Okay...got an Olympus e10 (4 megas) a couple of years ago...it's been great
for those "little, annoying, quickie" jobs (like a fast headshot for a musician
friend or band shots on a QUICK turnover. In combination with an Epson
photo printer and PS Elements, I can turn out a fairly good 8X10 that can go to
reproduction.
Most of the effects that I associate with alt-photo can be recreated in
Photoshop BUT the printed results (on inkjet) are going to be much less archivally
permanent than carefully produced alt prints. Many people in the large
format groups that I read use scanners to make scans from LF negs and then work
them in PS and print on inkjets...personally, I miss the darkroom - NOTHING like
a good silver print.
Reading the Digital Photography newsgroup is almost funny...these folks seem
to think that photography was JUST INVENTED and so many of the questions are
the same as those that I read in old Pop and Modern Photography magazines
THIRTY or FORTY years ago. Many of the "arguments" that they engage in sound
suspiciously familiar, too. Canon vs Nikon, Foveon vs everything else...I feel
like I've time warped.
Digital: good for some things, quick, quality has improved greatly. Silver
Halide: still the best for accurate color and highest sharpness and
resolution. I'm not giving up my silver halide equipment yet no matter what Kodak
does!
argon
Received on Sat Nov 8 09:30:23 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/04/03-05:18:02 PM Z CST