Re: Wet photography is really dying
- From: David Nebenzahl <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 17:04:03 -0700
On 5/11/2008 4:22 PM Charles Hohenstein spake thus:
In article <MPG.2291803df6eea91298b7d7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Rob Morley <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <48275c59$0$11167$822641b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Nebenzahl (nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) says...
You know, it's great you have all that stuff; it really is. I don't mean to take anything away from that. But how on earth can you propose that since *you* have all this great stuff that the state of wet photography is OK? It is for you, for the moment, but as others have pointed out, what happens when manufacturers inevitably start not producing film and paper? What will we do then?
Wet plates. :-)
And dry plates, and homemade paper. But there are too many film cameras in use for film to disappear anytime soon, if ever. Even rollfilm sizes like 620 and 127 are still available.
Yes, but read what I said about that: It won't disappear, but it will be expensive, hard to find and restricted in variety.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
.
- References:
- Wet photography is really dying
- From: David Nebenzahl
- Re: Wet photography is really dying
- From: Ken Nadvornick
- Re: Wet photography is really dying
- From: David Nebenzahl
- Re: Wet photography is really dying
- From: Rob Morley
- Re: Wet photography is really dying
- From: Charles Hohenstein
- Wet photography is really dying
- Prev by Date: Re: Wet photography is really dying
- Next by Date: Re: Enlarger lens options.
- Previous by thread: Re: Wet photography is really dying
- Next by thread: Re: Wet photography is really dying
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
