to group 
  Messages in this topic (47) 
  Recent Activity: a.. New Members 14 
  Visit Your Group Start a New Topic 
  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.



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