Another thought here, Frank -- you can treat your digital images just like film and go with the standard film workflow: take card to lab, get proofs, agonize over proofs, return to lab for enlargements.
-Aaron -----Original Message----- From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Bailing out. Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:36 am Size: 834 bytes To: [email protected] On 3/27/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank, have you seen my prints? Are my big, beautiful prints > "products" rather than photographs? I didn't mean to say that a digital product couldn't be beautiful or art. Yours are certainly both. For me, film works, and has a feel to it that I like. Digital leaves me cold - but that's just me. I'm not saying that digitally derived prints can't be gorgeous - of course they can. But, as an amateur, I don't need or want to consider "work flow" or any of that crap. I take pix, if they're decent enough, they may end up as prints. However, I didn't mean my post to in any way denigrate digital for others, or to denigrate the results that others are able to obtain from digital. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
