From: Ricardo Wildberger Lisboa (wildberger@svn.com.br)
Date: 05/13/01-09:43:39 PM Z
And all of this without mention how cheap it can be if you concentrate just
on your files and send them to a bureau capable of understanding all what
you want. You can use state of the art equipment without the need to buy
them.
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Digitan(sic) Negs
>
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 bmaxey1@juno.com wrote:
> > ...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.
>
> You got any locusts in the fridge?
>
> But you're saying two things, one is "what I want" -- moving me to observe
> that sometimes, for better or worse, we want what we can get... And the
> other is "equal the results obtainable using film," which is something
> else. I'm not given to eating bugs, though sometimes my words -- I
> PROMISE, in many respects digital right now runs RINGS around 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.
>
> My house is older than your house, I never got a license to DRIVE a car, I
> use a rotary phone (3, in fact), my furniture is not only OLD, half of it
> was dragged in off the street, and as for *favoring the old*, I'm probably
> one of the oldest flavors on this list. But facts is facts.
>
> So in case some folks UNFAMILIAR with what digital can do for a photograph
> are following this discussion : I have just given up on a book called
> "Real World Scanning and Half Tones," because much vaunted as it is, I
> find it incomplete and disorganized, like coming in in the middle of the
> semester, telling me in great detail what I don't want to know, & totally
> skipping the info I'm looking for (that's really irrelevant here, but I
> feel better now, thanks for listening). However there are sections, as for
> instance, on unsharp masking, and tonal correction that make clear the
> kind of CONTROL you can have over a photograph (read "negative") with just
> plain Photoshop. True, I've mentioned that, but seeing it laid out with
> diagrams makes the point sharper. And I don't mean bells and whistles, I
> mean basics.
>
> Perhaps you get everything you want right off at its best possible
> configuration... but some of us are greedy. Being able, for instance, to
> accentuate/sharpen say, a figure in the foreground, while slightly
> softening the background (for an example that comes to mind among the
> INFINITE PERMUTATIONS) can, to some minds, greatly expand expression.
>
> > ....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.
>
> Believe me, a 20 by 30 gum is a proposition because of the size of the
> tray and the weight of the water... the negative is the least of it. But
> for less than $1000 you can get the Epson 3000 which prints a negative 16
> inches wide by as long as whatever... I got the 1160 which can make a
> nearly 13 inch wide neg by 19 for $180. Larger printers now cost $3000 &
> up, but presumably those prices will drop. However, my *guess* would be
> that in quality of neg, starting with 35 mm as I do, I'd be better off
> handling the up-scale digitally in any event (when I get the right book,
> that is).
>
> I agree with Darryl -- you can't teach just one or the other. But to
> foreclose the reach of digital is to shut the door on an enormous arsenal.
> As for *ease* -- I think we're having deja vu all over again. Years ago
> someone (and I think it was you) dismissed digital as being for lazy
> people. Digital is MUCH harder, if you figure in the learning curve it's
> much MUCH harder, and if you figure in the dreadful, inexcusable,
> pathetic, really BAD manuals, it's actually impossible.
>
> > I can now handle 20 x 40 inch film stock should the need arise - I could
> > not do this with digital techniques.
>
> Just curious -- WHAT 20x40 film stock??? And how many digital printers
> could you get for the price of one box, assuming it's available.
>
>
> Judy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST