Michael Keller (keller@wvinter.net)
Sat, 09 Jan 1999 16:33:12 -0500
I haven't exposed a glass negative, but I've printed form a few within the
last year. Wasn't it nice of those old folks to use a medium that was so
OBVIOUS and continues to be compatible? 500 years from now, someone will hold
a negative up to the sun and say "Oh, there's a picture here!" Kinda hard to
do with a floppy.<g>
I'm being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to be a Luddite. The best quality
comes from using the right tools and materials at the right time. For
precision, that's digital. But it's hard to beat an 8x10 in-camera negative
for tonal quality, eh?
DanPhoto@aol.com wrote:
> As a friendly suggestion, you might want to qualify your comments a bit.
> Many users find that the control and precision of digital techniques more
> than make up for the limitations that exist currently. And those
> limitations are there only because we are at such an early stage of
> incorporating electronic methods.
>
> Heck, by the time this message gets posted, someone will probably
> discover a better way to make those desktop separations! And it's the
> good people like Judy and Katherine who are doing the work that will make
> the path so much easier for the rest of us to follow. And follow we will.
> After all, when was the last time you exposed a glass plate negative?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41