Digital BW, The Print

John Sexton's opinion has a big weight because of his renommee. Yet I  saw an 
exposition with the red couch series of Horst Wackerbarth, C-Prints and  
Inkjet Prints side by side(framed, under glass, of course) and I could not  see 
the difference. Sexton's craftsmanship in conventional B/W printing is  
unsurpassed and I could understand if he'd be in a bad mood that his lesser  peers now 
obtain the same or better results because of computer  technology.


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

I cannot see how any print can have tactile qualities if it is stuck up on a 
wall, in a frame and behind glass.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pacific New Media" <panmedia@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 3:12 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] John Sexton's comment on B&W print


John Sexton wrote recently in his newsletter:

"To date I have never seen a black and white print from the digital domain
that rivals the sensuous and tactile qualities of a well-crafted black and
white silver print."

There were many this kind of comments two or three years ago but not a lot
lately, especially from a heavy weight b&w printer. Anyone coming from both
domains (analog and digital) care to share some experiences and observations
on this?

After so many years of hard work of many talented people, and companies like
Epson and HP, is today's best digital print still lack of those "sensuous
and tactile qualities of a well-crafted black and white silver print"?

Thanks,
- philip


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




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links






---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

> Subject: [Digital BW] John Sexton's comment on B&W print
> 
> 
> John Sexton wrote recently in his newsletter:
> 
> "To date I have never seen a black and white print from the 
digital domain
> that rivals the sensuous and tactile qualities of a well-crafted 
black and
> white silver print."
> 

This is a simple statement of opinion by a very reputable silver 
gelatin printer using large format film and processes it in a 
darkroom and prints it with a light sourced enlarger. I think it is 
a true statement that stands on its own; BUT I think some of the 
content of the statement has been read with different 
interpretations. It states the fact that HE has not seen a BW 
digital/inkjet print that strikes him with the impact of his own 
work. I have seen some of Ansel Adams' prints but few others that 
still stand out in my memory. The craftsmanship is incredible and 
the IMAGES are unbelievably full of meaning. 

The IMAGES, in my opinion, are the central topic on any photograph; 
and the techniques are the tools used to hone them to attempt to 
reproduce the photographer's feelings that were stirred to make the 
exposure; be it on film or on a compact flash card. An exceptional 
IMAGE should be given the optimum rendition the photographer is 
capable of with the existing tools as hand that he is comfortable 
using. I feel that this applies to all types of photography/end 
results. Some take the exposure on film and then scan for printing 
on an inkjet printer; and some are digital/inkjet all the way 
through. My main desire is that the photographer channel all his 
efforts to create the finished image/print in the manner that best 
conveys his feelings/desires at the moment of exposure using the 
tools he/she is comfortable and skillfull in using. 

If John Sexton were to use a digital camera, software, inkjet 
printer, and inkjet paper; could he produce a print that would stand 
head and shoulders above one of us using the same equipment? 
Probabley not, because our passion is in our chosen media and his is 
in his chosen media. I am proud of the work I do in my chosen media 
as he is. Each chosen media should stand on its own merits and not 
continually being compared to another similar chosen media.


Soap box mode OFF now.


Your friend in Photography,

Johnny

I am afraid John Sexton is in the same position as the man who yelled at the 
driver of the early Ford Model T "HEY BUDDY GET A HORSE." And as we all know 
the rest is history.


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

>I am afraid John Sexton is in the same position as the man who yelled at
the
>driver of the early Ford Model T "HEY BUDDY GET A HORSE." And as we all
know
>the rest is history.

Bad analogy

After ten years a horse is still alive and kicking . . . most cars are in
the scrap heap.

Silver based image making is going through some changes, not the least of
which is the rapid shrinking of the amateur market (probably one of the
largest sectors in the marketplace). Sadly the ranks of ill-informed
consumers who are gobbling up their 2-3-4 megapixel cameras don't realize
that they are trading DOWN in quality and UP in price (see PT Barnum for an
explanation). There are certainly less and less films to choose from than in
the past, but I feel that it was a little oversaturated in the first place.

