Herb is like Marie Antoinette. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 November 2005 06:33
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
Hi!
Herb Chong wrote:
as Rob said
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Herb Chong wrote:
as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K.
Well I tried to find the notebook he was talking about in the UK and
the model is NA. Perhaps if I knew the spec I could judge. The
cheapest Compaq I found in my quick search was 450 GBP (800 USD?).
graywolf wrote:
Your wish is my command.
http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg
I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will
probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use
that I also bought on ebay. This one is smaller than the
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
It may come as a surprise to you, Herb, but some folks simply do not
have the up front money to pay now. It is cheaper for a lot of us to
pay bit by bit even if it costs us twice as much in the long run. An I
believe
Rob Studdert wrote:
I have two main concerns/observations WRT to this type of competition
photography, first I believe it tends to artificially unify photographers
perspectives of what makes a good image.
That's an interesting idea and I think there would be some truth in it if the
same
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Paul Stenquist
I'm no artist, but I like working in PhotoShop g. Lots of fun. I don't
feel like I'm doing anything much different than what I did in the
darkroom, except that I have a lot more control.
It's a different set of skills, and it is a
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 24, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Tom Reese wrote:
I have a different opinion. Manipulated images are fake and I think
it's wrong to deceive the viewer. I don't want to start another
argument. It's a difference of opinion and we've already covered
to 16 x 20 with my current setup and
have done so with MF negs. That's a lot of fun. 4x5 printing should be
a real trip.
Paul
On Nov 25, 2005, at 1:07 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
You're still allowed to have
At 01:35 AM 11/25/2005, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and
interclub competitions.
And even with digital, a nature stock agency won't
take manipulated stuff... at least mine won't.
If all that was done, was to remove a single vapor
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
Ever do an unsharp mask in the darkroom? Me neither, but I've seen
prints done that way.
Actually, I have.
Sadly, Kodak deleted Pan Masking Film, and I don't know if there is
something suitable out
On Nov 25, 2005, at 9:54 AM, William Robb wrote:
Ever do an unsharp mask in the darkroom? Me neither, but I've seen
prints done that way.
Actually, I have.
Sadly, Kodak deleted Pan Masking Film, and I don't know if there is
something suitable out there as a replacement.
I still have
- Original Message -
From: Bob Shell
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I think it is called Minute Mask or something like that.
It was much easier to use than Pan Masking Film.
I always wondered how well those things worked
William Robb
On Nov 25, 2005, at 10:24 AM, William Robb wrote:
I think it is called Minute Mask or something like that.
It was much easier to use than Pan Masking Film.
I always wondered how well those things worked
Wanna buy mine and find out??? ;-)
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Bob Shell
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
Wanna buy mine and find out??? ;-)
Check back with me after I have a darkroom again
William Robb
Glen wrote:
At 01:35 AM 11/25/2005, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and
interclub competitions.
And even with digital, a nature stock agency won't
take manipulated stuff... at least mine won't.
If all that was done, was to
In a message dated 11/24/2005 4:51:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've recently read Ansel Adams in Color.
The reason Ansel didn't like color photography was the lack of control
he had over it. He would have LOVED Photoshop.
-Adam
===
Yes, I read that book also. And
On 24 Nov 2005 at 20:30, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
BTW:
The magazine Digital Photo Pro's measurement of the R2400 showed it
achieved a higher black density in monochrome printing than any of
the wet lab papers available today that they tested against, which at
least demonstrates that the
On 25 Nov 2005 at 18:00, David Mann wrote:
In fact, for best results I know I'd be better off giving someone
else my slides. Having absolute control is one thing, but actually
being able to use it is another. Unfortunately I can't afford to pay
someone else to scan/process/print my
On 25 Nov 2005 at 10:57, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Well I tried to find the notebook he was talking about in the UK and
the model is NA. Perhaps if I knew the spec I could judge. The
cheapest Compaq I found in my quick search was 450 GBP (800 USD?).
On 25 Nov 2005 at 12:17, Tom Reese wrote:
That's an interesting idea and I think there would be some truth in it if the
same people always judged the competitions. The judging panel is never the
same
in the competitions I've seen or entered. Different judges have different
opinions.
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as
much, plus pay more for BW film.
Twice as much?
Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've
long since been paid for.
How many digital bodies
On 11/23/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Frank, what if G-d forbid Robert quits. Further, say his replacement
is not as good as Robert was. In fact so much not as good as to make
it impossible for you to deal with this lab.
snip
Well, Robert won't be around forever, that's for
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/11/24 Thu PM 02:26:15 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as
much, plus pay more
Op Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:26:15 +0100 schreef frank theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as
much, plus pay more for BW film.
snip
and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with
On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:49, mike wilson wrote:
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as
much as going digital.
