[pure-silver] Re: Old Paper Results
- From: Bill Stephenson <photographica@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 18:34:51 -0400
Ralph -
Since photography is an art more than a science (science is used to
reach artistic ends) why must we reduce everything to numerical values
which can then be translated into zeroes and ones for crunching by
computer? What's the matter with "mere observations" from an
experienced observer? There are many, many days that I curse the
invention/presence of the computer as it cuts farther and farther into
the humanity of living. (I know you didn't specifically mention the
computer, but once you ask for numeric values, that's where you're
headed.)
Here's to impression, observation, feeling, and analog living in
general!
-Bill
On Thursday, October 6, 2005, at 11:17 AM, DarkroomMagic wrote:
These
test results sound rather vague. 'probably as good as new' and
'somewhat
soft looking', or even 'has full contrast' don't sound like a test
results
but mere observations without measurable evidence.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
