RE: Digitan(sic) Negs

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Baird, Darryl (dbaird@umflint.edu)
Date: 05/12/01-10:01:24 AM Z


Seriously NOT correct.

Hmmm, let's see... should I NOT be considered serious if:

1) I want to make an edition of (silver) prints and want them to match, which making an enlarged digital negative would accomplish with much less production time (no continuous enlargement girations), maybe even have an assistant print from the "master" digital negative

2) I have developed a chemical allergy which prevents my using wet darkroom techniques

3) I like to (maybe excel at) make imagery on the computer screen instead of a J. Uelsmann or D. Prince style of photo montage

4) I choose to not buy a full darkroom with my limited budget, but instead use a computer system which will also balance my checkbook, figure my taxes, keep my calendar, print my letters, connect me to Alt-process list, and lets me order chemistry at 2:00 am? My enlarger is nice, but not as functional as the computer.

Film is great, computers are geat. Images are the only thing we need to be serious about.

BTW, is there something un-serious about faster and cheaper?

-Darryl Baird

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Why generate digital negatives to print on silver gelatin paper? Wouldn't
>>'normal', e.g. 35mm, or medium format negs print perfectly well on
>>conventional paper? I'm under the impression that (enlarged) digital negs
>>are used primarily for alt photo processes. Am I missing something here?

You are correct. Digital negatives are used most likely because they are
cheaper and faster than using actual film. Everyone has a printer and a
computer and it takes less effort to make them. I never use digital
techniques for anything photographic that I am serious about. The only
use I have for digital is for putting images on the web.

B.
 


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST