From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 05/13/01-09:52:43 AM Z
Judy,
Your message must pertain to another Sandy other than this person. I have
nothing to do with any of the exchange below!!!!!
Sandy King
>> >>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.
>
>Sandy, you do NOT have to justify doing digital. In fact from my perfectly
>objective, balanced and common-sense perspective, the only reason NOT to
>do digital is if you want the kinds of pictures obtainable with a view
>camera, which may possibly (that's POSSIBLY) have more to offer in
>delicate smooth tones.
>
>But to me the advantages of being able to fix/adjust a 35 mm neg in
>photoshop are mind boggling. I don't mean tricks a la uelsmann, I mean
>being able to correct shadows, midtones and highlights SEPARATELY. If my
>film of 38 frames all developed together didn't get that, does that mean I
>don't deserve them? Which seems to be implied here.
>
>I'm getting the sense of "and then we milked the cows and walked barefoot
>through the snow 30 miles to school, you sissies don't know what real grit
>is..." So there was a time photogs had to carry their darkroom on their
>back and pour explosives onto glass while breathing ether to make a neg.
>So what? Photography is a tool not a religion. So someone crawls over
>broken glass to get a shot & develops it standing on one foot, & someone
>else leans out the window & sends it to the lab -- the REAL work is in the
>head.
>
>HOWEVER -- Sandy, you CAN'T present economy as a point for digital. I got
>a $300 Omega D2V used in 1985, will never get another. I spend at least in
>the 4 figures yearly on digital equip't and end not in sight. They've got
>you in their power.
>
>ANOTHER however -- I think Bob conflates prints and negatives when he says
>his print will be good whenever & the digital won't. On this list anyway,
>I think we mean digital negatives & probably maybe digital cameras when we
>say digital. Digital prints are another topic... And from what I've
>learned on the Epson list, I'd say I have more control with a gum than
>they do with all their head clogs, metamerism, problem profiles, papers
>that fight with inks, dyes that die, blues that get too green, greens that
>get too majenta, blacks that bronze, reds that turn yellow , mysterioso
>error messages, cartridges that bleed and weep -- just reading it you
>think it's more amazing than Uri Geller bending spoons. (And if you count
>their time tweaking curves & profiles, the gum print is quicker too -- or
>did I say that already?)
>
>As I recall the beginning of this thread was about *negatives*.... So the
>question would be which can make a better gum print, or if you insist,
>salt or platinum print. As far as I know, this has nothing to do with
>archivality, and everything to do with modus operandi.
>
>I myself, if I live, hope to go through 20 years of negatives FULL of
>imperfections, and make them perfect... Is that morally inferior to
>lugging 40 pounds of equipment to Mount Killimanjaro?
>
>But PS: Sandy, if you REALLY balance your checkbook on the computer -- oh
>my, you live dangerously !
>
>cheers,
>
>Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST