But digital and chemical printing are not mutually exclusive which you
should know well since I think you've had your color digital work done
by Millers.
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> We must be careful, guys. Don't want to be accused of being proselytisers
> for the Religion of the Dark.
>
> According to the general concensus these days, digital is better in most
> every way over the analog process. I can't argue with that. It's definitely
> easier. Some of this darkroom stuff is actually pretty difficult. For pete's
> sake--to change the color tone of the print just because your temperature
> shifted two degrees... Fading filters... Exposure and contrast shifts due
> to aging enlarger bulbs, vibration, warped negs, scratched negs, dust, etc.,
> etc....
>
> Oh, did I mention light contamination from recently operated CFL bulbs?
>
> Remind me again why I do this?
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|