Since I was quoted on the bottom of this (I've edited it out), I want
to make it quite clear that on many occasions I have stated that I find
the number one problem with digital is the poor archival nature of
storage, so I am in total agreement with Karl.
The problem of change of format, no easy
]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:41:23 -0700
Since I was quoted on the bottom of this (I've edited it out), I want
to make it quite clear that on many occasions I have stated that I find
3:28 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
John wrote:
the only difference that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is
that of print permanence.
OK, here's a thought: Since the permanence of a digital print is
relatively
unknown, empirically, why
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output
can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that
seems
still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent
output
can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference
that
seems
still
Excellent output can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems
still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as
great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the
one with greatest longevity.
That's
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:55:49 -0500
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output can
be
obtained
Rafe,
My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there are many
valid reasons to discuss film scanning at all. And in many applications, digital
probably wins hands down. As I implied in my first query, permanence is paramount
(all other things being equal) to me. And so
on 6/19/01 11:28 AM, John C. Jernigan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Admittedly, this is somewhat OT for this list. Can anyone direct me (and
others
who are interested in this issue) to another more pertinent list?
Try DigitalSilver, where this is exactly on-topic (and I should know cos I'm
the
At 10:28 AM 6/19/01 -0500, John C. Jernigan wrote:
Rafe,
My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there
are many
valid reasons to discuss film scanning at all. And in many applications,
digital
probably wins hands down. As I implied in my first query, permanence is
At 12:38 PM 6/19/01 +0800, youheng wrote:
[rafe b:]
There are hybrid solutions as well. Eg, output via
Lightjet or Lambda (onto archival print media, using
wet chemistry) to get around the print longevity issue.
[youheng]
Is Fujix Pictrography 4000 considered a hybrid? It uses photographic
:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
At 10:28 AM 6/19/01 -0500, John C. Jernigan wrote:
Rafe,
My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there
are many
valid reasons to discuss film scanning at all. And in many
it. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:26 +0100 (BST)
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:46:03 +0800 youheng ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote
about it. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:26 +0100 (BST)
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:46:03 +0800 youheng ([EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, John C. Jernigan wrote:
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent output can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference that seems
still unresolved (to
Sorry I'm not familiar with conventional chemical darkroom and planning to go directly
digital darkroom, with Nikon LS-8000ED, also I'm learning photography with few
experience. So if my question sounds stupid, just laugh.
Simply, will Digital output surpass the Conventional Chemical
16 matches
Mail list logo
