From: david distefano (zfd@lightspeed.net)
Date: 03/10/02-12:41:49 PM Z
I hearken back to the time when CD's were introduced. Everyone said it was the
end of vinyl, records, and they were ALMOST right. But something happened on
that road to destruction, quality of sound. If you haven't noticed lately in
your electronics store, there is a wide selection of top end(pricey)
turntables. Why? From friends of mine who only play vinyl at home, and mag.
articles, it seems that the digital cd's produce perfect notes but unlike
vinyl cannot produce the movements between notes to the extent that vinyl can.
If you haven't heard today's vinyl on top end turntables you have not heard
music. CD's just don't compare.
So people who continue to make their own photos buy hand, do not be afraid of
the digital future. In America hand made has always been sought after over the
commercialistic mass production of anything..
Katharine Thayer wrote:
> FDanB@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > And I can't tell a diamond from a cubic zirconium...even if I do spit on
> > it. ;^)
> > That doesn't make them peg the same on the desirability meter.
>
> Exactly. (although I'm surprised that Dan is the one to say it.) It
> seems to me most people have gone off on a tangent on this one. The
> question wasn't "Can an inkjet print be beautiful?" or "Can an inkjet
> print mimic an alternative print very well?"" or any of the other
> well-worn sidetracks about traditional vs digital that this discussion
> has veered off on. The question was about the relative value of handmade
> prints vs digital prints in the marketplace, given that adequate
> reproductions of original alternative prints can now be made on the
> inkjet printer.
>
> I didn't say, and I don't think anyone said, that all handmade prints
> are wonderful and valuable even if the imagery is forgettable and
> mediocre; that's a silly idea that I don't believe anyone here would
> subscribe to. The question was about an original alternative process
> print vs a digital reproduction of that same print, the relative value
> of. Not the relative value of a handmade print of a poor image vs an
> inkjet print of a great image, or any other inapt comparison. To suggest
> that folks who prefer the handmade print to the digital reproduction
> are trying to hold back the hurricane of progress, is to miss the point
> altogether.
>
> kt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST