Re: [Largeformat] Re: Photo 101 - Class 25 - Incident meters

[Les Newcomer <lnphoto@ismi.net>]

It's been said that History doesn't repeat itself, Historians do.
I just got through reading a self declared history of Photography
written in 1896.
They interviewed a pioneer photographer still in his Boston walk-up
studio, still doing
daguerrotypes now in his 80s (a rare feat in itself!) waiting and
wanting the world to come back to "real photo portraiture"
He claimed this new fancy dry-plate stuff was 'diluting' the trade with
people "mis-fit in both technology and craft".

While I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying, I look back and
wonder how many people have said it before. And what do we think of
those people that have said it before?

Les Newcomer

Verna Knapp wrote:

> 
> So sad... Last week I went to the Seybold conference in San Francisco.
> It is a publisher's conference, inhabited by a huge trade show with
> photo and printing and software and all such related gear. It was
> totally digital. All the latest and greatest digital cameras were
> there.
> All the new announcements in the digital world. The Nikon 880. The
> scanners. The new sleek elegant Macs. Adobe Photoshop 6.0 (easier to
> use
> that 5.5). The fabulous wide format inkjet printers. Color management
> gadgets, and digital rights management and digital asset management
> systems. eBooks. As I wandered the trade show, talking to the sales
> folks at the various booths, I uncovered one film lover after another,
> stuck with making a living in the digital world. Same with many of
> their
> customers. Pro photographers who wanted to spend time in a real
> darkroom, but constrained to spend big bucks on digital equipment.
> People who had done significant amounts of lf work on film, selling
> digital equipment. It was so very sad to see.
> 
> Fortunately, I'm not a pro, so I can continue to use film, at least as
> long as it is available. And it will be much cheaper for me than for
> them, too. For a mere $30,000 I could upgrade all my equipment to a
> dream digital outfit. With digital, there is the upgrade factor. Every
> few years junk all the equipment and replace it with the latest. That
> far outweighs the savings on film for me. And I don't really fancy
> hiking into the wilderness with a computer, solar battery charger,
> loads
> of batteries, and a digital back for the camera. Far too heavy. And
> too
> much like work.
> 
> However, I really felt sorry for all the people swept away from what
> they love by the digital flood.
> 
> You can't call me a technophobe. I've earned my living with computers
> for over 35 years now. I'm generally on the bleeding edge, just for
> the
> fun of it, too. However, the workflow is different, the process is
> different, and I find the film version more pleasurable.
> 
> Verna