Re: [Leica] Photoshop and Leica

[ternahan <ternahan@sonic.net>]

Right on about the health risks!
trish
ternahan@gentlelens.net


> From: "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>
> Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:49:34 -0500
> To: "'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'"<leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Photoshop and Leica
> 
> Mitch,
> 
> Excellent points. I took up digital imaging for reasons of cost savings and
> convenience. In one year I saved more than enough in processing to pay for
> all my digital equipment -- scanner, printer, new computer components. That
> was two years ago. Last year I photographed even more, so the costs savings
> added up. Less cost meant I could shoot more.
> 
> I feel like I'm entering into phase 2. I see some creative opportunities in
> digital that just weren't there for me in conventional processing. I'm not
> refering to things wild or off-the-wall. I'll use toning as an example. I've
> always been interesting in toning b/w prints. But I never felt comfortable
> using some of the relatively exotic chemistry involved. I've used selenium
> and sepia, but that's about it. With digital I can do the same things that I
> could with chemical toners, with a lot less effort, not to mention fewer
> long-term health risks.
> 
> Digital opens up avenues of expression that just weren't there before, in
> both b/w and color. The only downside to digital is the huge learning curve
> involved. 
> 
> Dave       
> 
> BTW, I remember doing page layout for a publisher. It was my first job out
> of college in 1977. Hours and hours of cutting and pasting! I didn't much
> like it.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zeissler, Mitch [mailto:mzeissle@gcipoa.gannett.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 5:43 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Photoshop and Leica
> 
> 
> Dave...
> 
> This is an age old dilemma of old vs. new.  It has embroiled each new
> generation of artistic creators [painters, sculptors, photographers,
> etc.] in some fashion and will continue to do so long after we're gone.
> 
> As an example, when I attended graphic design school in the late '70s,
> Apple IIe computers were just being introduced to the design curriculum.
> Using Apple Basic, the results at the time were considered primitive,
> but full of potential and promise; commercial Genigraphics machines
> capable of producing good computer imagery cost well over $100,000 US.
> 
> Fast forward to the present.
> 
> In the graphic design world of the present, computers rule.  The results
> are amazing and can be had for a tiny fraction of the cost of the
> Genigraphics setup of yesteryear.  Most graphic design students of today
> don't have any clue how involved and lengthy design projects were 25
> years ago.
> 
> The same will be true of the digital photography argument of today.
> 
> /Mitch
>