PMpainter@aol.com
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:58:15 -0500 (EST)
<<I don't like digital and don't collect magazine photography, either.
Printed matter and photographs are not the same.>>
I have spent the last 9 years of my life in the digital print world and I
agree totally with the remark above. Digital means business and the expedient
way of getting an image on the press. The only way it can be quickly (read
cheaply) duplicated in four colors so that it looks somewhat like the true
image. It never has equalled the photograph it was taken from and if you are
in the printing business you understand that it never could. No, printed
matter and photographs are not the same.
I may clip a good photo out of a magazine because I like it very much. If I
had the money I would buy the original photograph, but I am poor so I clip
instead. I do own books containing prints of photographs I love. They could
never replace the quality or mere presence of the original they intend to
portray but again I own it because it is as close as I can get. Second best
only.
<<Here's a suggestion: Don't read it.>>
Another comment that I totally agree with. Though I don't believe digital is
alternative I do believe that there are those that feel it is, or those who
use it for printing their negatives, and if they wish to discuss it then let
them do so. I have a delete button special for them.
Cheers,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:42