The John Sextons and the commercial "pro" are in a little squeeze because
their sector, the one that most of us were interested in was always a
miniscule part of the market for Kodak, Fuji, Agfa etc . . . in a word, we
were important to them, but not that much other than a marketing ploy to the
amateurs, "shooter X always trusts his CanNikkoltaflex 3 and
superduperchrome II, . . . you should too".

It is interesting to see the small "boutique" manufacturers in Europe
literally crawling out of the woodwork to fill in the gaps that have been
left . . . some with very good products.

Silver imaging is still here and will be for a long time to come . . . now
it has a new partner, that's all.

Paul Aparycki

>X always trusts his CanNikkoltaflex 3 and superduperchrome II, . . . 
>you should too".

Hey, I had one of those.  Great camera.  Here's a picture of it...

  http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg


Regards,
Clayton


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

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] John Sexton's comment on B&W print


He is of a generation that grew up and perfected something very fine and 
beautiful. But
history moves on and that thing belongs to the 19th century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
20th I believe

Richard 

---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Paul Aparycki" <tawow@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] John Sexton's comment on B&W print

 Sadly the ranks of ill-informed
consumers who are gobbling up their 2-3-4 megapixel cameras don't realize
that they are trading DOWN in quality and UP in price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of lod cobblers that lot is.

I have yet to meet one of the so called "ill informed consumers" who is not 
more satisfied with their digital images prints than ever they were with the 
film stuff.
In the UK it is now cheaper to obtain prints from a digital CD than from the 
original negative.

Come sir....pull yourself together.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

I still say 19th century.  I recently saw a show of work from all over
the world done in the late 1800's and those albumen prints were the
equal of anything the F64 group or since has produced. Yes, the zone
system gurus and that generation did do some refining here and there
but I wouldn't call that a quantum leap into a new methodology beyond
what was done over a hundred years ago. What set the Westons and
Adams, Caponigro, and their followers apart from earlier work was not
a technology advancement by any means but, a change in the way the
technology was used to see things within the framework of 20th century
painting (or an attempt to do someting that couldn't be accomplished
by painting.) What is happening now is major technological innovation
by comparison and will change everything, whether we like that or not.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> 20th I believe
> 
> Richard 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
> currently using to read this email. ]

What a load of lod cobblers that lot is.

I have yet to meet one of the so called "ill informed consumers" who is not
more satisfied with their digital images prints than ever they were with the
film stuff.
In the UK it is now cheaper to obtain prints from a digital CD than from the
original negative.

Come sir....pull yourself together.

Richard


I am all there . . . the arms are attached to the thingy that holds the head
and the legs, etc.

A 3 megapixel camera produces a good quality print but when you start up to
8x10 or larger it doesn't hold it's own against a chromogenic negative/type
R print. I agree that it "appears" to be cheaper getting digital prints
done, but in the case of your average 4x6s a lot of the mass market will
still opt to get everything printed . . . a good one hour c41 lab will be
cheaper. The mass market likes the digi stuff because of two reasons . . .
it is fast, . . . and they have been told to. As for the home user, how many
have made the investment in time and equipment to get all of their digital
gear talking to each other in the same language? most likely a fractional
percentage above 0. This list is a fine example of the effort (lots of it)
to get everything to print right . . . and at a considerable cost in
equipment sometimes.

I stand by what I said, the consumer doodads are passable to good, no more
than that.

Paul Aparycki

>John Sexton wrote recently in his newsletter:
>
>"To date I have never seen a black and white print from the
digital domain
>that rivals the sensuous and tactile qualities of a
well-crafted black and
>white silver print."

I just have to agree with Sexton. I used to shoot Tri-X and
then along came T-max. I never could get prints from T-max to
look the way I wanted them to. One day I was talking to my
Kodak TSR about this and he said I was trying to make T-max
look like Tri-x. The light came on. I'm not trying to make
inkjet look like silver gelatin. To me that's a step back. I
view inkjet as just the next progression in printing
technology and I want to take it as far as I can just as
Sexton and others have done with silver gelatin. If I want a
silver gelatin "look" I print silver gelatin.

 
Regards, Walt

http://www.kauaiphotos.biz

Twice a year I attend an antique photo show in central London and the place 
is full of American buyers.

