Steve Simmons how about a 100% digital art mag?
ArtKramr
photographers every day. More and more digital in all formats. And I know this
won't interest you Steve, but far more advertisers in the digital field now.
Think about it. Opportunity knocks. (grin)
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
dr bob
news:20030718194421...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Yes, take Photo Techniques for example. After Camera and Darkroom's demise,
PT was about the only pub devoted to analog technology (for a while). Now
see how they have progressed!(?) OBTW, I'm letting my subscription lapse.
Not-so-truly, dr bob.
ArtKramr
>From: "dr bob" rsm...@dmv.com
>Date: 7/19/03 3:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vhi8d16...@corp.supernews.com>
One subscription does not a summer make. Or something like that.
Brian Ellis
he apparently figured out that opportunity knocked because the
November/December, 1996 issue was entitled "Digital Photography." Or try the
November/December, 1999 issue which was entitled "Mixing Traditional and
Digital Technologies. Then there was the November/December, 2001 issue, also
entitled "Digital Photography." And of course there have been many articles
idevoted to digital matters sprinkled throughout other issues. .
--
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030719072841...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Jim Phelps
> >
>
> One subscription does not a summer make. Or something like that.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
Make it two... I too am very disappointed in the ratio of analog related
article to digital in PT. I subscribed for the analog articles in the first
place. No reason to renew... There was not a single item of interest in
the last issue - at least for me.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
CamArtsMag
article to digital in PT. I subscribed for the analog articles in the first
place. No reason to renew... There was not a single item of interest in
the last issue - at least for me.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am curious how people feel about the ratio of traditional to digital in View
Camera and then in CameraArts.
steve simmons
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/21/03 6:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030721090544...@mb-m14.aol.com>
Art in photography is no less in digital than in analog therefore digital has
a rightful place in Camera Arts. The art of photography spans both disciplines.
And as time goes on the predominance of digital will be overwhelming.
ArtKramr
>From: camar...@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
>Date: 7/21/03 6:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030721090544...@mb-m14.aol.com>
>
This is a poor place to hold such a survey since digital interest is far lower
here than in the general photographic community. Try the rec. photo. digital NG
for more valid opinions.
Robert Feinman
use film for taking the pictures, but have switched
to inkjet for almost all my printing (except b&w).
So I find articles about both areas interesting.
There is also a good mix of how to and portfolio articles.
CamArtsMag wrote:
--
Robert D Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/21/03 6:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <10587958...@nntp.ace
> think your balance is about right. I continue to
>use film for taking the pictures, but have switched
>to inkjet for almost all my printing (except b&w).
>So I find articles about both areas interesting.
>here is also a good mix of how to and portfolio articles.
I agree. I also have gone digital for all printing and am slowly selling off
my darkroom equipment. I have gotten rid of my 8x10, 5x7 and three 4x5
cameras. but still retain one 4x5, my Leica M-6, Nikon F-4 and Rollei TLR. But
I can see where they will; all go except for the 35mm cameras as a result of
problems in scanning the larger formats. SInce I have 7 lenses for my Nikon F-4
I have ordered a Nikon D100 to make use of those lenses. The handwriting is on
the wall. Upward and onward. Especially since digital software makes greater
controls possible in digital than in analog.
J Stafford
camar...@aol.com (CamArtsMag) wrote:
>
> I am curious how people feel about the ratio of traditional to digital in View
> Camera and then in CameraArts.
Steve, I wouldn't mind one significant digital related article in an issue
if it still pertained to making a fine print (rather than just a picture
for a CRT.) And I don't want to see a whole lot about Photoshop. Adobe
has a fine resource for that subject.
The risk of digital articles is that they can be so ephemeral - obsoleted
by the next 'greatest' digital advancement. I don't see your magazines as
ephemeral: it is a singluar, historically important testimony to the
silver process and conventional photography, and will never grow obsolete.
Just my two-bits worth.
Brian Ellis
Doesn't the name of the group tell you that it is exclusively a digital
group? Digital may, as you say, be of less interest here than other places
but at least there is some interest in digital here and some interest in
film. In rec.photo.digital film is of absolutely no interest at all so why
would it be at all representative of the general photographic community?
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030721095509...@mb-m26.aol.com...
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/21/03 8:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Digital may, as you say, be of less interest here than other places
>but at least there is some interest in digital here and some interest in
>film. In rec.photo.digital film is of absolutely no interest at all so why
Not true. Many on the digital NG shoot film and finish digitally. Thus the
intense interest in neg scanners, especially ones that can scan negs larger
than 35mm up to 8x10. There are those who love film but hate darkrooms.
BK2
all the photographers out there that are selling all their film
equipment, and buying digital. One area of disapointment for me is the
way digital records highlight detail. I keep getting told that I need
to expose for my highlights. If I were to do that, then everything else
will go very dark, or black. I have used the Nikon D1X, and seen the
Canon 1Ds, and I was not awestruck by either.
I am going to keep shooting film. I hope the magazine stays the same
way.
Bill
Brian Ellis
rec.photo.digital are devoted to digital cameras. Take a look for yourself.
I just skimmed the subject lines for the last 300 messages posted there.
