This discussion reminds me about some of my bunk mates at summer camp around 1958. There were two ham wave operators who were on the air quite often. But whenever they found someone to talk to, it was always about what equipment they had, how they modified it, or what distances they were able to connect. Once in a while they greatly expanded their conversation to talk about the weather -- but mostly how it affected their transmissions.
The point is, I enjoy Seeing some of the photographs on this site and sometimes talking about them as art or whatever -- without necessarily wanting to know about how they were produced although sometimes that's also interesting.
But why lament on the lack of chatter about old darkroom stuff? Yes, we're different, we digital people. But remember, photographers were different too, compared to painters. If there is that much desire to discuss old darkroom stories, just go to another listserve. And certainly there are other forums about alternate photography.
My ten cents,
-yoram
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Bob <w8imo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Little to discuss because we're a lot of digital folk?
Seems to me that if I'm exposing print film, slide film, glass negatives, or digital, composition and proper exposure matter......
Bob..
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now most of us shoot almost the same sensors, so there is little to discuss. Some old farts refuse to go quietly into the good night and have stuck with film. I have a lot to discuss, but nobody seems to care.
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post
.
--
Never trust atoms..... They make up everything.
