From: Charles Hohenstein on
In article <hq2dnfDsC-e2vtnUnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Another reason is the continuing shift of Usenet users
> to private mailing lists. This is partly to avoid spam and
> partly because many Usenet lists became pretty uncivilized.
> Mailing lists are always moderated to some degree where
> there are few actively moderated Usenet groups now. Too bad.

I'm glad that you have stuck it out on Usenet, Mr. Knoppow. There are
still people on Usenet who are looking for useful information, and you
have always been a rich source of it.

At the same time, it would be great to see you on APUG also. The level
of activity on that site and the collective knowledge represented by the
members is something marvelous.

In case you are unaware, there is an analogue photography podcast which
is available on iTunes now. So far the emphasis has been on interviews
with professional photographers and why they use film for some or all of
their work, but I'm hoping that there might be some more discussion of
darkroom matters. There was a long interview with Ctein about dye
transfer which I found fascinating. He candidly admitted where he found
digital more useful, but was equally emphatic that for some purposes dye
transfer is unequalled. Having never seen a dye transfer print, I can't
comment intelligently on that.

--
Charles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson)

"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers,
treehuggers, social�climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies,
and chronic petition signers that�makes up the current
Episcopal Church . . ." -�Thomas Lipscomb
From: Lew on
APUG looks slick, but it's way over automated. Pages nested in pages etc...
more passwords & profiles to remember, plus a fee for some services ... It's
my firm belief that info & ideas should be exchanged freely and with the
ease and simplicity of this ng. I wonder why the former group of posters
didn't opt for a moderated email list. I use freelists.org for another
platform. It's moderated & everyone's pretty happy with it.

"Charles Hohenstein" <chohensteGeneRobinson(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:chohensteGeneRobinson-1869F8.17453413122008(a)newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <hq2dnfDsC-e2vtnUnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Another reason is the continuing shift of Usenet users
>> to private mailing lists. This is partly to avoid spam and
>> partly because many Usenet lists became pretty uncivilized.
>> Mailing lists are always moderated to some degree where
>> there are few actively moderated Usenet groups now. Too bad.
>
> I'm glad that you have stuck it out on Usenet, Mr. Knoppow. There are
> still people on Usenet who are looking for useful information, and you
> have always been a rich source of it.
>
> At the same time, it would be great to see you on APUG also. The level
> of activity on that site and the collective knowledge represented by the
> members is something marvelous.
>
> In case you are unaware, there is an analogue photography podcast which
> is available on iTunes now. So far the emphasis has been on interviews
> with professional photographers and why they use film for some or all of
> their work, but I'm hoping that there might be some more discussion of
> darkroom matters. There was a long interview with Ctein about dye
> transfer which I found fascinating. He candidly admitted where he found
> digital more useful, but was equally emphatic that for some purposes dye
> transfer is unequalled. Having never seen a dye transfer print, I can't
> comment intelligently on that.
>
> --
> Charles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson)
>
> "The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers,
> treehuggers, social climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies,
> and chronic petition signers that makes up the current
> Episcopal Church . . ." -<Thomas Lipscomb

From: Richard Knoppow on

"Charles Hohenstein" <chohensteGeneRobinson(a)sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message
news:chohensteGeneRobinson-1869F8.17453413122008(a)newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article
> <hq2dnfDsC-e2vtnUnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Another reason is the continuing shift of Usenet
>> users
>> to private mailing lists. This is partly to avoid spam
>> and
>> partly because many Usenet lists became pretty
>> uncivilized.
>> Mailing lists are always moderated to some degree where
>> there are few actively moderated Usenet groups now. Too
>> bad.
>
> I'm glad that you have stuck it out on Usenet, Mr.
> Knoppow. There are
> still people on Usenet who are looking for useful
> information, and you
> have always been a rich source of it.
>
> At the same time, it would be great to see you on APUG
> also. The level
> of activity on that site and the collective knowledge
> represented by the
> members is something marvelous.
>
> In case you are unaware, there is an analogue photography
> podcast which
> is available on iTunes now. So far the emphasis has been
> on interviews
> with professional photographers and why they use film for
> some or all of
> their work, but I'm hoping that there might be some more
> discussion of
> darkroom matters. There was a long interview with Ctein
> about dye
> transfer which I found fascinating. He candidly admitted
> where he found
> digital more useful, but was equally emphatic that for
> some purposes dye
> transfer is unequalled. Having never seen a dye transfer
> print, I can't
> comment intelligently on that.
>
> --
> Charles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson)
>
Thank you very much for the complement:-)
I've seen a fair number of dye transfer prints. They
look very good and seem to hold up fairly well. Dye tranfer
has a long history: the system Kodak sold was actually
bought by them from another company. Kodak had a previous
system called Dye Imbibition, which was similar but the
later version had many improvements. One advantage of DT is
that the images are quite sharp. It was used in the
advertising industry both for proofing and for making
originals to be made into three color printing plates. The
method which preceded Dye Transfer was the three-color
carbon or carbro method. This is an exceedingly fussy and
difficult process although it resulted in beautiful results.
There were a handfull of labs in NYC that specialized in
three-color-carbon to service the advertising business.
Eventually direct photography of large Kodachrome originals
replaced carbon although dye transfer remained a popular
color printing method until computer printing displaced all
photographic methods in the printing trades.
I check into APUG occasionally, but there are now so
many venues for discussion that its hard to keep up with
them. Perhaps I should do it more often, there may be some
old friends there.


--
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com


From: Richard Knoppow on

"Lew" <lew1716(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
news:49443d67$0$4909$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
> so it there a list or 2 that you personally favor? I don't
> mind an off-line response if security is an issue.
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message
> news:hq2dnfDsC-e2vtnUnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
>>
>> "Lew" <lew1716(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4943c9d4$0$4890$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>>> Neat! Thanks!

Not really and I probably don't know of all of them. I
am a member (and co-admistrator) of the Pure-Silver list,
which is on Freelists, and a couple of Rolleiflex lists. For
large format users there is a fair amount of stuff on the
Graflex site at http://www.graflex.org But I like Usenet
and wish it had not been deserted by so many users. In fact,
some ISP's are not even offering Usenet any more although
you can still access most groups throught Google Groups
(which is also a vast source of spam). I check this list,
and the medium and large format groups every day. LF is
pretty much dead.
BTW, I "inhereted" the ownership of the Black & White
group on Google, hardly any activity there.


--
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com


From: Lew on
I'm pretty sure that I'm a member of Pure-Silver but there hasn't been any
activity there for many, many months.

"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:T4-dndLy9chrGtjUnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
>
> "Lew" <lew1716(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:49443d67$0$4909$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>> so it there a list or 2 that you personally favor? I don't mind an
>> off-line response if security is an issue.
>>
>> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq2dnfDsC-e2vtnUnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "Lew" <lew1716(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4943c9d4$0$4890$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>>>> Neat! Thanks!
>
> Not really and I probably don't know of all of them. I am a member (and
> co-admistrator) of the Pure-Silver list, which is on Freelists, and a
> couple of Rolleiflex lists. For large format users there is a fair amount
> of stuff on the Graflex site at http://www.graflex.org But I like Usenet
> and wish it had not been deserted by so many users. In fact, some ISP's
> are not even offering Usenet any more although you can still access most
> groups throught Google Groups (which is also a vast source of spam). I
> check this list, and the medium and large format groups every day. LF is
> pretty much dead.
> BTW, I "inhereted" the ownership of the Black & White group on Google,
> hardly any activity there.
>
>
> --
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com
>

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Cold Tone B&W Paper Developers.
Next: Body lift