If you paint with light.. you use an enlarger.
Or a floodlight, flashlight etc.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Waterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Workflow (was: Bailing out.)
This one time, at band camp, David J Brooks <[EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Workflow (was: Bailing out.)
Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done enough
darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the computer, it's
just work. Both can be re
t
AR> from me. I don't "fiddle around" for a living.
AR> -Aaron
AR> -Original Message-----
AR> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AR> Subj: Re: Workflow (was: Bailing out.)
AR> Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:47 am
AR> Size: 1K
AR>
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:53:02PM +1000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I understand the feeling of people who work with computers all day that
> > they don't want to work with computers on their free time, but the
> > fee
u do for a living?
AR> Sorry, Shel, call me sensitive but I just can't separate it
AR> from me. I don't "fiddle around" for a living.
AR> -Aaron
AR> -Original Message-----
AR> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AR> Subj: Re: Workf
On 28/3/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Let's wrap this up and move on to a subject from which we can learn and
>grow as photographers and equipment fondlers ;-))
Yeah, have a heart dude!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://
Bob Shell wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 9:27 AM, frank theriault wrote:
However, every time I say how I'm more than satisfied with film, that
I like the results it produces, and that I like the process (at least
my involvement in the process - or lack of involvement as the case may
be), someone j
On Mar 28, 2006, at 9:57 AM, frank theriault wrote:
It's meaningless to say one is better than the other without
including the all important "for what?".
Exactly!!
cheers,
frank the luddite (and proud of it)
It's my favourite argument: which is better, the hammer or the
screwdriver?
Of course this is a waste of time. But you are the one "not getting
it". The fact that you have an opinion and feel a certain way about
various photographic processes is not the issue.
Expressing your "person perception and feeling" in such a way as to
disparage other people's passion and f
On 3/28/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank, more than one person in this thread has said that the wet darkroom has
> soul and the digital darkroom doesn't. I'd be as quick to jump on someone
> arguing digital's inherent superiority as a process. 99% of what you see is
> what
On 3/28/06, Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> It's meaningless to say one is better than the other without
> including the all important "for what?".
Exactly!!
cheers,
frank the luddite (and proud of it)
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
process itself.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Workflow (was: Bailing out.)
Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:27 am
Size: 2K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 3/28/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Methinks yo
On Mar 28, 2006, at 9:27 AM, frank theriault wrote:
However, every time I say how I'm more than satisfied with film, that
I like the results it produces, and that I like the process (at least
my involvement in the process - or lack of involvement as the case may
be), someone jumps in to tell me
On 3/28/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Methinks you're taking this too personally. No one said that what ~you~ do
> is or isn't art, and so what if they did. It's just one person's opinion,
> one person's perception, one person's feeling about how something (in this
> case the di
just can't separate it from me. I don't
"fiddle around" for a living.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Workflow (was: Bailing out.)
Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:47 am
Size: 1K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.n
Methinks you're taking this too personally. No one said that what ~you~ do
is or isn't art, and so what if they did. It's just one person's opinion,
one person's perception, one person's feeling about how something (in this
case the digital workflow and process) effects him. If you drove a Ford
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done
enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the
computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be
difficult and tedious.
Y
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done
enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the
computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult
and tedious.
Yes, thank you.
-Aaron
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Aaron, you, and others, don't get it. It's about personal perception
and
feeling, which doesn't have to conform to ~your~ logic.
Shel, I'm sorry that I feel insulted when people say "what you do is
not art, it is binary, it is product, it
Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done enough
darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the computer,
it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult and
tedious.
On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:11 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Aaron, you, and others, do
Aaron, you, and others, don't get it. It's about personal perception and
feeling, which doesn't have to conform to ~your~ logic. There are those
who take a very pragmatic view of the digital world and what it
offers/doesn't offer, and there are others who feel things more emotionally
or subjectiv
mbedded in resin"... right?
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Workflow (was: Bailing out.)
Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:19 am
Size: 810 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
This one time, at band camp, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
This one time, at band camp, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand the feeling of people who work with computers all day that
> they don't want to work with computers on their free time, but the
> feeling is the same for those who work in the darkroom all day. The
> darkroo
On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
allow me to finish
If you paint with light.. you use an enlarger.
The painting with light does not finish with the camera exposure.
Mudh more is done in the darkroom.
This is what digital removes. Yes, you can fiddle with pixels all you
This one time, at band camp, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For Cripkes sake.
>
> A friggin picture is a friggin picture. Who gives a shit if its film or
> digital.
> If you paint with light..
allow me to finish
If you paint with light.. you use an enlarger.
The pa
For Cripkes sake.
A friggin picture is a friggin picture. Who gives a shit if its film or
digital.
If you paint with light..
Dave
Quoting Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
frank theriault wrote:
I'm like Shel. The word just bugs me is all.
Ah well, if it's the *word* that's
On 3/27/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You left out "shake the camera while making the exposure... :-P
And ~you~ left out tilt the camera...
>
> You're such an *artist*!
Them's fightin' words, pilgrim!
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Br
frank theriault wrote:
>I'm like Shel. The word just bugs me is all.
Ah well, if it's the *word* that's the problem that's a different
matter. I *like* the word because it made me think about something I'd
never thoroughly examined before.
>Whatever the hell it is I do only became called workfl
28 matches
Mail list logo
