Thanks Frantisek. And I will make every effort to be civil as well:-).
As I mentioned in another post, this discussion is somewhat pointless,
because it's based mainly on conjecture. The only real evidence that
can be offered in regard to film vs. digital is the type of who is
using what argument I tried to make. Comparing one print to another
will always be somewhat meaningless. It depends too much on personal
taste, and most such experiments lack the controls necessary to be
meaningful.
On Jan 17, 2005, at 6:17 AM, Frantisek wrote:
Cotty...
C> Paul is not on a crusade, he is taking part in a debate in its own
thread
C> on the PDML and is merely putting his point of view across. As
such, he
C> is using his vocabulary as he sees best, and is imparting
information. He
C> is doing nothing wrong.
And Paul... wrote:
P> I'm not crusading for anything. Just reporting what I see. I intend
to continue shooting
P> film. I enjoy my darkroom, and I find the film process quite
fascinating. However, I
P> dispute the contention of others, that high quality digital BW is
impossible and that
[...]
Paul, I am sorry then. I didn't intend it to be "personal attack", but
of
course thus it may be interpreted. What's written is written. As I
interpreted your words before to have a bit of crusading. Or disputing
the contentions of others too strongly. Ok, I am not free of that
"sin" either, so I will better shut up...
:)
Good light!
fra
