Re: RE: [APML] Mission Statement Change?

[Emmanuele Sordini <vega@ulisse.it>]

Perhaps I should *NOT* be writing this message, thereby contributing to 
this never-ending debate... But sorry, I just couldn't help it.

I think a very good point was made in the message below, and in many others 
as well. The time has gone when bold AP'ers used only manual techniques... 
then along came computers and now "manual" and digital-only photography 
have a lot in common: the source is different, but most techniques are very 
similar if not the same.... and the two "philosophies" can highly benefit 
from each other.

So here's my plea... Just leave it the way it is, with many AP'ers sharing 
their precious experience, mainly about film of course, and no need for 
another ML.... a tiny little venturing into the "dark side", if discreet 
(Rob Gendler is a shining example) won't just harm anybody.
Just my 2 Euro-cents... :-))

Emmanuele Sordini

At 07.55 17/04/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello Shekhar,
>
>     Cute... but maybe everyone on the list should consider what Daphne 
> came up with, which is:
>
>     How many of you on the list still do all your astrophotography with 
> only film, paper, and an enlarger? There may be some, but MOST of you are 
> now DIGITIZING your work by scanning the originals into digital media.
>So in reality, you are really no different than anyone else out there who 
>is working with digital information.
>
>      Hypocrits! If you want to be "oh so pure" and not START with digital 
> information via a CCD, I don't want to see any mention of Photoshop or 
> Picture Window or Registar on this list!
>
>     No.... it's not like that, is it? The reality of this situation is 
> that most of you are clamoring to know more and more about digital 
> processing, and that is a good thing. The only difference between a 
> typical "film" person today and a CCD person is the origin of the data... BFD.
>
>     I learned "CCD" in one lousy week... the reason I could do this is 
> that I already was 80% there... in fact I prefer, and believe, that the 
> digital techniques that I learned processing film are BETTER than any 
> "canned" programs that you can buy for this purpose. Once you learn 
> operation of the camera and the reduction process, it's all the same 
> DIGITAL PROCESSING... sooooo.... unless you still only do your work with 
> an enlarger, no computer... please, any protest over the origin of the 
> DIGITAL DATA is pure hypocrisy, isn't it?
>
>      Tony


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>