RustyBug wrote:
I think you missed the aspect that Moonrise iterations were not merely "copies" of one another. They were continued iterations and revisions over different time frames...
I didn't "miss" that. It is literally in the post ou quote. It seems that you overlooked this when you skimmed my post:
(This is different than the evolution of the photographer’s interpretation of the print over time. There are some remarkable examples of how that changes over the decades, but I digress…)
My posts are already long enough (yeah, too long) that I can't extend them to fully address every possible nuance of every possible variable, which I why I included that parenthetical rather than adding a full coverage of it.
To be clear — and this was my reason for mentioning it but not elaborating — this thing that you missed is about a parallel between digital and analog, and not among the differences that were the subject of the post.
(For anyone interested, there are a bunch of excellent examples of Adams' prints' evolution over time. I've seen great examples in person. One was many years ago at, IIRC, an exhibit in Anchorage that focused on his reinterpretations of the famous photo of a lake and Mt. Denali (then McKinley). Another was a pair of simultaneous exhibits in the SF Bay Area some years back. One at SFMOMA displayed his prints along with O'Keeffe paintings. The other, a smaller exhibit in San Jose, focused on his very early prints, before he became a big name. Some of the early interpretations are remarkably different than the later versions that we know. But that would have been true regardless of whether he used film or digital techniques so it seemed irrelevant to the discussion here that pits digital against film.)
- - -
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Sometimes I get the feeling that some people discussing darkroom work here have either never actually worked in one...
RustyBug wrote:
I think you missed the aspect that Moonrise iterations were not merely "copies" of one another. They were continued iterations and revisions over different time frames...
I didn't "miss" that. It is literally in the post ou quote. It seems that you overlooked this when you skimmed my post:
(This is different than the evolution of the photographer’s interpretation of the print over time. There are some remarkable examples of how that changes over the decades, but I digress…)
My posts are already long enough (yeah, too long) that I can't extend them to fully address every possible nuance of every possible variable, which I why I included that parenthetical rather than adding a full coverage of it.
To be clear — and this was my reason for mentioning it but not elaborating — this thing that you missed is about a parallel between digital and analog, and not among the differences that were the subject of the post.
(For anyone interested, there are a bunch of excellent examples of Adams' prints' evolution over time. I've seen great examples in person. One was many years ago at, IIRC, an exhibit in Anchorage that focused on his reinterpretations of the famous photo of a lake and Mt. Denali (then McKinley). Another was a pair of simultaneous exhibits in the SF Bay Area some years back. One at SFMOMA displayed his prints along with O'Keeffe paintings. The other, a smaller exhibit in San Jose, focused on his very early prints, before he became a big name. Some of the early interpretations are remarkably different than the later versions that we know. But that would have been true regardless of whether he used film or digital techniques so it seemed irrelevant to the discussion here that pits digital against film.)
RustyBug wrote:
I think you missed the aspect that Moonrise iterations were not merely "copies" of one another. They were continued iterations and revisions over different time frames...
I didn't "miss" that, but it seems that you overlooked this when you skimmed my post:
(This is different than the evolution of the photographer’s interpretation of the print over time. There are some remarkable examples of how that changes over the decades, but I digress…)
My posts are already long enough (yeah, too long) that I can't extend them to fully address every possible nuance of every possible variable, which I why I included that parenthetical rather than adding a full coverage of it.
To be clear — and this was my reason for mentioning it but not elaborating — this thing that you missed is about a parallel between digital and analog, and not among the differences that were the subject of the post.
Nov 12, 2025 at 02:53 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16927516 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
