From   Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:48:44 -0800 remote from
fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:48:44 -0800
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 80290171; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:48:41 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.60 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003040200505809394 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Wed, 02 Apr 2003 05:50:58 GMT
Received: (qmail 1441 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 05:48:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Carl?Cook.olywa.net) (64.42.61.153)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 05:48:03 -0000
Message-Id: 
X-Sender: clcook{at}mail.olywa.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:48:48 -0800
To: 
From: Carl Cook 
Subject: Re: Advantages
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="=====================_24638260==_.ALT"

--=====================_24638260==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 09:25 PM 4/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Chuckle....how MUCH credit?


Oh, about 35 cents? ! :)

>
>
>You might talk about the computers ability vs the old darkroom chores.

Already have, and we concluded that it worked out to six of one half dozen 
of the other.  Each takes a lot of developed skill (pun alert). The same 
type of person that would find the digital darkroom a snap would also have 
no problems learning  the wet darkroom if he/she desired.

As far as ability of the two technologies, in most cases, whatever can be 
done in Photoshop (for example) can be done i the darkroom. It just might 
take longer and be more costly in terms of materials, etc. However, the 
level of satisfaction of a job well done will be equal, (if not higher in 
the case of the darkroom worker),  because their mind set is geared towards 
the older, more expensive and time consuming process. The more sweat, the 
more satisfaction.

I do love many of the older photographic processes that simply cannot be 
duplicated (with any depth) by the computer.

A student put his love of darkroom over digital this way; "It's like vinyl 
vs. CD, tubes vs. transistors.

For myself, I dearly love the darkroom, and have produced many prints I am 
happy with, but with digital, I have been able to so much more -- things I 
do not have the darkroom skills, nor the spare time to learn to produce. My 
darkroom skills are pretty basic, cropping, burning and dodging, and 
knowing how to work contrast to achieve a goal. Even in Photoshop, I tend 
to avoid many special effects, as for the most part, they don't enhance my 
own vision, but  I admire those who have the imagination and talent to rise 
above the cliche's and produce truly creative works. I embrace both for 
what they can do - and for their limitations.

We don't know where technology will be in 10 years. Tonight, we watched the 
Oliver Stone movie, Wall Street. There is a scene with Michael Douglas 
talking into a 1987 cell phone. Remember how high tech those things were? 
The phone weighed about 4-5 pounds, and was the size of a brick.  State of 
the art! I recently saw one at a garage sale for a buck.


>____________________________________________________

--=====================_24638260==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


At 09:25 PM 4/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Chuckle....how MUCH
credit?
Oh, about 35 cents? ! :)
 
You might talk about the computers ability vs the old darkroom
chores.
Already have, and we concluded that it worked out to six of one half
dozen of the other.  Each takes a lot of developed skill (pun
alert). The same type of person that would find the digital darkroom a
snap would also have no problems learning  the wet darkroom if
he/she desired. 
As far as ability of the two technologies, in most cases, whatever can be
done in Photoshop (for example) can be done i the darkroom. It just might
take longer and be more costly in terms of materials, etc. However, the
level of satisfaction of a job well done will be equal, (if not higher in
the case of the darkroom worker),  because their mind set is geared
towards the older, more expensive and time consuming process. The more
sweat, the more satisfaction.
I do love many of the older photographic processes that simply cannot be
duplicated (with any depth) by the computer.   
A student put his love of darkroom over digital this way; "It's like
vinyl vs. CD, tubes vs. transistors.
For myself, I dearly love the darkroom, and have produced many prints I
am happy with, but with digital, I have been able to so much more --
things I do not have the darkroom skills, nor the spare time to learn to
produce. My darkroom skills are pretty basic, cropping, burning and
dodging, and knowing how to work contrast to achieve a goal. Even in
Photoshop, I tend to avoid many special effects, as for the most part,
they don't enhance my own vision, but  I admire those who have the
imagination and talent to rise above the cliche's and produce truly
creative works. I embrace both for what they can do - and for their
limitations. 
We don't know where technology will be in 10 years. Tonight, we watched
the Oliver Stone movie, Wall Street. There is a scene with Michael
Douglas talking into a 1987 cell phone. Remember how high tech those
things were? The phone weighed about 4-5 pounds, and was the size of a
brick.  State of the art! I recently saw one at a garage sale for a
buck. 

____________________________________________________

--=====================_24638260==_.ALT--

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5