If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Clara wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... sally wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... Matt Clara wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: Richard Knoppow wrote: If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a picture. The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of that data. This is what digital does. It is not what photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. Oh, come on, give it up; admit that all you're doing is engaging in semantic hair-splitting. Yeah, and all you're doing is trolling. Maybe you and scarpitti are related... Your argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major". ;-) And you ignore that what you say is meaningless if you can't offer a valid argument... ..So, take your thumbs out of your armpits and make a case or disprove mine -- if you can. BTW, I hang with LOTS of degreed people. Some are stupider than a troll. A degree means nothing more than the effort required to obtain it, and some the most brilliant human beings in history had no "degrees." It doesn't mean intelligence or clarity of understanding. So you know where you can put your degree argument. All I'm saying is, to people who are out there seriously making images with cameras such as myself, you can call it anything you'd like, we've got a "mission" to accomplish. And you're the one who brought up your degree--I was just giving you a hard time about it. I did not mention anything about degrees. yours, mine, or anyone else's. As for your argument that David N. is a troll because he responded to your post here in a new thread, I must disagree. A troll makes It was crossposted minus the original thread/posts. Deliberately. As in deliberately out of context. That's Trolling with a capital T. Your grasp of what it means to troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not. A photograph is not merely anything you hang on the wall (a very shallow and superficial defintion.) If that were true, my Sierra Club calendar of images would also be equal to a collection of photographs. They're not. They're offset reproductions. The _process_ determines what a photograph is and isn't, not the resulting "picture." Digital is not a photographic process. It's an electronic data imaging process that in scienitific reality produces no optical image. Ever. Only the photochemical process actually writes an image with light. Digital does not write with light, it transmits a photoelectric signal and no image is produced. Period. Digital images are rather reproduced output (like the calendar) from digital signals, not from light. I just don't know why this is seems such an abstract a concept to people. One produces an image; the other creates a file. Not really complicated or abstract. As regards the terminology (i.e., use of the terms photograph/ photographic) we are talking about a scientific application of a scientific term for a scientific process, which photographgy is -- not the evolving common English vernacular. As an professed English MA, you should well know the difference. Examine the process, not the idiomatic usage. comments/questions with the intent of disrupting a newsgroup. This is an attempt at a serious discussion--albeit, serious about something trivial. The fact that he moved it here tells me he wants to see the people frequenting this group respond. As a citizen of usenet, he's free to do that, nor is it in violation of any usenet charter that I'm aware of, provided the thread is ontopic for the group(s) in question. Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls... It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own. At any rate, I made no claims one way or the other as to what constitutes a photograph, ergo your claim that my "grasp of what it means to troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not" is little more than an ad hominem insult. You're good at those, too bad your ability to put your emotions aside and _really_ look at what a person is saying is less developed. As for my comment on degrees, you said, and I quote, " English was my major (along with photography) in college" (as though that proves something concerning your ability to discern semantic nuance--it does not, and is a very poor argument on your part). So, yeah, I guess you're right, you could have an English major without a degree. But then that's playing at semantics again--story of your life, apparently. Finally, you're the only one I see disrupting the group with your angry arguments, so I guess that makes you the troll, yes? Yes. For an English MA you don't read a thread very well, do you? _I_ didn't post this thread. But the thread has _my_ name in the subject. Now, wonder why that is? ANSWER: a troll took it from another nsg and posted it here. IT'S CALLED FLAMING. GET IT??? Know what trolling and flaming are? If not you need to go back to USENET school. 101. BTW, you said, and I quote: "Your [my] argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major"." Well, now, I was merely stating I had a background in English, i.e., I understand both semantics and photography. Gee, shoot me. But like the troll you merely make unfounded assertions and ad hominems (appeals to personal considerations rather than sound argument.) In others words _you_ began this exchange, and attack. I have at least made posts based on logical argumentation for the most part. Of course most of those posts relating to this misappropriated thead are in _another_ nsg (get it?), where the referenced subject actually is. Your argument is (1) a fallacy, since you cannot possibly speak for "any photographer living or dead." (2) An appeal to your own superiority (also a fallacy) which was in fact an intended as an insult. (3) I am a photographer (sorry, but that means a schooled photographer who knows more than just what _your_ point and shoot digital camera manual tells you...) and I know many other photographers (probably more than you do) and none consider this issue "meaningless." I won't waste my time with your tantrums any longer. Uh oh. What will I do now? |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Clara wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... sally wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... Matt Clara wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... David Nebenzahl wrote: On 10/18/2004 8:54 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: Richard Knoppow wrote: If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a picture. The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of that data. This is what digital does. It is not what photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. Oh, come on, give it up; admit that all you're doing is engaging in semantic hair-splitting. Yeah, and all you're doing is trolling. Maybe you and scarpitti are related... Your argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major". ;-) And you ignore that what you say is meaningless if you can't offer a valid argument... ..So, take your thumbs out of your armpits and make a case or disprove mine -- if you can. BTW, I hang with LOTS of degreed people. Some are stupider than a troll. A degree means nothing more than the effort required