From   Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:43:43 -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 17:43:43 -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 65589468; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:43:40 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.56 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003040120462979694 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Wed, 02 Apr 2003 01:46:29 GMT
Received: (qmail 25088 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 01:43:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BananaNose) (64.42.74.122)
  by queue2.atgi.net with SMTP; 2 Apr 2003 01:43:25 -0000
Message-ID: 
From: "Carl Cook" 
To: 
References:  
Subject: Advantages 
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:43:03 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

I'm teaching photography this quarter, and a discussion came up about the
advantages and disadvantages of traditional vs. digital photography.

For example, traditional: negatives/slides -- something tangible - that will
last a long time and are easily accessed, while the jury is still out on
digital's file logevity, black and white darkroom prints "look"
and "feel"
better at this point in the technology's development. Traditional
photography has a long and rich history, and has a lot of soul.

Digital: instant feedback, easier to make large color prints, digital
darkroom, traditional photography's next logical step in its evolution, etc.

Please add to the list so I can add to the discussion in the classroom.
Credit will be given.

Thanks - Carl

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