Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/11/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.
From: images at comporium.net (Tina Manley)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:10:48 -0500
References: <C71819F8.57F60%mark@rabinergroup.com> <A3306028-C1B0-4FD4-BF37-5901D1A320CF@gmail.com> <F7A89B679AEC4D529BE53CE61E4AFF96@jimnichols> <4E3764774E0740E2BDAA37ED4411C3CF@syneticfeba505>
 
At 03:09 PM 11/5/2009, you wrote:
>I'm glad digital came along when it finally did, although it was 45 
>years too late for what it could of done during my career.
>
>Dr. ted

I agree totally, Ted, and the bottom line is - if darkroom processing 
yielded a better result, even with the possibility of chemical 
poisoning, I would still be doing darkroom processing today; however, 
I get better results from lightroom and digital printing than I could 
ever get in the darkroom.  There might be some professional darkroom 
aficionados who would disagree and could eek better results from a 
file in the darkroom, but I'm sure if Ansel Adams were alive today he 
would be printing totally digitally in the lightroom.  There is a lot 
of nostalgia and elitism connected with darkroom work that I'm not 
sure is fully deserved.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com
Replies: Reply from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella) ([Leica] Technology, Ted and Tina)
Reply from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.)
 In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Why the mad rush to use Canon or Nikon bodies?)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity)
Message from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.)