Digital BW, The Print

Who cares what the curves like with Tri-x or any other film for that 
matter, or how you scan. That's what Photoshop and the like are for. 
If you really knew how to use a digital camera, you would leave 
these things behind. I wouldn't mind betting that if Ansel Adams was 
still around he would have gone all digital some while ago. 

Yet again the forum is being hogged by one or few keyboard bullies. 

The fact is that there is so much trash on this forum now that it's 
hardly worth reading most of the posts. 

Lets see the moderator putting a stop to this before it's to late.


Sierra Gold

You're medium pass that on or did you sit in the seance where old Ansel 
came before all of you and stated the current piddly resolution of the 
digital world could compete with his 4x5 and 8x10 view camers

Let us know, inquiring minds want to be in on the latest.

Part of the old school that thinks the image is what photography is all 
about.

Truman

flyfishingusa2002 wrote:

>
> these things behind. I wouldn't mind betting that if Ansel Adams was
> still around he would have gone all digital some while ago.
>

Truman,
Somewhere in Ansels writings, whilst he was still alive he saw a 
very early digital and made a statment to the effect that all 
photography would be this way someday and that he would embrace it. 
If I come across the excact quote I will let you know. 
You seem to miss the fact that Ansel used both medium format and 
35mm on occasions. 
Nothing wrong with the wet stuff, just that "Digital B/W printing is 
not the place for a very lengthy discussion, if you can call it that 
on which vintage of Tri-X is better. 
Can you use a digicam? If so lets see some of your work, at least 
some of mine has been published. 
I do not intend to keep any "Flame War" going...As I said, to many 
keyboard bullies around that seem to have way to much time to write 
lengthy and boring essay's.

Sierra Gold

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> You're medium pass that on or did you sit in the seance where old 
Ansel 
> came before all of you and stated the current piddly resolution of 
the 
> digital world could compete with his 4x5 and 8x10 view camers
> 
> Let us know, inquiring minds want to be in on the latest.
> 
> Part of the old school that thinks the image is what photography 
is all 
> about.
> 
> Truman
> 
> flyfishingusa2002 wrote:
> 
> >
> > these things behind. I wouldn't mind betting that if Ansel Adams 
was
> > still around he would have gone all digital some while ago.
> >

flyfishingusa2002 writes:

> Who cares what the curves like with Tri-x or any other film for that 
> matter, or how you scan. That's what Photoshop and the like are for.

Photoshop cannot substitute for the curves of true black-and-white film
(or a true black-and-white sensor), for reasons that I shall not explain
for the millionth time.

> If you really knew how to use a digital camera, you would leave
> these things behind. I wouldn't mind betting that if Ansel Adams was 
> still around he would have gone all digital some while ago.

If Ansel Adams were still around, maybe someone would just take his word
for it when he said the above.

I read that also and while I was studying at MD Institute of Art one of 
the mainstays, Richard Kerstel,  also said (this was in the 70's), "my 
only regreat is I can't be alive when the digital world is fully upon 
us." I belive AA and RK werew making the same statement. However, the 
digital world is still in it's infancy. We are stuck with small sensors 
and we have a physical limit on how close we can place sensor cells. 
There is no way any digital capture divice costing less that a million 
buck can give the same surface area with the same resolution as a 4x5 
sheet of film. We may get there some day, but we aren't there yet.

My background is signal processing. I've spent time in optical image 
process, radar image processing and hyperspectral image processing. 
While we are getting better in digital capture we still have a ways to 
go - at least in affordable sensors.

Truman

flyfishingusa2002 wrote:

> Truman,
> Somewhere in Ansels writings, whilst he was still alive he saw a
> very early digital and made a statment to the effect that all
> photography would be this way someday and that he would embrace it.
> If I come across the excact quote I will let you know.
> You seem to miss the fact that Ansel used both medium format and
> 35mm on occasions.
> Nothing wrong with the wet stuff, just that "Digital B/W printing is
> not the place for a very lengthy discussion, if you can call it that
> on which vintage of Tri-X is better.
> Can you use a digicam? If so lets see some of your work, at least
> some of mine has been published.
> I do not intend to keep any "Flame War" going...As I said, to many
> keyboard bullies around that seem to have way to much time to write
> lengthy and boring essay's.
>
> Sierra Gold
> Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"flyfishingusa2002" <tflyfish@c...> wrote:

> If you really knew how to use a digital camera, you would leave 
> these things behind. I wouldn't mind betting that if Ansel 
>Adams was still around he would have gone all digital some 
>while ago. 

Oh, dear...I believe reality has gone on the blink again.

Ansel was working before digital. He dealt with it, and so should 
we. There has always been more than one "way" in photography, 
and digital is yet one more way, and as legitimate as any other - 
no more, no less. An 8x10 Deardorff isn't the key to the Magic 
Kingdon; neither is a Canon EOS 1D (and, yes, I've tried the 
latter, though not the former, alas). The picture in your mind's 
eye, however, *can* be. It's getting it onto the paper that's the 
fiddly bit.

And I think that's  the bottom line of the group - how the "many 
ways" can best lead to The Print (whichever print that happens to 
be for eash of us) which we can display, exhibit, and - hey! - even 
sell.  We can (and will...trust me) differ on printers, inks, 
drivers/RIPs, computers, monitors, OSs, and even portfolio 
cases. But we can, and should, make room to respectfully agree 
to disagree, and keep our mind's eye on the goal: The Print.

Share and Enjoy,

Barrett