Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / August 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

NS

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Gregory W. Blank - 31 Aug 2003 18:01 GMT
Message 5 in threadFrom: J Stafford (john@stafford.net)
Subject: Re: Max Enlargement ?
View this article onlyNewsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 2003-08-28 07:59:49 PST

Last week I saw some prints done by
a colleague of Henry Wilhelm's (Wilhelm is _the_ authoritative source for
color photographic archival quality) and I was _knocked out_ by the
faithful reproduction of detail. I've more research to do but it appears
that obviating the enlarger also obviates the loss of resolution caused by
the enlarging lens. Regardless, it still makes a longer lasting print.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Message 18 in threadFrom: J Stafford (john@stafford.net)
Subject: Re: Max Enlargement ?
View this article onlyNewsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 2003-08-30 17:03:12 PST

In article <uEa4b.15322$CC6.9851@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Gregory W. Blank"
<WhoWill@hear-who.net> wrote:

> But surely if you have read all his stuff it should be rather
> easy,....especially since you spoke to one of his friends to
> produce at least one example?

WTF are we talking about here? I never met one of Wilhelm's friends. There
is no case to cite. I was responding to an empty assertion made by someone
that Kokak (perhaps) disagrees with Wilhelm. The person cited no case on
either side. It's a complex area. Nothing was said. See? There is no case,
no issue.

Signature

"ANFAWFOS"
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

J Stafford - 31 Aug 2003 18:48 GMT
[see the post id]

Greg, I think your message got munged. If you are showing a reference to
my speaking to one of Wilhelm's associates, or Wilhelm himself, you can
see that I never said that. I never met his associate. I only saw his
prints (and I like them.) Further, I don't know HW personally, either. I
spoke to him once briefly about his marvelous Newfoundland dog in passing
on the street in 1974 (or so)  because we  lived in the same town at the
time, and I have not seen him in person since.
Gregory W. Blank - 31 Aug 2003 19:27 GMT
> [see the post id]
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> on the street in 1974 (or so)  because we  lived in the same town at the
> time, and I have not seen him in person since.

I reread it: and obviously you only stated that you had seen the "prints"
but it just goes to show how easy it is get going on a bad line of reasoning
sometimes, and I am not immune to mistakes. Sorry for the confusion
on my part.

Signature

"ANFAWFOS"
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.