From: Joachim (joachim@microdsi.net)
Date: 03/10/02-02:28:37 PM Z
The same was said of RCA tubes in heterodyne radio circuits - computer chips
just can't deliver quite the same broad tonality. I still have a tuner with
tubes, and I can tell you the sound IS better, but the difference is not
worth the hassle of parts replacement and costs - I think the same will
apply to the argument of dig vs. hand-pulled. We adjust to, and relate to,
other aspects of the art (aural, visual, intellectual) when the technology
has to ride in the rumble seat. Joachim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david distefano [mailto:zfd@lightspeed.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 1:42 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: The future of the handmade print?
>
>
> 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