But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep
changing the apparatus to keep up,
On 11/24/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process
after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work-
flow.
Actually, they're pining for the fjords...
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've
long since been paid for.
The only justifications I've ever been able to come up with for
having multiple bodies are a) backup in the field against the event
of failure
But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep
changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money
back.
At least, I think that's how it works.
Lets face it, it's not as bad as it's being made out to be either.
In our
Fred wrote:
quoting Frank...
Well, in all seriousness, I'm not much for post-processing. For me, the
fun is getting the shot in the camera, with nothing more than printing it
full frame. Of course, sometimes a bit of burning and dodging and even
cropping may be necessary.
ann sez
My
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Tom Reese wrote:
... Some of you enjoy the process and it's recreation for you. ...
Some of us find it a liberating, flexible, high quality way of making
photographs, which is our life's work AND enjoyment.
Godfrey
twice as much per roll adds up. it may not hit you soon, but it will. pay
now or pay later.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
Add
Fred, you probably didn't mean quite what you said about poor photos -
unless it is necessary for imparting information to a viewer, no amount
of fiddling using Frank's word, is going to turn a poor photo into a
good one. OF course if you captured something in part of a frame that is
I bought a second DS body for backup. That's what it gets used for. I
really only 'need' one.
I'd like a 2nd DS to use along with the 1st - it cuts down the number of
times that I have to change lenses (which, depending on the situation, may
or may not be of significant help). And, if one
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 09:26:15AM -0500, frank theriault wrote:
My computer at home is a dinosaur. It would cost thousands to upgrade
it to a point where it would be an efficient tool for processing/post
processing/storage device.
Hardly. Even allowing for the fact that you're thinking in
Actually the fnords, ah Fnordia:
http://www.rawilson.com/
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/24/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process
after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work-
Yup. When I went on holidays in 2004, I regularly used 2 bodies. Long
lens on one, short lens on the other. Made it a whole lot easier to
capture the shot (seems with the one DS body, I always have the wrong
lens).
dk
On 11/24/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I bought a second DS body for
I bought a second body (D), because I sometimes have to do an out of
town shoot. You can't ask a client for travel expenses, then tell him
your camera broke. But I've found that having two bodies can be great
when shooting events or athletic contests where two distinctly
different focal
You could do what I did, Frank. Get a used highend digital PS for when
it is most expedient to use. I paid $200 for the Oly C-5050Z and $29 for
a 512mb CF card (68 raw, 400+ jpg). I admit it has not supplanted the
film cameras, but it has pretty much done so for the scanner.
BTW, I never did
I feel very sympathetic to Godfrey on this issue. People who use Photoshop
(or other programs) as yet another creative tool, like a different camera,
or a different lens, often feel somewhat insulted by such phrases. The
insult isn't quite a blunt and literal statement, but just a subtle
I bought a second body (D), because I
sometimes have to do an out of
town shoot. You can't ask a client for travel expenses, then tell him
your camera broke. But I've found that having two bodies can be great
when shooting events or athletic contests
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:49, mike wilson wrote:
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as
much as going digital.
But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep
changing the
Yes, and many folks go back to film after the new wears off.
I think it depends a lot upon whether you are more interested in
photography, or images. To some messing around in the darkroom is fun,
to others it is obnoxious, just as messing around with computers is to
others. I am comfortable
: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
If the final image is all that is important, and it is going to be used in
digital form (Web, pre-press, etc) digital is the way to go because you
save a bunch of intermediate steps. If you want an exhibition print film
: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 November 2005 16:11
To: PDML
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular
basis. They've
long since been paid for.
The only justifications
And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for
them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is
fair play.
I use both processes, neither is better or cheaper or easier than the
other. However, I am sure that to someone who does not have both skills
And the digi-heads put down wet
process
users. Why is it alright for
them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is
fair play.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
Not me. I probably will take
what is clear is that you haven't use any good digital process yet.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
And the digi-heads put down wet process users
...
- Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for
them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about
I recently acquired a used watchmaker lathe on ebay. Turns out to be
about 120 years old. Ever see a 120 year old digital camera that still
works? grin
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week
of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's
got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving
On Nov 24, 2005, at 3:15 PM, graywolf wrote:
Yes, and many folks go back to film after the new wears off.
You must know a lot of folks that I've never met. I've met a few
photographers who dabbled in film again after going to digital, but
they're a tiny percentage of the whole. Film is
as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be
shooting anything?
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
It may come
Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use 2 or 3 bodies because I don't like changing lenses while I'm shooting.
It's quite common (or used to be) for photographers to have a body with each
of a wide, normal and long lens. Of course, they also act as backups for
each other.
Same here. When shooting a
On 11/24/05, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
BTW, I never did get my lenscap in the mail.
