RE: Devil's Digital Advocacy

From: Eric Neilsen ^lt;>
Date: 03/09/05-06:28:57 PM Z
Message-id: <>

Partly because as Dan suggested, there are fewer and fewer choices. The
ever shrinking film industry is providing us with more headaches and heart
aches. It is all about process... except now the process is digital.

It is an anti Alzheimer program to assure us all (older to very old) that
our brains are kept active.

It is a cruel joke by the photo gods.

What alternative do you have? They take away the kodachrome, cibachrome,
Commercial copy films 4125 & 4127, Portriga Rapid, ...

Wait until they take away your UC inks, and Pictorico films.

Thank goodness they haven't yet taken away our platinum and palladium.

So the trouble is one more set of test to run and run and run and...

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:03 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Devil's Digital Advocacy
> >(WHY do people do through SO much trouble to produce digital negatives?
> Great! The list offers an honest question that doesn't involve a horrible
> argument over sex changes or sexism (as Seinfeld would say "not that
> there's anything wrong with that").
> Now to the question. There are lots of reasons for making digital
> negatives.
> If...
> Your original big camera neg isn't perfect (owing to exposure, contrast,
> damage, dust, etc.)
> Your original small camera neg isn't perfect.
> Your original small camera neg is perfect's small.
> You used to enjoy making opti-chemically enlarged negs but the materials
> have disappeared.
> You're interesed in learning how to make opti-chemically enlarged negs
> with available materials but fear as soon as you do, those materials will
> disappear too.
> You don't even know what a non-digital neg is because you shoot digitally.
> You can't make a decent inkjet print so you might as well use the printer
> for negatives.
> You just love having near-molecular level control over detail,
> composition and contrast.
> You get shingles just thinking about Metol.
> There are lots more but others will certainly fill in the blanks.
> Oh, I just realized that you said "SO much trouble." If it were so much
> trouble, I certainly wouldn't do it!
> Dan
Received on Wed Mar 9 18:29:02 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:00 AM Z CST