Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/10/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]it doesn't seem to me that there is any reason to believe that digital pictures are inherently any more ephemeral than negatives (especially color negatives), if you are careful. the reality of my current world is that if i wasn't shooting digital pictures, i wouldn't be shooting, much less printing, anything at all. i just don't have the time or space or energy to do the black and white processing and printing that I used to do. i think in a while i'll get back to it, but for now, and for what i take pictures of, digital is perfect. especially since i already have the infrastructure i need to manage the images, since i work in the software business. i bet in a few years when i'm able to start making prints again, and i'll get back to it. there is nothing in the digital world like tri-x and d76 and fiber glossy paper. pete On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 11:18 US/Eastern, Seth Rosner wrote: > Richard Knoppow of the pure-silver list knowingly wrote: > >>> I really like old fashioned, conventional, wet, chemical, >>> metal on plastic image, photography that results in a solid, >>> tangible, >> physical object. Digital leaves me with the >> suspicion that one day the spell will wear off and we will >> realize that there really isn't anything there. > > It gets me in the gut; also the notion that at some point I might be > without > electric power to run the drat machines. Of course, in that event, > there > wouldn't be the means to heat the required wetness materials, > enlighten the > enlargers and a host of other evolutions important to the wet darkroom. > > Ah well. > > Seth LaK 9 > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html