And thanks for an interesting point of view. I wondered too why he
did not talk more about the "good one" rather than just lumping them
together as a bad effort. I liked your experience with the magazine
editors. :-)
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Sep 6, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Andrew Wiese wrote:
>
> He certainly isn't pleased, but also seems to revel a little in his
> displeasure. Instead of focussing on the one paper which is "a huge
> improvement" over the others, he holds forth at length about the
> inferior
> papers and their dishonest, though hardly unpredictable, marketing.
>
> He seems to be writing for those who aspire to Ansel Adams-quality
> gallery
> prints, so for the less demanding user, perhaps 99% of us, this is not
> critical stuff. I've shown magazine photo editors ink-jet prints
> under
> circumstances and lighting which would make Lohmann cringe, but the
> speed at
> which they look through a book makes me doubt I need exhibition
> quality. I
> can remember running late for a college assignment deadline
> (shallow DoF,
> IIRC) and handing in an ink-jet print which passed muster.
> Certainly if I
> took landscapes to a gallery, I would be looking for something
> more, though.
>
> Thanks for the interesting link.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|