to obtain it, and some the most brilliant human beings in history had no "degrees." It doesn't mean intelligence or clarity of understanding. So you know where you can put your degree argument. All I'm saying is, to people who are out there seriously making images with cameras such as myself, you can call it anything you'd like, we've got a "mission" to accomplish. And you're the one who brought up your degree--I was just giving you a hard time about it. I did not mention anything about degrees. yours, mine, or anyone else's. As for your argument that David N. is a troll because he responded to your post here in a new thread, I must disagree. A troll makes It was crossposted minus the original thread/posts. Deliberately. As in deliberately out of context. That's Trolling with a capital T. Your grasp of what it means to troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not. A photograph is not merely anything you hang on the wall (a very shallow and superficial defintion.) If that were true, my Sierra Club calendar of images would also be equal to a collection of photographs. They're not. They're offset reproductions. The _process_ determines what a photograph is and isn't, not the resulting "picture." Digital is not a photographic process. It's an electronic data imaging process that in scienitific reality produces no optical image. Ever. Only the photochemical process actually writes an image with light. Digital does not write with light, it transmits a photoelectric signal and no image is produced. Period. Digital images are rather reproduced output (like the calendar) from digital signals, not from light. I just don't know why this is seems such an abstract a concept to people. One produces an image; the other creates a file. Not really complicated or abstract. As regards the terminology (i.e., use of the terms photograph/ photographic) we are talking about a scientific application of a scientific term for a scientific process, which photographgy is -- not the evolving common English vernacular. As an professed English MA, you should well know the difference. Examine the process, not the idiomatic usage. comments/questions with the intent of disrupting a newsgroup. This is an attempt at a serious discussion--albeit, serious about something trivial. The fact that he moved it here tells me he wants to see the people frequenting this group respond. As a citizen of usenet, he's free to do that, nor is it in violation of any usenet charter that I'm aware of, provided the thread is ontopic for the group(s) in question. Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls... It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own. At any rate, I made no claims one way or the other as to what constitutes a photograph, ergo your claim that my "grasp of what it means to troll seems as poor as your grasp of what a photograph is and is not" is little more than an ad hominem insult. You're good at those, too bad your ability to put your emotions aside and _really_ look at what a person is saying is less developed. As for my comment on degrees, you said, and I quote, " English was my major (along with photography) in college" (as though that proves something concerning your ability to discern semantic nuance--it does not, and is a very poor argument on your part). So, yeah, I guess you're right, you could have an English major without a degree. But then that's playing at semantics again--story of your life, apparently. Finally, you're the only one I see disrupting the group with your angry arguments, so I guess that makes you the troll, yes? Yes. For an English MA you don't read a thread very well, do you? _I_ didn't post this thread. But the thread has _my_ name in the subject. Now, wonder why that is? ANSWER: a troll took it from another nsg and posted it here. IT'S CALLED FLAMING. GET IT??? Know what trolling and flaming are? If not you need to go back to USENET school. 101. BTW, you said, and I quote: "Your [my] argument is absolutely meaningless to any photographer living or dead. And I have a masters in English, so that trumps your "major"." Well, now, I was merely stating I had a background in English, i.e., I understand both semantics and photography. Gee, shoot me. But like the troll you merely make unfounded assertions and ad hominems (appeals to personal considerations rather than sound argument.) In others words _you_ began this exchange, and attack. I have at least made posts based on logical argumentation for the most part. Of course most of those posts relating to this misappropriated thead are in _another_ nsg (get it?), where the referenced subject actually is. Your argument is (1) a fallacy, since you cannot possibly speak for "any photographer living or dead." (2) An appeal to your own superiority (also a fallacy) which was in fact an intended as an insult. (3) I am a photographer (sorry, but that means a schooled photographer who knows more than just what _your_ point and shoot digital camera manual tells you...) and I know many other photographers (probably more than you do) and none consider this issue "meaningless." I won't waste my time with your tantrums any longer. Uh oh. What will I do now? |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
... [...] The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently) in order to market digital as "digital film." Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy! |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
... [...] The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently) in order to market digital as "digital film." Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy! |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... [...] The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently) in order to market digital as "digital film." Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy! I don't know why these things are so difficult for people to understand. P.T. Barnum must have been reincarnated as a semiconductor CEO... |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... [...] The term "photography" has been abducted (conveniently) in order to market digital as "digital film." Right on. Only marketeers would invent the term "digital film". Just crazy! I don't know why these things are so difficult for people to understand. P.T. Barnum must have been reincarnated as a semiconductor CEO... |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote: Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls... It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own. HE-HE ,....Its rather Trollish behavior of him, wouldn't you say there Sal ;-) |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote: Trolls are free to post. I am free to call them trolls... It's funny how you seem to be insulted by any opinion contrary to your own. HE-HE ,....Its rather Trollish behavior of him, wouldn't you say there Sal ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RANT- Reality Check-"The Early Days of Digital Photography" | Drifter | Digital Photography | 40 | October 9th 04 12:02 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | Digital Photography | 466 | September 8th 04 07:33 PM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 3rd 04 04:03 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |