Re: Congratulations to Mark on View Camera article

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

Title: Re: Congratulations to Mark on View Camera article

Mark,

Actually, I don't think the soul of the magazine is in any way opposed to digital negatives. The essence of the magazine, if we may speak of essence, is mediocre proofing. People have been criticizing this publication for years precisely for lack of attention to detail.

In any event, thanks for telling us what you meant to  say. I noticed the lacuna and wondered what should have been there.

Sandy

At 9:00 PM -0500 12/1/06, Ender100@aol.com wrote:

> Content-type: text/html;
> charset=UTF-8
> Content-language: en
> Hi Sam,
>
> Thanks to you and Sandy and Camden and others offlist- hope people
> enjoy the article.
>
> If you noticed a blank line in the first column of the article where I
> am referring to digital negatives:
>
> ....and the quality of the final prints is virtually
> <blank line>
>
> It was supposed to read:
> ....and the quality of the final prints is virtually
> indistinguishable from those made by in-camera negatives.
>
> I thought this was pretty funny, I guess the soul of the magazine
> could just not bring itself  to allow such words to go out in
> print hehehehehehehe
>
> Best Wishes,
> Mark Nelson
>
> Precision Digital Negatives -
> The System
> PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo
> Groups
> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>
> In a message dated 11/29/06 11:35:34 AM, stwang@bellsouth.net
> writes:
> > Mark,
> >
> > It was great to see your article on Precision Digital Negatives
> > in 
> > View Camera! Excellent description of the PDN method and reasons for
> > it!
> >
> > I heard about the article but had to visit the newstand  3
> > different 
> > times before finding the magazine. Apparently subscribers got it
> > a 
> > week and half before it was sold in South Carolina.
> >
> > Also, the low key image was nice to show not every picture needs
> > to 
> > span the full tonal range, a concept held over from Photo 101.
> >
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > Sam