The best I can say is that some of the product on sale have a quaintness 
that normally one would associate with anything that is old - but absolute 
technical quality? you must be kidding.

They invariably show some elements of fading, staining and surface 
abraision, and some show a lot more than those imperfections. The real 
attraction to the collector, as far as one can acertain from overheard 
snatches of conversation, is much the same as one experienced as an early 
teenager swapping cigarette playing cards.

Asthetics? oh come now, your looking at early examples of work produced by 
individuals feeling their way into a new medium of expression and non too 
sure about how to do it.

Only ocassionally will you see something that reflects a slight element of 
mature creativity and that was probably the result of considerable luck.

The technology was not there and the know-how certainly was not there, 
therefore it is safe to claim - and I do - that the 19th century 
photographer had to make do with inadequate technical options and therefore 
made the best of a bad job.

Give me the 1930's and upwards every time.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] John Sexton's comment on B&W print


I still say 19th century.  I recently saw a show of work from all over
the world done in the late 1800's and those albumen prints were the
equal of anything the F64 group or since has produced. 

---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

I detect a strong element of social snobbery in your messages my man so I 
will no longer continue to discuss  anything more on this subject with you.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Aparycki" <tawow@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] John Sexton's comment on B&W print



What a load of lod cobblers that lot is.

I have yet to meet one of the so called "ill informed consumers" who is not
more satisfied with their digital images prints than ever they were with the
film stuff.
In the UK it is now cheaper to obtain prints from a digital CD than from the
original negative.

Come sir....pull yourself together.

Richard


I am all there . . . the arms are attached to the thingy that holds the head
and the legs, etc.

A 3 megapixel camera produces a good quality print but when you start up to
8x10 or larger it doesn't hold it's own against a chromogenic negative/type
R print. I agree that it "appears" to be cheaper getting digital prints
done, but in the case of your average 4x6s a lot of the mass market will
still opt to get everything printed . . . a good one hour c41 lab will be
cheaper. The mass market likes the digi stuff because of two reasons . . .
it is fast, . . . and they have been told to. As for the home user, how many
have made the investment in time and equipment to get all of their digital
gear talking to each other in the same language? most likely a fractional
percentage above 0. This list is a fine example of the effort (lots of it)
to get everything to print right . . . and at a considerable cost in
equipment sometimes.

I stand by what I said, the consumer doodads are passable to good, no more
than that.

Paul Aparycki





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links






---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Corbett"
<richard@r...> wrote:
...
> Asthetics? oh come now, your looking at early examples of work
produced by 
> individuals feeling their way into a new medium of expression and
non too 
> sure about how to do it.

Yeah, Samuel Bourne, Carlton Watkins, O'Sullivan...
Not a clue, such imature undeveloped aesthetics. Shear luck they made
anything that resembles coherent work at all.
Well, somebody had to be first, go out and do all that stuff so we
could get to the real thing with our 3mp cameras.

Tyler

Your just fooling your self Mr Boley - you wish to believe that and so you 
do.

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] John Sexton's comment on B&W print


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Corbett"
<richard@r...> wrote:
...
> Asthetics? oh come now, your looking at early examples of work
produced by
> individuals feeling their way into a new medium of expression and
non too
> sure about how to do it.

Yeah, Samuel Bourne, Carlton Watkins, O'Sullivan...
Not a clue, such imature undeveloped aesthetics. Shear luck they made
anything that resembles coherent work at all.
Well, somebody had to be first, go out and do all that stuff so we
could get to the real thing with our 3mp cameras.

Tyler





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links






---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Only ocassionally will you see something that reflects a slight
element of mature creativity and that was probably the result of
considerable luck.

The technology was not there and the know-how certainly was not there,
therefore it is safe to claim - and I do - that the 19th century
photographer had to make do with inadequate technical options and
therefore
made the best of a bad job.


