"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

The topic is indeed too hot.

Given that very little of a digital photography
workflow takes place in the dark, I don't see any
reason to try to change the traditional darkroom
group's charter.

Dana
P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has
finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high
school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on.

P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has
finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high
school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on.

I wouldn't say that, I shoot digital and I shoot 35 mm film for
some subjects.

&

If your sending out jury slides there certainly is a need for
film. Of course there are other get arounds but its easier to
just shoot slides on a copy stand.

--
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

P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has
finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high
school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on.

I wouldn't say that, I shoot digital and I shoot 35 mm film for
some subjects.

&

If your sending out jury slides there certainly is a need for
film. Of course there are other get arounds but its easier to
just shoot slides on a copy stand.

--
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

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

The topic is indeed too hot.

Given that very little of a digital photography
workflow takes place in the dark, I don't see any
reason to try to change the traditional darkroom
group's charter.

Dana
P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has
finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high
school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on.

I suppose that depends on if you plan to have those images
as data be around for longer than the life of your computer
technology or be passed on to future generations. There's
no such thing as archival digital storage. 35mm photographers
I know who care about the longevity of their work shoot on
film, then scan, or shoot both digital and film.

As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million
home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs,
music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel
and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet no one has
figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for
the next decade, much less for the ages. Like junk e-mail,
the problem of digital archiving, which seems straightforward,
confounds even the experts...To save a digital file for, let's
say, a hundred years is going to take a lot of work," said Peter
Hite, president of Media Management Services, a consulting firm
in Houston. "Whereas to take a traditional photograph and just
put it in a shoe box doesn't take any work." Already, half of
all photographs are taken by digital cameras, with most of the
shots never leaving a personal computer's hard drive."
Even Digital Memories Can Fade, November 10, 2004.

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

The topic is indeed too hot.

Given that very little of a digital photography
workflow takes place in the dark, I don't see any
reason to try to change the traditional darkroom
group's charter.

Dana
P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has
finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high
school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on.

I suppose that depends on if you plan to have those images
as data be around for longer than the life of your computer
technology or be passed on to future generations. There's
no such thing as archival digital storage. 35mm photographers
I know who care about the longevity of their work shoot on
film, then scan, or shoot both digital and film.

As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million
home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs,
music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel
and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet no one has
figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for
the next decade, much less for the ages. Like junk e-mail,
the problem of digital archiving, which seems straightforward,
confounds even the experts...To save a digital file for, let's
say, a hundred years is going to take a lot of work," said Peter
Hite, president of Media Management Services, a consulting firm
in Houston. "Whereas to take a traditional photograph and just
put it in a shoe box doesn't take any work." Already, half of
all photographs are taken by digital cameras, with most of the
shots never leaving a personal computer's hard drive."
Even Digital Memories Can Fade, November 10, 2004.

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

The topic is indeed too hot.

Given that very little of a digital photography
workflow takes place in the dark, I don't see any
reason to try to change the traditional darkroom
group's charter.

Dana
P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has
finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high
school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on.

I suppose that depends on if you plan to have those images
as data be around for longer than the life of your computer
technology or be passed on to future generations. There's
no such thing as archival digital storage. 35mm photographers
I know who care about the longevity of their work shoot on
film, then scan, or shoot both digital and film.

As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million
home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs,
music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel
and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet no one has
figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for
the next decade, much less for the ages. Like junk e-mail,
the problem of digital archiving, which seems straightforward,
confounds even the experts...To save a digital file for, let's
say, a hundred years is going to take a lot of work," said Peter
Hite, president of Media Management Services, a consulting firm
in Houston. "Whereas to take a traditional photograph and just
put it in a shoe box doesn't take any work." Already, half of
all photographs are taken by digital cameras, with most of the
shots never leaving a personal computer's hard drive."
Even Digital Memories Can Fade, November 10, 2004.

Tom Phillips wrote:

As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million
home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs,
music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel
and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet no one has
figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for
the next decade, much less for the ages.


As a person who does a bit of geneology research and whose Father has
done a lot of the same, I know without a doubt that we would have been
hindered greatly in our research by a lack photographs, and possibly
even more so by the lack of "notes on the backs of photos" had we not
had the photos in the first place. So, I fully agree that until we get
"digital" storage figured out, analog is going to be the more secure method.

But..... just to add another direction of thought...

"I" care about archived information. Does the average person? The
average "Wally" or "June" who's born, lives, goes to baseball games, PTA
meetings, gets ill and dies.....do they care? Is this "mountain" of
information relevant/important to them at all? How much of it really
does need to be saved after all? If I had my druthers, we'd save all of
it, but I'm not sure that we can economically do that, even (and
possibly especially) in analog format.

just a thought...

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

Tom Phillips wrote:

As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million
home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs,
music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel
and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet no one has
figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for
the next decade, much less for the ages.


As a person who does a bit of geneology research and whose Father has
done a lot of the same, I know without a doubt that we would have been
hindered greatly in our research by a lack photographs, and possibly
even more so by the lack of "notes on the backs of photos" had we not
had the photos in the first place. So, I fully agree that until we get
"digital" storage figured out, analog is going to be the more secure method.

But..... just to add another direction of thought...

"I" care about archived information. Does the average person? The
average "Wally" or "June" who's born, lives, goes to baseball games, PTA
meetings, gets ill and dies.....do they care? Is this "mountain" of
information relevant/important to them at all? How much of it really
does need to be saved after all? If I had my druthers, we'd save all of
it, but I'm not sure that we can economically do that, even (and
possibly especially) in analog format.

just a thought...

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

John Bartley wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million
home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs,
music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel
and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet no one has
figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for
the next decade, much less for the ages.


As a person who does a bit of geneology research and whose Father has
done a lot of the same, I know without a doubt that we would have been
hindered greatly in our research by a lack photographs, and possibly
even more so by the lack of "notes on the backs of photos" had we not
had the photos in the first place. So, I fully agree that until we get
"digital" storage figured out, analog is going to be the more secure method.

But..... just to add another direction of thought...

"I" care about archived information. Does the average person? The
average "Wally" or "June" who's born, lives, goes to baseball games, PTA
meetings, gets ill and dies.....do they care? Is this "mountain" of
information relevant/important to them at all? How much of it really
does need to be saved after all? If I had my druthers, we'd save all of
it, but I'm not sure that we can economically do that, even (and
possibly especially) in analog format.

just a thought...

Well it isn't necessarily a matter of public archiving
(if that's what you're referring to "economically.")
In my family they cared enough to archive photos
dating back 120 years, and American family history
to the revolutionary war. I think most people
consider their family history and mementos pretty
important. This is what I was really referring to, as
opposed to government archiving. OTOH the government
has been archiving stuff in analog form for a long time.
I mean, of what use is a digital archive (other than
for purely informational purposes) of original artwork
or documents, such as an original copy of Thomas Paine's
Common Sense? Or Joseph Nicephors Niepce's first extant
1827 photograph? It's the originals that have value, not
the scanned copies.

In article ,
John Bartley wrote:


But..... just to add another direction of thought...

"I" care about archived information. Does the average person? The
average "Wally" or "June" who's born, lives, goes to baseball games, PTA
meetings, gets ill and dies.....do they care? Is this "mountain" of
information relevant/important to them at all? How much of it really
does need to be saved after all? If I had my druthers, we'd save all of
it, but I'm not sure that we can economically do that, even (and
possibly especially) in analog format.

just a thought...

Yes after the California wild fires and the Florida Hurricanes I've
heard people interviewed on the news say "the thing we can't replace
are all our photographs, Our memories".

--
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