Re: [Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]]


Jonathan C Hall (platinumprint@mediaone.net)
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:08:13 -0400


Thanks Strom,

I conquer with you 100% on all posts you have made. Digital is great but there is
no comparison with silver nor for that matter the Arcane processes. The great photo
god companies have gone backward. Once upon a time our photographic forefathers
searched for processes that were permanent and eventually found them. Now in our
throw away society we have to deal with less than ideal products that discolor and
fade over time as well as their commercial B. S. they push on us to go with the
flow of acceptance. As an artist and commercial photographer I shall continue
educating the public on the reason they should have a platinum, palladium, or
gelatin silver portrait done. They will be there for their children's children and
their children's children so on and so forth.

Strom keep up the good work of disseminating the truth on the digital work.

I am not against digital work it's damn fun and isn't that what photography should
be about. If we are not having fun anymore we are missing the boat. In my opinion.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

P.S. no one as of yet can or has answer my question on length of time these inks
for printers will last. I have to assume therefore that I am right. Archival
Digital Prints (oxymoron)

=?UNKNOWN?Q?Str=F6m?= wrote:

> ARE MAGAZINES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS CURRENTLY USING DIGITAL INPUT. NOT!
> THEY STILL USE PHOTOGAPHS PRODUCED IN THE TRADITIONAL MANNER.
>
> Ström
>
> Michael Keller <keller@wvinter.net> wrote:
> Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
> > There is now way the digital tide will be rolled back. Within 10 years all
> > film will be only available through an art supply house.
>
> Bzzt! Wrong answer. Believe me, it will take more than ten years for digital to
> be cheap enough to match the quality required for 4 color magazine reproduction.
> Oh yeah, you can get a scanning back for your 4x5 and do table top stuff. But
> only the top clients are prepared to pay the freight for that kind of quality
> plus immediacy. Easier to have a Jobo and feed your client a beer while you wait
> for the chromes to be done, or shoot Polaroids until you're blue in the face. Or
> shoot a low res digital proof, then shoot film for the final. In the meantime,
> good digital will not be cheap enough for field work, unless you're going wire
> service to newspaper at 80-100lpi.
>
> The joke is, everyone's yelling about digital, but it's already here, in the
> form of those damn royalty-free CDROMs. Talented agency artists can use that
> stuff to build some pretty decent layouts. It's not cover shots, but it fills a
> lot of the need for stock photos or assignment work. And guess what? None of
> that stuff started as a digital photo, it's all scanned from film.
>
> Now someone by now is asking what the devil this has to do with alt-photo? It
> comes back to availability of materials. And OOPS! How many people on this list
> are already hand coating paper, or mixing arcane chemistries, or making enlarged
> negs, or buying 60 year old cameras, to accomplish the ART they want to make?
> While commerce drives the new developments, artists always make use of the
> materials at hand.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:32