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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I have to agree with Gregory. There is no darkroom in digtal and no
digital in darkroom. Note that the charter states : rec.photo.darkroom Developing, printing and other darkroom issues This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects of photographic darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing from negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative chemistry. This newsgroup specifically does *NOT* permit the posting of commercial advertisments for products or services, even if they are related to photography. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Let's cut a charter for a new group. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Let's cut a charter for a new group. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com mar2705 from Lloyd Erlick, Recently Rafe posted the following: .... Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom, but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf, and that is that both these groups (and I suspect yours as well) are essentially moribund. And I suspect we all know why. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com .... None of these groups is moribund. It's possible that events have necessitated some changes in terminology, such as 'rpe-large format film' or some such, but on the whole I find discussion of digitally based activities uninteresting and would prefer to be able to keep myself out of them. The recent threads that have been cross-posted to rp-darkroom have included a good deal of name calling and mocking of individiuals' real names. I prefer to remain apart from such discussions. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com mar2705 from Lloyd Erlick, Recently Rafe posted the following: .... Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom, but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf, and that is that both these groups (and I suspect yours as well) are essentially moribund. And I suspect we all know why. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com .... None of these groups is moribund. It's possible that events have necessitated some changes in terminology, such as 'rpe-large format film' or some such, but on the whole I find discussion of digitally based activities uninteresting and would prefer to be able to keep myself out of them. The recent threads that have been cross-posted to rp-darkroom have included a good deal of name calling and mocking of individiuals' real names. I prefer to remain apart from such discussions. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"rafe bustin" wrote
"digital darkroom in r.p.d.?" Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. In the interest civil discourse, I would keep digital out of r.p.d. No two people seem to be able to agree on just what is 'digital' and if it is photographic. Some can't even agree with themselves. If that's the case, there ought to be a group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom or some such. There are a slew of groups dedicated to the processing of digital images at: comp.graphics.apps.* covering PhotoShop and a whole mess of others. The PhotoShop group has a respectable amount of traffic. This should give the 'digital is not photography' faction of r.p.d. a pleasant feeling of schadenfruede: "See, the digital imaging groups don't even have 'photo' in the name. Nya, nya!" That's why I asked. I don't see anything in the name or charter that excludes digital darkroom, Nothing excluding space aliens either. In my version of 'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem to exclude digital imaging from the group. Where technologies are combined, as in silver negs with digital contrast masks, I would keep it in rpd. And I would amend the charter to prohibit discussions on the definition of photography - if someone can't recognize photography when he sees it then he shouldn't be here. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"rafe bustin" wrote
"digital darkroom in r.p.d.?" Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. In the interest civil discourse, I would keep digital out of r.p.d. No two people seem to be able to agree on just what is 'digital' and if it is photographic. Some can't even agree with themselves. If that's the case, there ought to be a group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom or some such. There are a slew of groups dedicated to the processing of digital images at: comp.graphics.apps.* covering PhotoShop and a whole mess of others. The PhotoShop group has a respectable amount of traffic. This should give the 'digital is not photography' faction of r.p.d. a pleasant feeling of schadenfruede: "See, the digital imaging groups don't even have 'photo' in the name. Nya, nya!" That's why I asked. I don't see anything in the name or charter that excludes digital darkroom, Nothing excluding space aliens either. In my version of 'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem to exclude digital imaging from the group. Where technologies are combined, as in silver negs with digital contrast masks, I would keep it in rpd. And I would amend the charter to prohibit discussions on the definition of photography - if someone can't recognize photography when he sees it then he shouldn't be here. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
Let's cut a charter for a new group. What's the point? If you "need" a charter in order to start a new group, then so be it. Otherwise, charters only serve a useful purpose if they're enforced. These are unmoderated groups. Charters aren't enforceable. The charter is useless. cheers -- 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?) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
Let's cut a charter for a new group. What's the point? If you "need" a charter in order to start a new group, then so be it. Otherwise, charters only serve a useful purpose if they're enforced. These are unmoderated groups. Charters aren't enforceable. The charter is useless. cheers -- 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?) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. What does digital image processing have in common with a real darkroom, that it should be discussed in this group? In both cases you can start with a negative (or a slide) and end up with a photo, but as far as I can see all steps in between are completely different. (I can see a point in discussing the opposite: how to replicate in a real darkroom what you can do with Photoshop. What is a simple levels or curves in Photoshop would be quite tricky in darkroom color photo printing). -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital darkroom | Paul Friday | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 84 | July 9th 04 05:26 AM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
"Darkroom vs. digital" | Mike | In The Darkroom | 0 | June 17th 04 09:30 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? | eProvided.com | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 5th 03 06:47 PM |