Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PPLetterpress] Making negatives - Should I get a camera?

Expand Messages
  • Ed Inman
    There are always 2 sides to every coin, and I think everyone who has posted on this subject has made good points. My only additional observation would be that
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 13, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      There are always 2 sides to every coin, and I think everyone who has posted
      on this subject has made good points.

      My only additional observation would be that computer technology and
      traditional film technology can compliment each other--they are not always
      necessarily "either/or" opposing forces in the real world. One's ability to
      upgrade must be tempered by one's cash at hand.

      The fact that I still shoot film for negatives does not mean that I am
      against scanning and/or manipulating images in a computer. In fact I do
      this on a regular basis as needed, and make traditional film negatives from
      these. And the quality remains far better than what I get from
      computer-generated negatives from a low cost laser printer.

      How long will this last? The answer lies in what Harold refers to as
      Imagesetters and what their cost will be to small and hobby printers a
      couple of years down the road.

      If there is an "Imagesetter" for under $200 that can make dense negatives
      as good and as cheap as 45 cents-a-sheet traditional lith film negatives
      within a year or two then even my camera will probably be retired. Until
      then, I'm glad to have it.

      cheers,

      Ed
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.