Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital is not photography (was long - shorter but still off topic)
From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:24:00 -0500

on 30/10/00 8:38 pm, Krechtz@aol.com at Krechtz@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 10/30/00 7:26:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> john@pinkheadedbug.com writes:
> 
> << I sense angels putting on their tutus and the sewing box creaking open.
>>> 
> Good point!  However, not all of the end products have been or are
> photographs.  As you stated, they have been made in many diverse ways,
> involving radically different levels of expertise and labor, looking quite
> distinctive.  For the sake of precision and historical accuracy, they
> continue to be described as separate entities by publishers, curators and -
> photographers.

Right, and I would expect that to continue. The signal path is always of
interest to completists and connoisseurs and curators who have to fill
catalog space. 'A pigment-ink inkjet print using a customised driver on a
modified Epson 1160 of a Photoshop-manipulated 4000 dpi 16-bit scan of an
APX400 negative developed in Xtol 1:2 for 12 minutes @ 68F of an image taken
using a Leica M4-P through a Summilux-M ASPH 35 wide open @ 1/30s".

Oh, yeah, and what was it of again?

- -- 
Johnny Deadman

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com