From Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:10:51 -0800 remote
from fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
for photo{at}fanciful.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:10:51 -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 150017015; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 17:10:48 -0800
Received: from 66.208.140.2 by saf.tzo.com
id 2003040220124012537 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
Thu, 03 Apr 2003 01:12:40 GMT
Received: (qmail 875 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 01:09:42 -0000
Received: from roa-ppp0273.dm.optidynamic.com (HELO laptop) (66.208.142.236)
by mail.optidynamic.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 01:09:42 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 20:09:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Content-Type: Multipart/related;
type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="------------Boundary-00=_XVTQQL80000000000000"
X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (1850928)
From: "drbob"
References:
X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000
X-FVER: 3.0
X-CNT: ;
X-Priority: 3
To:
Subject: Re: Advantages
--------------Boundary-00=_XVTQQL80000000000000
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative;
boundary="------------Boundary-00=_XVTQLVC0000000000000"
--------------Boundary-00=_XVTQLVC0000000000000
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0D
=0D
Oh, about 35 cents? ! :)=0D
=0D
Cheap at half the price.=0D
=0D
You might talk about the computers ability vs the old darkroom chores.=0D
Already have, and we concluded that it worked out to six of one half doze=
n
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 hav=
e
no problems learning the wet darkroom if he/she desired. =0D
=0D
I hope you don't take offense, but I don't agree here. =0D
=0D
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 towar=
ds
the older, more expensive and time consuming process. The more sweat, the
more satisfaction.=0D
=0D
ESPecially here. One sweats with software too...only without the stink. =
I
ve spent some time in the darkroom. I've been happy with it, and I've be=
en
disgusted with it.=0D
=0D
I do love many of the older photographic processes that simply cannot be
duplicated (with any depth) by the computer. =0D
=0D
Such as.=0D
=0D
A student put his love of darkroom over digital this way; "It's like viny=
l
vs. CD, tubes vs. transistors.=0D
=0D
I can argue that too. I'm a ham operator. I have vinyl that hisses too.=
:)=0D
=0D
For myself, I dearly love the darkroom, and have produced many prints I a=
m
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 know=
ing
how to work contrast to achieve a goal. Even in Photoshop, I tend to avoi=
d
many special effects, as for the most part, they don't enhance my own vis=
ion
but I admire those who have the imagination and talent to rise above th=
e
cliche's and produce truly creative works. I embrace both for what they c=
an
do - and for their limitations. =0D
=0D
Finally. I was starting to worry about your software! :) Even after a f=
ew
years, I'm Way too much of a beginner. And Larry still won't tell me how=
to
get the darn grey background!=0D
=0D
We don't know where technology will be in 10 years. Tonight, we watched t=
he
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 o=
f
the art! I recently saw one at a garage sale for a buck. =0D
=0D
Heh. It is, on one hand, scary but on the other hand...so very exciting =
and I probably won't be around to get to experience it.
--------------Boundary-00=_XVTQLVC0000000000000
Content-Type: Text/HTML;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000
3.0
;
| Oh, about 35 cents? ! :)Cheap at half the pric= e. You might talk about the computers ability vs the old darkroom chore= s.Already have, and we concluded that it worked out= to six of one half dozen of the other. Each takes a lot of develop= ed skill (pun alert). The same type of person that would find the digital= darkroom a snap would also have no problems learning the wet darkr= oom if he/she desired. I hope you don't take offense, but I don't agree here. As far as ability of the two technologies, in most cases, whatev= er 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. How= ever, 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. ESPecially here. One sweats with software too...only without t= he stink. I've spent some time in the darkroom. I've been hap= py with it, and I've been disgusted with it. I do love many of the older photographic processes that simply c= annot be duplicated (with any depth) by the computer. Such as. A student put his love of darkroom over digital this way; "It's = like vinyl vs. CD, tubes vs. transistors. I can argue that too. I'm a ham operator. I have vinyl t= hat hisses too. :) For myself, I dearly love the darkroom, and have produced many p= rints 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 d= odging, and knowing how to work contrast to achieve a goal. Even in Photo= shop, I tend to avoid many special effects, as for the most part, they do= n't enhance my own vision, but I admire those who have the imaginat= ion and talent to rise above the cliche's and produce truly creative work= s. I embrace both for what they can do - and for their limitations. <= /DIV> Finally. I was starting to worry about your software! :) = Even after a few years, I'm Way too much of a beginner. And Larry = still won't tell me how to get the darn grey background! 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 Michae= l Douglas talking into a 1987 cell phone. Remember how high tech those th= ings were? The phone weighed about 4-5 pounds, and was the size of a bric= k. State of the art! I recently saw one at a garage sale for a buck= =2E Heh. It is, on one hand, scary but on the other hand...= so very exciting and I probably won't be around to get to experience it.<= /DIV> | SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 @PATH: 202/801 300 1324 10/3 106/2000 633/267 |
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.