That is a joke. Either you have seriously got to be kidding or you
haven't seen much of the truely great 19th century printmaking. I
have. Such as entire portfolios by William Henry Jackson, Carlton
Watkins, Edweard Muybridge, Timothy O Sulliavan, and Julia Cameron
from the very beginnings, not to mention Francis Frith, Frederick
Evans,etc,etc,. Yea things got slicker in the 1930's primarily because
of sharper and better optics and a little faster films, but not
significantly different in my opinion. It was the same aesthetic only
with different ideas, which was what made the work different, not the
technology. Our technology is radical and moving light years beyond
what people could even dream of even 50 years ago. Unfortunately our
ideas are what is lacking. A lot of the work I see is trying to
emulate something that was from another conceptual era altogeher.

John

I had one of those for awhile, but I much preferred the medium format  
RolLeicaFlex.  It produced such sensuous and tactile negatives and/or  
transparencies, especially when you used the ultrasuperduperchrome  
III film produced by Koduji.  You can see one here,

http://www.ericashworth.net/images/rolleicaflex.jpg

Eric
www.ericashworth.net



On Aug 20, 2005, at 11:07 AM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> >X always trusts his CanNikkoltaflex 3 and superduperchrome II, . . .
> >you should too".
>
> Hey, I had one of those.  Great camera.  Here's a picture of it...
>
>   http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton


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

> > Hey, I had one of those.  Great camera.  Here's a picture of it...
> >
> >   http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg

My God that's ugly.  Isn't that Graham Bridge's image? Plus a really poor PS
job, which adds to the ...image?....

>>http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg

>I much preferred the medium format RolLeicaFlex.  
>http://www.ericashworth.net/images/rolleicaflex.jpg

Ooooh, what a nice camera.  Yes it has the CanNikkoltaflex beat all
the way, including looks <g>. 


Regards,
Clayton


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

>>>  http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg
> 
> my God that's ugly.  Isn't that Graham Bridge's image? Plus a really
poor PS job, which adds to the ...image?....


I don't know where it came from, a dpreview forum maybe.  I've seen
two versions of it, the other has Leica and "digital" labels on it. 
They have floated around for awhile.  I haven't seen Eric's before.


Regards,
Clayton


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

It sure is a beauty, especially with that Zeiss 80 Planar for a much
brighter view. Not that is hard core German innovation at its best. 

> Ooooh, what a nice camera.  Yes it has the CanNikkoltaflex beat all
> the way, including looks <g>. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

This has been fun reading - I'm glad to see that the digital vs. 
analogue wars have not died out completely!  Back in the early days
of 
digital audio - when recordings were starting to be done digitally
but 
were still put onto vinyl records - a writer for Fanfare magazine 
regularly wrote about the damage we would do to our hearing by 
listening to digital.  In fact, he went so far as to show with 
photographs that playing digitally recorded records produce micro-
cracks in turntables!  Now, 20 + years later, we can pick up an issue 
of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound and find advertisements for 
newly designed
turntables for $20,000 and cartridges for $3000, on which to play 
our $30 "audiophile" records. A lot to spend on a technology that 
most think of as dead.  If photography follows a similar evolution, 
we should see tremendous advancements in the quality of film and 
paper in the coming decade or two.  I wonder. . .  Edward  - In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> 
wrote:
> >>>  http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg
> > 
> > my God that's ugly.  Isn't that Graham Bridge's image? Plus a
really

> poor PS job, which adds to the ...image?....
> 
> 
> I don't know where it came from, a dpreview forum maybe.  I've seen
> two versions of it, the other has Leica and "digital" labels on it. 
> They have floated around for awhile.  I haven't seen Eric's before.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

After seeing Clayton's, I couldn't resist "building" mine today from  
some camera's passed down to me from my mom and grandfather.  If  
anyone wants a copy, have at it.


Eric
www.ericashworth.net

http://www.ericashworth.net/images/rolleicaflex.jpg



On Aug 20, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> >>>  http://www.cjcom.net/files/CanNikkoltaflex.jpg
> >
>
> > my God that's ugly.  Isn't that Graham Bridge's image? Plus a really
> poor PS job, which adds to the ...image?....
>
>
> I don't know where it came from, a dpreview forum maybe.  I've seen
> two versions of it, the other has Leica and "digital" labels on it.
> They have floated around for awhile.  I haven't seen Eric's before.
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton


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