Well, I sort of know him. He's given me free, totally helpful advice a few times, and quite a few other people, so that's a little credit he's built up. And it's the opinion of quite a few others that he knows a bit about PS, printing, etc. As for kissing... that's something I emphatically don't/won't do, ever, to anyone. I WILL say when I find someone refreshing, amusing, sometimes bloody irritating, but overall worth having around.
As for you taking my comment for "zip", that's fine by me as I don't know you... But, Pete, I don't want to get into a fight with you. Nobody wins those silly contests. Just wanted to say I think Schewe is good to have around and I thought the tone and language of your post was not the sort of thing that belongs in a professional community like this usually is. That's me done on this.
Looks like he doesn't know Stuffit Expander and hence has a hard time comprehending the full
meaning of your comment.
This being my first post (hello everyone!) I can't help but wonder why there's always so much bickering going on in forums, all forums for that matter? (Have people no wives to listen to?)
Anyhow, I enjoy and appreciate the wealth of knowledge the members on this forum share with each other.
Regarding the "painting with light" comment ... Greek words phos ("light"), and graphis ("stylus", "paintbrush") or graphν, together meaning "drawing with light" ... indeed, it is the meaning of the word photography which became the name of a new technology. Yet, it is per se not the definition in which way/style/kind/form this "drawing with light" has to be achieved.
Let's step away from cameras, film or digital, for a moment.
I presume everyone here is familiar with the works of the old Dutch Master Rembrandt van Ryn.
He was the first to develop to perfection a new technique that entailed the concentration of light and the diffusion of luminosity from the deepest shade/darkness. Rembrandt's method became an entirely new direction in art expression and is regarded today as the key feature of the Dutch school (of painting) that followed in his footsteps.
I apologize for the history lesson. The reason why I'm bringing this up is simple. Rembrandt's technique can be summed up nicely as 'painting with light."
So in the widest sense of its meaning, instead of a camera loaded with film or containing a digital sensor, he used oil and canvas for his "photography."
Considering this, digital photography is just a sign of the times. As film was to plates, silver-plated copper, and photosensitive paper. And once a 'new kid on the block' is advanced enough to surpass its predecessors, differences can only be measured in units of taste or personal preference.
PS: By the way, the first Dutch artist of stature to break with the traditions of the Dutch school was Vincent van Gogh 200+ years later. Today he is considered a Dutch Post-Impressionist artist and the predecessor of Expressionism.
Guess, his revolutionary paintings must have caused a similar stir in emotions as digital photography does today. Funny how history tends to repeat itself.