Darryl Baird (dbaird@flint.umich.edu)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:23:32 -0500
WARNING SATIRE!
>>
I like digital and don't collect magazine photography, either.
Printed matter and photographs ARE (perceived as) the same.
If, as it seems, that there is an unsettling discrepancy between alternative
photographic processes, especially platinum/palladium, and digital imaging
processes, maybe the platinum/palladium interest is enough to have another
list.
I find the endless platinum/palladium discussion a clutter, too.
<<
END OF SATIRE
Gee, I guess you were in a bad mood Steve, but I find your remarks offensive to
me and probably anyone else on the list who finds interest in ALL manner of
alternative methods of photo-imaging. Ownership, as I recall, lies with Gordon
and he rarely inserts his judgements...God knows there's enough to go around.
There are long threads on many different topics, some more interesting to some
and less interesting to others...give and take as I see it.
While the digital vs. contone thread gets a bit verbose, nevertheless, I've
gained new insight and appreciation for printing variables. Surface contact and
undercutting light isn't an area I'd truly considered before. That's good
enough for me. When I take my week long platinum printing workshop this summer,
using both traditional and digital methods (negatives), this will surely be a
handy thread to recall from my personal archives.
later
Darryl Baird
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41