That would be because I didn't mail it yet. red face
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to have not just a dslr (I'd prefer two), but a
digital rangefinder (that Epson ain't cheap). I wouldn't even bother
thinking of replacing my old Yashicamat, so I'm looking at minimum
three bodies.
Geeze Frank, I've been shooting professionally
I feel very sympathetic to Godfrey on this issue. People who use Photoshop
(or other programs) as yet another creative tool, like a different camera,
or a different lens, often feel somewhat insulted by such phrases. The
insult isn't quite a blunt and literal statement, but just a subtle
On 11/24/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geeze Frank, I've been shooting professionally and I only own one
digital body! You're a demanding guy!
Kripes, Mark, I was just engaging in sophistry. What is it you warn
new list members about Cotty and I? LOL
My point was that for the
On 24 Nov 2005 at 20:11, mike wilson wrote:
They are too busy sitting in front of a computer to notice. 8-))
Well I guess they might just be over dark rooms and chemistry fumes. ;-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:15, graywolf wrote:
If the final image is all that is important, and it is going to be used
in digital form (Web, pre-press, etc) digital is the way to go because
you save a bunch of intermediate steps. If you want an exhibition print
film is the way to go because you
On 24 Nov 2005 at 16:32, Mark Roberts wrote:
Same here. When shooting a wedding (yech) or other real time event
time spent swapping lenses can mean lost opportunities for shots you
can't just get later on.
I guess that's why so many people seem to love zooms. I really miss being able
to just
On 24/11/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
Kripes, Mark, I was just engaging in sophistry.
Leave her out of this Frank.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I'm in agreement, I still like using my friends darkroom but I'm very glad
that
wet printing isn't my only option these days. What I don't understand is
how
it's possible to avoid a bunch
On 24 Nov 2005 at 16:13, Tom Reese wrote:
You're not factoring in the time that's spent learning and using (and swearing
at) the software. Some of you enjoy the process and it's recreation for you. I
can't stand it and I'd rather pay the $10 per roll for 36 slides, avoid the
aggravation and
Some don't like wet printing too due to bad past experiences. Have someone
that knows what they are doing show you the ropes and I'm sure it would all
be much easier (as in any new process).
I hated darkroom work too after the initial wow this is cool wore off.
I shoot slides so I don't
On 24 Nov 2005 at 23:04, Tom Reese wrote:
Some don't like wet printing too due to bad past experiences. Have someone
that knows what they are doing show you the ropes and I'm sure it would
all
be much easier (as in any new process).
I hated darkroom work too after the initial wow
graywolf wrote:
I recently acquired a used watchmaker lathe on ebay. Turns out to be
about 120 years old. Ever see a 120 year old digital camera that still
works? grin
No, but I really want to see a picture of your watchmaker lathe. Pretty
please?
I don't remember digital users putting down the wet process. Some
have said it's not very practical to do it any more. That's just an
observation based on having worked both ways. Many of us practiced the
darkroom workflow for many years and have great affection and respect
for it. I still
Tom Reese wrote:
Some don't like wet printing too due to bad past experiences. Have someone
that knows what they are doing show you the ropes and I'm sure it would all
be much easier (as in any new process).
I hated darkroom work too after the initial wow this is cool wore off.
I
of the D2X
using a comparable macro. that's the test i need to run.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
Fair enough, since I don't show slides
Oh?
Good!
I thought the dog sled bringing the mail from Canada got lost in a
blizzard grin.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/24/05, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
BTW, I never
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't remember digital users putting down the wet process. Some
have said it's not very practical to do it any more. That's just an
observation based on having worked both ways. Many of us practiced the
darkroom workflow for many years and have great affection and
For the most part, PhotoShop processing has nothing to do with
manipulation. It's the equivelant of selecting a paper, dodging and
burning, and altering exposure and processing times in the darkroom.
You must not have paid much attention to the earlier threads.
Paul
On Nov 24, 2005, at 4:48
A print is the end product of wet photography.
A digital image is the end product of digital photograhy.
You have to go through some conversion steps to get from one to the other.
That said I do have some digital prints hanging on the wall. That is
because I do not have the facilities to do wet
I guess I don't tend to change lenses all that often. I used to carry
two bodies with different lenses occasionally, but I found that it
got in my way.
Godfrey
Your wish is my command.
http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg
I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will
probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use
that I also bought on ebay. This one is smaller than the ones made more
On 24 Nov 2005 at 18:42, graywolf wrote:
A print is the end product of wet photography.
A digital image is the end product of digital photograhy.
I do think that what you have written is a pretty limited view of the options
available to many people these days. A print can be the end of wet of
For the most part, PhotoShop processing has nothing to do with
manipulation. It's the equivelant of selecting a paper, dodging and
burning, and altering exposure and processing times in the darkroom.
