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 |
#1011
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"John" wrote: The only good thing about digital imaging is that we can just simply hit the delete key and erase someone's entire archive ;)) On the other hand, the bad thing is that a digital image released to the internet is likely to live forever, for better and worse. you mean until the next big economic downturn? :P -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#1012
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"John" wrote: The only good thing about digital imaging is that we can just simply hit the delete key and erase someone's entire archive ;)) On the other hand, the bad thing is that a digital image released to the internet is likely to live forever, for better and worse. you mean until the next big economic downturn? :P -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#1013
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"rafeb" wrote in message om... Damn, I keep hearing "marketers" drug into these discussions and it ****es me off. The implication is that those of us who use digital imaging are too stupid to think for ourselves. And _that's_ why you film Luddites annoy me. At first I was hurt by your objection, then I realized there's a way to aggravate you even more. Next week I will begin shooting color on film without color film, then I can declare a deeper, more genuine and, pure photography than you or even tomfill-lips can endure. B&W film and filters? Will you be using just the colour primaries or some alternative set? On a serious note, Rafe, don't you agree that mastering digital imaging is at least as challenging as mastering convention film work? The keyword is Mastering. Best, jjs -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#1014
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"rafeb" wrote in message om... Damn, I keep hearing "marketers" drug into these discussions and it ****es me off. The implication is that those of us who use digital imaging are too stupid to think for ourselves. And _that's_ why you film Luddites annoy me. At first I was hurt by your objection, then I realized there's a way to aggravate you even more. Next week I will begin shooting color on film without color film, then I can declare a deeper, more genuine and, pure photography than you or even tomfill-lips can endure. B&W film and filters? Will you be using just the colour primaries or some alternative set? On a serious note, Rafe, don't you agree that mastering digital imaging is at least as challenging as mastering convention film work? The keyword is Mastering. Best, jjs -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#1015
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:45:22 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote: As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction. "by the chemical action of light " Did I miss something ? Does this state "electronic" in some form that I'm not familiar with ? You missed something because you snipped what you wanted to ignore. The fact is, both the negatives and prints *are* made via the "chemical action of light *or other radiant energy*". I snipped irrelevant opinion. Perhaps you mean : As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction. Again, "by the chemical action of light ". This has nothing to do with computers or electronics. So,the image of the object (in this case, a drawing that was created using a computer) was produced upon a photosensitive surface (i.e. an 8x10 color negative in the film recorder) and printed via traditional wet darkroom techniques. Looking closely at the image, you would see every quality, including grain, that any other photograph exhibits. Ah ! So you contend that anything dreamed up in Photoshop, written to film and subsequently printed is a photograph ? Ummmm, no. It is a digital image that was translated to analog. It is still DI. You have no valid point. Perhaps you could give me a better explanation as to why you believe this ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#1016
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:45:22 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote: As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction. "by the chemical action of light " Did I miss something ? Does this state "electronic" in some form that I'm not familiar with ? You missed something because you snipped what you wanted to ignore. The fact is, both the negatives and prints *are* made via the "chemical action of light *or other radiant energy*". I snipped irrelevant opinion. Perhaps you mean : As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction. Again, "by the chemical action of light ". This has nothing to do with computers or electronics. So,the image of the object (in this case, a drawing that was created using a computer) was produced upon a photosensitive surface (i.e. an 8x10 color negative in the film recorder) and printed via traditional wet darkroom techniques. Looking closely at the image, you would see every quality, including grain, that any other photograph exhibits. Ah ! So you contend that anything dreamed up in Photoshop, written to film and subsequently printed is a photograph ? Ummmm, no. It is a digital image that was translated to analog. It is still DI. You have no valid point. Perhaps you could give me a better explanation as to why you believe this ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#1017
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:45:22 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote: As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction. "by the chemical action of light " Did I miss something ? Does this state "electronic" in some form that I'm not familiar with ? You missed something because you snipped what you wanted to ignore. The fact is, both the negatives and prints *are* made via the "chemical action of light *or other radiant energy*". I snipped irrelevant opinion. Perhaps you mean : As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction. Again, "by the chemical action of light ". This has nothing to do with computers or electronics. So,the image of the object (in this case, a drawing that was created using a computer) was produced upon a photosensitive surface (i.e. an 8x10 color negative in the film recorder) and printed via traditional wet darkroom techniques. Looking closely at the image, you would see every quality, including grain, that any other photograph exhibits. Ah ! So you contend that anything dreamed up in Photoshop, written to film and subsequently printed is a photograph ? Ummmm, no. It is a digital image that was translated to analog. It is still DI. You have no valid point. Perhaps you could give me a better explanation as to why you believe this ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#1018
|
|||
|
|||
Who cares?
You should be shooting color anyway! Jin Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: Forecast the future of B&W. Where do you think it will be in: 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? If there is enough participation the average of the predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate. |
#1019
|
|||
|
|||
Who cares?
You should be shooting color anyway! Jin Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: Forecast the future of B&W. Where do you think it will be in: 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? If there is enough participation the average of the predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate. |
#1020
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:32:21 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote: In rec.photo.darkroom rafeb wrote: I believe this had already been done in the 19th century. Three aligned cameras each capturing images onto plates through three color filters. Frederick E. Ives (Jean-David Beyer's great-grandfather) was a pioneer in this in the 1890s. Wish I had the link. IIRC the photographer and subjects were Russian. You are thinking of the Prokudin-Gorskii exhibit at the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ They are amazing pictures. Prokudin-Gorskii was fairly early, but he was by no means the first to do this. It is interesting to note that Prokudin-Gorskii began his colour work just after Wratten and Wainwright made the first commercially available panchromatic plates (1906). Before that time, the photographer would have to treat plates with dye sensitizers himself. If he used Wratten plates and filters, colour balance should have been pretty good. Wratten gave detailed information about the relative exposures for tri-colour work with various light sources. That's the one. Particularly remember this one: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg I'd like to ask Wayne or Puresilver or Tom Fill Lips if they thought this latest generation of images could _possibly_ have been done, to this quality, without digital processing. (It clearly was not "DI.") rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | William Graham | Digital Photography | 0 | November 7th 04 11:20 PM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | William Graham | Digital Photography | 0 | November 7th 04 11:18 PM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | Linda_N | Digital Photography | 0 | November 6th 04 02:08 PM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | ArtKramr | Digital Photography | 4 | November 4th 04 11:00 PM |