[Leica] Tina and Digital (was, Enlarger

[bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)]

I believe what I said was that it is fast becoming an artifact. And if you
don't think it is, try counting up the available pro quality black and white
printing services available today - or color for that matter - compared to
five years ago. There are, btw, many thousands of people who own and ride in
horse drawn buggies, and use buggy whips, but that doesn't mean that the
buggies aren't historical artifacts.




On 2/7/06 3:19 PM, "Tom Westbrook" <lists@tomwestbrook.com> wrote:

> Well, dogsdiarrhea! Labeling a process that many thousands quite happily
> use as archaic and, by inference, futile and doddering, fits my
> definition of disparagement. It is most certainly NOT "an artifact of
> the photographic past", either, being quite alive and well. You may have
> closed the book on wet darkroom printing for yourself, but that only
> makes it an archaeological artifact to you, not to anyone else.
> 
> Sorry to carry on about this, but it chaps my derri?re to no small
> extent when a misconception like this starts growing wings.
> 
> 
> B. D. Colen wrote:
>> Oh holypuppypoop! No one ever suggested that people shouldn't use what 
>> suits
>> them. The Daguerreotype process still suits a tiny handful of people, and
>> they do amazing work. But that doesn't mean that the process is not an
>> artifact of the photographic past - nor is labeling it so disparaging; 
>> it's
>> just honest. ;-)