At 12:05 PM -0500 5/30/05, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Emily L. Ferguson" <elf@xxxxxxxx> writes:
At 10:54 AM -0300 5/30/05, margaret lucas wrote:
my question remains. why is there so much dick'eadery about digital?
Different strokes for different folks, kiddo. Have you ever been in a
darkroom?
Sure have.
My comment was really aimed directly to Maggie.
I remember the hours it used to take to accomplish what I
now do in minutes. And the techniques that I knew in theory
(particularly contrast masking) that were so much trouble that I never
actually put them into practice until I went digital. I remember
needing to find a multiple-hour block of free time to make it worth
going into the darkroom. I remember having to wash and dry prints for
an *hour* after I'd worked myself to exhaustion making the prints. I
remember being *months* behind on processing and printing.
But these consideration are all wonderfully reminiscent of an earlier reality!
> Cibachrome has evolved into Ilfochrome now. Slightly less toxic.
That's not a *recent* change is it? I seem to remember "Ilfochrome"
from quite a while back.
Yes. It was quite a while back, now.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races, press photography
http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/
