I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

Well, this has been debated before...and it didn't get anywhere then.
BUT here is how dictionary.com defines photograph:
pho=B7to=B7graph ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ft-grf)
n=2E An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and
reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

v=2E pho=B7to=B7graphed, pho=B7to=B7graph=B7ing, pho=B7to=B7graphs
v=2E tr.
To take a photograph of.

v=2E intr.
To practice photography.
To be the subject for photographs: She photographs well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
photo=B7grapha=B7ble adj.
pho=B7togra=B7pher (f-tgr-fr) n.
Source: The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright =A9 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

photograph

n : a picture of a person or scene in the form of a print or
transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material
[syn: photo, exposure, pic] v 1: record on photographic film; "I
photographed the scene of the accident"; "She snapped a picture of the
President" [syn: snap, shoot] 2: undergo being photographed in a
certain way; "Children photograph well"


Source: WordNet =AE 2.0, =A9 2003 Princeton University

Hope that helps.

BTW, the first photograph didn't use a lens at all.

Another Scarpitti falsehood.



Fitpix wrote:
Another "all that really counts is the picture on the wall"
excuse. If that were true, there'd be no distinction between
_any_ image. I.e., we (and every gallery owner everywhere)
wouldn't make distinctions between different mediums of
image making and the resulting type of prints. You have it
completely backwards -- or clearly haven't exhibited in too
many galleries, since what is _always_ noted is the _type_ of
image/print being displayed. People (curators and especially
buyers who plunk down their money for artwork) want to know
what type of image and process they're getting. It's sort of
the whole point.

Paintings are "images," as are X-rays (Man Ray), Carbon prints,
Cyanotypes, and even television. But they're different images
and different processes. Digital "images" are not photographs.
They're electronic data imaging produced photoelectrically.
There is no image, just data representing an image, until one
outputs that data in a print form. It may be an inkjet, a "giclee,"
or a Lightjet. But it's not a photograph same as a classic silver
image. Apples and oranges...

Tom, are you saying I am no longer a photographer because I switched
to
digital? I am not looking for a fight mind you, I am trying to
understand
why a digital shooter wouldn't be considered a photographer. As far
as the
"image is what counts" argument..... I believe in this line of
thinking. I
can go out and shoot a stream in my film slr and my digital slr and
get the
same quality 11x14 print to hang in a gallery. You can argue all you
want
about the numbers etc, I know because I have seen the prints side by
side. I
have always said that film or digital,a great photo is a great photo.
Now I
do not count an image where someone has added in other elements, I
count
them in a separate (but not necessarily lower class) of image, but
dodging
and burning and exposure compensation aredone in both the wet
darkroom and
the digital darkroom. Digital montages are in a class by themselves.
As far
as large format is concerned, I am not saying my 20D can come even
close to
comparing to 4x5 or larger photos, or medium format for that matter.
It does
however rival the image quality of 35mm.

My wife just made a good point....is a wireless or cellphone still a
phone?
Doesn't have the curling umblical yet works the same way.....
=20
be safe,
D

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.

Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
it ;-)

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Frank Pittel wrote:

A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.

Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
it ;-)

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
: for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.

: Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
: photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
: shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
: cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
: a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
: it ;-)

Since digital "imaging" isn't photography and photography isn't art can
digital imaging by art?? ( this should get a good flame war going! :-) )

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints I made from it compare
very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
with an enlarger!! I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.

Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
: for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.

: Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
: photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
: shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
: cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
: a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
: it ;-)

Since digital "imaging" isn't photography and photography isn't art can
digital imaging by art?? ( this should get a good flame war going! :-) )

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints I made from it compare
very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
with an enlarger!! I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.

Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:25:06 -0600, Frank Pittel
wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


He's best ignored.

But snipping's good as a replacement for the action you'd really like
to perform, in person.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:25:06 -0600, Frank Pittel
wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:


He's best ignored.

But snipping's good as a replacement for the action you'd really like
to perform, in person.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
: for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.

: Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
: photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
: shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
: cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
: a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
: it ;-)

Since digital "imaging" isn't photography and photography isn't art can
digital imaging by art?? ( this should get a good flame war going! :-) )

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints

No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
under the same output conditions for an honest side
by side qualitative comparison.

I made from it compare
very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
with an enlarger!!

True, real world comparison:

Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
is different.

Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
though I doubt you'll need the loupe.

