Re: Digital Negatives/Piezography

From: Christina Z. Anderson ^lt;zphoto@bellsouth.net>
Date: 02/13/04-08:40:31 AM Z
Message-id: <00a401c3f23f$7ad1ff30$6101a8c0@your6bvpxyztoq>

Bummer...
Kinda like PhotoVision Magazine; a while back on the list I mentioned that
an article of mine on mordancage was coming out in the Jan/Feb issue of
PhotoVision. Well, I got a letter a couple weeks ago saying the magazine
ceased publication with the Nov/Dec issue. Oh well, at least I have a copy
of the layout of the article as it was meant to go to press...

I think the digital field has so much coming and going, and I know
PhotoVision struggled between the two.

Not that this hasn't been the norm for the photographic field. In research
thru the late 1800's a new process would be the rage, businesses would rise
up to cash in on its commercial possibilities, and then another process
would supplant it 10 years later.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <Ender100@aol.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:30 AM
Subject: Digital Negatives/Piezography

> An interesting note regarding Piezography that appeared on the Large
Format
> Printer List:
>
> First, to understand the relationship between InkJetMall and Cone
> Editions, read the first paragraph at:
> http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/our-mission.html
>
> Then see case #04-10148 at:
> http://www.vtb.uscourts.gov/calendar/030904_11_r.html
>
> This is a Chapter 11 filing (which allows for
> "reorganization")
>
> Mark Nelson
>
Received on Fri Feb 13 08:41:50 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:08 AM Z CST