I was speaking from my perspective as a nature photographer and I know that's a
narrow
On 24 Nov 2005 at 18:54, graywolf wrote:
Your wish is my command.
http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg
I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will
probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use
that I also bought on ebay.
On 25 Nov 2005 at 0:01, Tom Reese wrote:
I was speaking from my perspective as a nature photographer and I know that's
a
narrow viewpoint. I definitely do remember a lot of cloning, pasting and
whatall
in some threads. That's the manipulation that I find objectionable.
It really depends
you've seen documented the amount of manipulations Ansel Adams did to his
prints?
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I'm sure you would perceive
I'm sure you would perceive that as OK however if I have a jet trail in the
midst of the sky of my otherwise pristine natural landscape I'm going to
consider cloning it out, it shouldn't be there and I can control it being
there
except after the fact. Would you view this action as a
What do you do with the slides after you shoot them?
Paul
On Nov 24, 2005, at 6:04 PM, Tom Reese wrote:
Some don't like wet printing too due to bad past experiences. Have
someone
that knows what they are doing show you the ropes and I'm sure it
would all be much easier (as in any new
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process
after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital
work-
flow.
I still pine for my darkroom, shooting
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I'm figuring that it's gonna cost me at least $6,000 to put me in a
position where my digital capabilities are equivalent to what I now
have in film - and that's likely an low estimate.
Even if it's
I enjoyed darkroom work ...
but I *do not* miss the smell of fixer on my hands, that always took at
least three thorough washings to remove.
Did you try baking soda?
William Robb
On 25 Nov 2005 at 0:24, Tom Reese wrote:
I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet
trail out of the frame. I'm a purist and I would object to the cloning.
FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and
interclub
competitions. That
Paul Stenquist asked:
What do you do with the slides after you shoot them?
I flip through the boxes really quickly then I put them on a shelf for later
sorting. Once in a while I pull out my lightbox and loupe and go through all
the slides. The best ones to go into my binders.
I do enter
Not too many wood turning lathes that can turn work to 1/10,000
thousandth of an inch out there. This one could do that in 1885.
Remember these things are used for turning things like the pivots on a
watch gear. This Whitcomb No. 1 is also the lathe most American and
German Watchmaker Lathes
Nice,
Reminds me of my Grandfather's watchmaker lathe. Although that was a bit
younger I think (1920's IIRC, although it might be older)
-Adam
graywolf wrote:
Your wish is my command.
http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg
I am in the processing of researching and
On 24 Nov 2005 at 18:19, William Robb wrote:
I still pine for my darkroom, shooting portraits on 6x7 FP-4.
I miss using my Tachihara, the thrum of my JOBO.
The quiet hum that my coldlight makes when first warming up.
I miss the magic of watching a print come to life in a tray of
graywolf,
A print can be the end result of Digital Photography. It often is for
me, and all my BW images are edited with a print as the final intent
(Colour generally is intended for Web use, I'm not a big colour guy)
And the reason why 8x10's are more expensive than at home is that's
where
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I'm sure you would perceive that as OK however if I have a jet trail
in the
midst of the sky of my otherwise pristine natural landscape
: Re: Shoot now, focus later
I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film
process
after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital
work-
flow.
I still pine for my darkroom, shooting portraits on 6x7 FP-4.
I miss using my Tachihara, the thrum of my
Tom Reese wrote:
I wouldn't take the shot unless I could compose the picture to keep the jet
trail out of the frame. I'm a purist and I would object to the cloning.
FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and interclub
competitions. That type of manipulation
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't remember digital users putting down the wet process.
Quite the contrary: Most of the digital early adopters I have known were
(and are) wet darkroom enthusiasts who found themselves reveling in the
ability to have the kind of control over color
Rob Studdert wrote:
Since you seem happy to spend cash on good kit why not consider:
http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/057/942/StylusPro_4800.pdf
http://www.epson.com/cgi-
bin/Store/WideFormat/WideFormatDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yesinfoType=Overviewo
id=-12801category=Wide+Format+Printers
graywolf wrote:
Your wish is my command.
http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg
I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will
probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use
that I also bought on ebay. This one is smaller than the
William Robb wrote:
I enjoyed darkroom work ...
but I *do not* miss the smell of fixer on my hands, that always took
at least three thorough washings to remove.
Did you try baking soda?
William Robb
um ... Nope.
now, focus later
I've recently read Ansel Adams in Color.
The reason Ansel didn't like color photography was the lack of control he
had over it. He would have LOVED Photoshop.
On 24 Nov 2005 at 19:56, Adam Maas wrote:
The 4800's superb, but you can do 11x14's on the R2400 for about half
the price.
Yep that'd do the trick, it has the same Epson UltraChrome K3 Ink set.
But if I could afford a 4800, I'd get one.
Must resist.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
