From: christine (email@example.com)
Date: 06/26/01-12:23:47 PM Z
Thanks, Dick. You have articulated succinctly some concepts that have been
floating around my head for some time. I worked in a photo lab for a while,
making c-prints and Cibachromes. The lab went digital eventually and so did
I, except in my personal work. Oh, I tried it. I was pretty good at
Photoshop and color correction. I put a print in a show I thought looked
splendid. I found out it looked splendid *for what it was*. Next to all
those beautiful traditional silver prints that were surrounding mine, the
differences were obvious. It was Impossible to pinpoint exactly what quality
in my print was lacking. Depth, tonality richness, maybe one of those or
maybe all. I don't care what fancy CCD they come out with or what fancy
printer or what suberb drum scanner with 70 million dpi. It's still not the
same. It's still just peixels. Suffice it to say, I have passed over the way
of digital convenience and decided to stay true to traditional picture
making. You have just explained to me why.
P.S. if you want to see the print in the aforementioned show, go to:
and click on "Ruins of the Rectory".
Richard Sullivan FRPS wrote:
> I give lectures, talks and demos frequently on alt-photo. Lately the
> question that comes up is "Why do you go to all of that trouble when you
> can do the same thing on an ink-jet printer?" Aside from the issue of
> permanence, I think there is a deeper issue here.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST