Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/08/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] more on the Earl Brooks vs AA negatives
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:43:51 -0500
References: <E1905AA4-D0FF-43F5-B3A8-6629990892E7@mac.com> <4C746052.6070407@cox.net>
 
doesn't mean either is selling.

Regards,
George Lottermoser 
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist





On Aug 24, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Ken Carney wrote:

> Interesting that a "digital" 16x20 print (inkjet?) is $1,500, but a 
> "silver gelatin darkroom print" is $7,500.  Presumably both unsigned :).  
> Now I'm sorry I closed the darkroom.
In reply to: Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] more on the Earl Brooks vs AA negatives)
Message from kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney) ([Leica] more on the Earl Brooks vs AA negatives)