bmaxey1@juno.com
Date: 05/13/01-02:22:25 AM Z
>>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..."
I am sure that the comment was aimed at me because perhaps I feel
stronger about traditional techniques than some others on this list. All
I can say is this: For me, there is no better way to get what I want than
to use film. Show me any digital system that can equal the results
obtainable using film, and I'll eat a big, old bug.
Incidentally, some on this list want to use old alternative techniques
and fuss over every detail about the formulas, and want to do what they
did "Back then", but take great delight in chiding me because I prefer
using film.
Please forgive me - I live in a big OLD house, drive a big OLD car,
restore OLD motorcycles, collect OLD furniture - it is in my nature to
favor the old.
I like the quality I get and have yet to see any digital negatives that
can equal a well made film negative. I know that printers are getting
better and that makes better Negs and prints. However, If I want a 16 x
20 or larger print, where am I or anyone else going to get the output
without spending lots of money? Suppose you want to make 16 x 20, or 20 x
30 Gum Prints - The vast majority can't do it without spending a fortune.
I can now handle 20 x 40 inch film stock should the need arise - I could
not do this with digital techniques.
B.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST