Re: Rotating Josef was Actual Photograph

Katherine,

Gotch beat. I brought in the first Interleaf System back years before
Photoshop and Pagemaker were around. It ran on a 10,000.00 dollar Unix
workstation. It's still being used in book publishing but I just googled
the name and there seems to be a lot of conversion stuff to bring Interleaf
into Framemaker. Interleaf also did images and I had a scanned image of
Bogart, like in Humphry, (imagine a tough guy today with the name of
Humphry!) with a cigarette dangling from his lips. In my demos I used the
cloning tool to remove the cigarette. Total disbelief. Someone once said
that technology that is not understood is not much different from magic. It
was truly magical then.

This was at the City of Los Angeles back in the 80's. Those divisions that
had Interleaf fought tooth and nail against what they thought were junior
upstarts of Pagemaker and Photoshops. They were thought of as amateur
tools and unfit for real work. I wasn't so sure then. I managed the New
Technology Divison and was suspected of lunacy when I suggested that the PC
would eventually have a serious impact on mainframes. It's done that pretty
well.

--Dick

At 01:55 AM 3/20/2005, you wrote:
>Richard Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >
> > To be clear about it, I don't have any problem with "digital" per se.
>
>I'll piggyback on here and say ditto, me neither. I was working in
>Photoshop way back when Photoshop was considered a pre-press tool, not
>something that photographers in general might concern themselves with;
>in fact I did some digital demonstrations for photo stores before
>almost anyone was even thinking about digital for photographers. I also
>showed digital (dye-sub) prints for a short time before I discovered gum
>bichromate. And of course I still use Photoshop for adjusting images
>and printing digital negatives.
>
>My distinction is between machine-printed prints and handmade prints as
>art objects, and has nothing to do with the quality of the images,
>except for the obvious qualification that hardly needs to be stated but
>has been stated again and again, that an uninteresting image doesn't
>become more interesting because it's printed as a handmade print. When I
>make the distinction between the two kinds of art objects, I'm assuming
>an equally interesting image with either. As I said before, if I like
>an image, I'm happy to buy a machine print of it, but I expect to pay
>machine-printed prices for it, and in fact when I did show digital
>prints, they were priced from $25-$40.
>kt
Received on Sun Mar 20 11:22:12 2005