> I agree more with Judy in this issue. It was mentioned (not by her, but I
> don't remember whom) that you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to
> Although theoretically you can keep your hardware/software without
upgrding
> to new version, in practice it is almost impossible.
I hope I will be forgiven for using bandwidth to thank David S. for a most
lucid and compelling description of life in the cyberlane.... And really,
it's not just because he agrees ("more") with me, it's because it's
comforting to know that an *expert* has taken prattfalls parallel to (if
on a higher level than) the ones I've taken. When I was trying to get the
alt-photo connection connected, I described the effort in an e-mail titled
"Getting on the Internet in 108 easy steps," and I don't think any of it,
graphics or service bureaus, hardware or software, has gotten any simpler
or more coherent.
David Fokos's enthusiasm is understandable and no doubt contagious (I
might catch it myself if I hadn't been so recently innoculated). And
thereby he no doubt does his bit to speed up the switch to digital... ie
the day when we have no choice ... except to go back to collodion for our
film.... (Just kidding, I'm afraid of gun cotton.)
> I have worked with
manufacturer of film recorder, and
> believe it or not, not all of them are getting it right yet. This is mainly
> because originally the primary use of film recorders is to make slides, so
> algorithm/calibration for outputting to negative hasn't been well researched
Recently I spoke to a woman who tests software for a living. She explained
that one reason the manuals are so bad is because they're written before
the program is finished.... In film recorders, it would seem before the
algorithm is finished -- ?
Cheers,
Judy