BTW, for typical consumer digital cameras (the p&s
most people buy) 4MP isn't really "obsolete." Still
very common. Most don't spend $7,000 on a prosumer
digital camera with 10-11 MP. The Sinar digital cameras
I've used provide about 25MP, about equivalent to 35mm
film, and having shot Kodachrome for years and seen
30x40 prints from such, I'm just not impressed with less.

Now, if you want a real world LF test do the same but
enlarge to 50, 60, or even 120 inches.

I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.

Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)

A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
a good choice or not.


Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory Blank wrote:
: In article ,
: Frank Pittel wrote:
:
: A person can buy a real nice LF camera and a nice selection of lenses
: for the price of one of those 10+mp cameras.

: Hey but then the person might have to actually learn something about
: photography instead of just snapping away carelessly hoping for good
: shots out of the 1,000's of "free" pictures one can take with digidiot
: cam ;-) And since photography isn't art and is a dead media who gives
: a rats ass if five years from now no one can support themselves by doing
: it ;-)

Since digital "imaging" isn't photography and photography isn't art can
digital imaging by art?? ( this should get a good flame war going! :-) )

I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of grief here but last weekend I got an
Epson 2200 and made a print from an image I took with my long obsolete 4mp
digital P&S. All I can say is that the 8x10 prints

No grief, just not a true comparison. Inkjets are
sprayed ink which gives the impression of "continuous
tone" and detail, but in reality it's a bunch of dots
smeared across the paper at 300 dpi that lack true
detail. You also need to compare the _same_ subject
under the same output conditions for an honest side
by side qualitative comparison.

I made from it compare
very well with 8x10 prints I made from 35mm negatives and hours in a darkroom
with an enlarger!!

True, real world comparison:

Try a 16x20 print (_assuming_ you have a high quality
negative with fine grain and good detail), but this
time take it to a pro lab and get high end Lightjet
prints (photochemical output.) You don't need a lot
of pixel resolution to make a 8x10 smeared inkjet look
halfway "good" to the eye, but real photographic output
is different.

Photograph a subject with very fine detail (a product
type shot of a herringbone patterned sport coat.) Then
have your film scanned with a high end film scanner
like the Imacon (which is what my pro lab uses; for
most purposes it's almost as good as a more expensive
drum scan but far cheaper.) Again, assuming a high
resolving 35mm film, scan at 300 pixels per inch and
output to a 16x20. Then have them output the 4MP file
to the same 16x20. Or if you want, borrow a typical
prosumer 6 MP camera. Get a decent loupe and compare,
though I doubt you'll need the loupe.

BTW, for typical consumer digital cameras (the p&s
most people buy) 4MP isn't really "obsolete." Still
very common. Most don't spend $7,000 on a prosumer
digital camera with 10-11 MP. The Sinar digital cameras
I've used provide about 25MP, about equivalent to 35mm
film, and having shot Kodachrome for years and seen
30x40 prints from such, I'm just not impressed with less.

Now, if you want a real world LF test do the same but
enlarge to 50, 60, or even 120 inches.

I also just got home a little while ago with an Epson 4870
scanner. Tomorrow I start scanning the hundreds of 4x5 negatives I have.

Tom will be happy to read that I still intend to do the image capture with
my 4x5 and will keep the negatives for archival purposes. :-) :-) :-)

A smart choice. I'm not familiar with the Epson
film scanners, though. So I couldn't say if that's
a good choice or not.


Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Gregory Blank wrote:

I am not Tom, but because I love these little controversies I must reply
I also like the way the post is crossed !!! LOL.


No using a digital camera, it does not make you not a photographer "you
are using light" I presume. But your not a film photographer and the
captured images as Tom has stated are nothing but a signal until made
manifest on paper.


Your a digital photographer. Just as there is a distinction between an
Oil Painter and a Watercolorist. Neither is more correct or valid,they
just are. There is no digital darkroom, its a catchy phrase though.


It's true there is no digital need for a dark room, the term "digital
darkroom", does have meaning for anyone who understands the photographic
processes, especially if you have done traditional film processing. I
closed my darkroom in 1980, I still can't stand the smell of vinegar, to
this very day. I recently saw a great product though, Ilford's
odourless stop bath. I am in the process of looking at cross-over
processing, and that will open a whole new era of photography for me.

Shoot film.
Process film (the kitchen will do).
Scan film into computer.
Colour balance and adjust.
Print on inkjet printer on nice paper.
Mount print with a nice mat border.
Frame, optionally behind glass.

One option this introduces, is the ability to shoot colour film, and
print a B&W print, something that I never had much success with, back in
the darkroom days.

W