While I wasn't reading each word carefully, in quickly skimming them I saw
none devoted to scanners. There were a handful, maybe three or four, devoted
to printers, all the rest were devoted to digital cameras and accessories
for digital cameras (batteries, storage cards, etc.).
--
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
ArtKramr
>From: "Brian Ellis" bell...@earthlink.net
>Message-id:
>You must have another group in mind. Virtually all of the messages in
>rec.photo.digital are devoted to digital cameras. Take a look for yourself.
>I just skimmed the subject lines for the last 300 messages posted there.
>While I wasn't reading each word carefully, in quickly skimming them
Go back and read each word. I myself posted scanner stuff.
Gregory W. Blank
is correct there are some postings regarding, film verses digital as
well a what seems to be a core group of people that scan verses
doing the digital capture stuff. I am a dedicated film user.
In article <WFUSa.14884$Mc.11...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Brian Ellis" <bell...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You must have another group in mind. Virtually all of the messages in
> rec.photo.digital are devoted to digital cameras. Take a look for yourself.
> I just skimmed the subject lines for the last 300 messages posted there.
> While I wasn't reading each word carefully, in quickly skimming them I saw
> none devoted to scanners. There were a handful, maybe three or four, devoted
> to printers, all the rest were devoted to digital cameras and accessories
> for digital cameras (batteries, storage cards, etc.).
--
Check out My Homepage at
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
Support bacteria - they're the only culture
some people have." -Stephen Wright
Paul Attreides
> In my opinion, Digital is still nowhere close to film. I can't believe
> all the photographers out there that are selling all their film
> equipment, and buying digital. One area of disapointment for me is the
> way digital records highlight detail. I keep getting told that I need
> to expose for my highlights. If I were to do that, then everything else
> will go very dark, or black. I have used the Nikon D1X, and seen the
> Canon 1Ds, and I was not awestruck by either.
Nor will it be until your year 2020.
--
There was a man so wise he jumped into a sandy place
and burnt out both his eyes. And when he knew his eyes were
gone he offered no compliant. He summoned up a vision and made himself a saint.
Brian Ellis
selected "View All". in the rec.photo.digital newsgroup. There was exactly
one message that related to scanners, entitled "Film Scanners," and it
generated exactly one response.The subject line of the other 453 messages
related to digital cameras except for a couple relating to printers and a
couple that were off topic. I don't doubt that every now and then you or
someone else posts something about scanners or film in this group. The 454
messages that I saw covered a period of only a few days. However, unless
this was a very unrepresentative period for some unknown reason, it's
obvious to anyone reading the subject line of the messages in this group
that the overwhelming interest is in digital cameras to the exclusion of
anything else. There was certainly nothing indicating the "intense interest"
in film that you talked about.
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030721135645...@mb-m26.aol.com...
Jim Waggener
> I agree. I also have gone digital for all printing and am slowly selling
off
> my darkroom equipment. I have gotten rid of my 8x10, 5x7 and three 4x5
> cameras. but still retain one 4x5, my Leica M-6, Nikon F-4 and Rollei TLR.
But
> I can see where they will; all go except for the 35mm cameras as a result
of
> problems in scanning the larger formats. SInce I have 7 lenses for my
Nikon F-4
> I have ordered a Nikon D100 to make use of those lenses. The handwriting
is on
> the wall. Upward and onward. Especially since digital software makes
greater
> controls possible in digital than in analog.
I like the digital darkroom as well Art, but a D100 to replace a 4x5? No
way.
What goes around comes around.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dave Anderson
copy of the July/August edition of View Camera. I was very impressed at the
number of significant articles both analog and digital. It convinced me to
become a subscriber.
I used to be on the fine arts roadshow circuit/competitive art faire circuit
in the mid 1970's. I had a new Deardorff 4x5 special and used Royal X and
Press B film with a used Dagor 8 1/4" and a new 150mm Symmar convertible. I
was, as we all were, totally analog at the time. Got out of it after a
while and got a real job for 20 years before getting back into it. New film
emulsions with unparalleled fine grain and high quality scanners with
archival printers are the only reason I got back into LF.
I used to be a very good b/w printer and won several fine art competitions
back then. When I look at the work I am doing now in digital, scanning the
old negatives (10K X 8K pixels 16 bits) and printing on an Epson 2200, the
fine tonal scale, detail and unique subtlety of a LF analog print are all
there and more. (particularly in the larger prints) I actually prefer the
scanned/printed version of the prints. The analog archival prints from that
era sit in their boxes, the digital versions are framed and on my walls.
Steve, thanks for the substantive articles in View Camera, and keep
providing us with a mix of analog and digital content.
A new subscriber,
Dave Anderson
P.S. Arthur Kramer--As you get out of analog, if you have any 4x5 Royal X or
Press B in the freezer let me know. I also got a D100 and the 35mm film
cameras are going away--but not the 6x7 or 4x5's.
"CamArtsMag" <camar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030721090544...@mb-m14.aol.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.496 / Virus Database: 295 - Release Date: 7/3/2003
ArtKramr
>Date: 7/22/03 8:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <CGnTa.385$yj3...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>
Super Panchro Press Type B was also my favorite film years ago. But it is all
long gone. Sorry. I sold off 5 view cameras, but still have one left.Think I'll
keep it.