Re: list minders

From: Sandy King ^lt;sanking@CLEMSON.EDU>
Date: 03/15/05-10:17:06 AM Z
Message-id: <p06020401be5cb59dbd5f@[]>

Back in the early 1990s it was ok to consider digital printing a
form of alternative photography. At that time digital was quite
uncommon and represented an alternative, and rather individual, way
of working, as compared to making prints with factory made paper.
Today that is no longer true. Digital inkjet printing, in both
monochrome and color, is rapidly becoming more common than
traditional printing with silver gelatin and dye color papers. In
fact, in many areas digital printing has already entirely supplanted
traditional forms of printing.

So on the whole I agree with Joe that there are other more
appropriate forums for discussing digital photography, at least when
the final output is a print made by some type of modern printer. On
the other hand, discussions on how to make digital negatives to be
used for making alternative prints are, IMO, entirely consistent
with the purpose of this list.


> >>> 03/15/05 12:08 AM >>>
>>>...that digital imaging is a new form of alternative process
>Bob Schramm<<
>I take issue with that terminology and would hate to see this list
>become overwhelmed by discussions of digital capture technologies and
>output devices. As marvelous as digital cameras, scanners, printers and
>inkjet prints are, the latter are not true photographic prints formed by
>the direct action of light but a rather different beast. There are
>other more appropriate forums for digital discourse related to capture
>and output IMO.
>Currently, when it comes to digital technologies, the list has confined
>itself largely to discussions of how to make a digital negative to be
>utilized in making an alternative process photographic print. I think
>that is as it should be since the final outcome from that process and
>light attenuator is an actual photograph.
Received on Tue Mar 15 10:17:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST