"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

jjs wrote:

Hell, I'm in my own killfile. Been using 'em since day-one.


Well, at least you still have your sense of humour :-) , unlike many
other newsgroup users.

But....whether you stick with this group or start a new one for "digital
darkroom", the fact that "killfiles" even exist says something very
clearly about the lack of control that exists by the group founders.

Lack of enforcement = neutered charters.

Going to a new group to discuss digital darkroom activities will only be
controllable if the group is moderated and the only way to moderate it
it to set up a group on your own website, or to make use of the Yahoo
(or similar) services. These groups that we are currently using strongly
resemble the mess that CB radio became after the Feds in both our
countries lost control.

Back on topic.........I don't see any place in this newsgroup for
digital discussion. I've learned a pile of analog stuff by lurking here.

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?)

On 27 Mar 2005 16:58:55 -0800, "silver" wrote:

LightJet does not qualify. It is a digital printing methodolgy. Also
note that very few photographers are going to have one in their
personal darkroom.


It is digital, no denying that. But it's
also light on real photo paper, processed wet.

Desktop LightJet? Hehehe. I can dream, can't I?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 27 Mar 2005 16:58:55 -0800, "silver" wrote:

LightJet does not qualify. It is a digital printing methodolgy. Also
note that very few photographers are going to have one in their
personal darkroom.


It is digital, no denying that. But it's
also light on real photo paper, processed wet.

Desktop LightJet? Hehehe. I can dream, can't I?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 27 Mar 2005 16:58:55 -0800, "silver" wrote:

LightJet does not qualify. It is a digital printing methodolgy. Also
note that very few photographers are going to have one in their
personal darkroom.


It is digital, no denying that. But it's
also light on real photo paper, processed wet.

Desktop LightJet? Hehehe. I can dream, can't I?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On 3/27/2005 4:42 PM rafe bustin spake thus:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus:

Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little
puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom".

But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital
photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which
I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then
sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say!

LightJet printing would certainly qualify.

Laser printing would qualify if you didn't require "silver based paper."

How so? This doesn't involve a darkroom, as far as I know.

But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or dye-sub output devices.

Yes, for the same reason.

See, the thing is, if you're going to discuss the "digital darkroom", then
there has to be a, er, darkroom involved at some point, wouldn't you say?

By the way, and apropos nothing, I'm curious why you have your line length set
so short in your news client.


--
"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."

- Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by
the late Hunter S. Thompson

On 3/27/2005 4:42 PM rafe bustin spake thus:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus:

Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little
puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom".

But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital
photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which
I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then
sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say!

LightJet printing would certainly qualify.

Laser printing would qualify if you didn't require "silver based paper."

How so? This doesn't involve a darkroom, as far as I know.

But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or dye-sub output devices.

Yes, for the same reason.

See, the thing is, if you're going to discuss the "digital darkroom", then
there has to be a, er, darkroom involved at some point, wouldn't you say?

By the way, and apropos nothing, I'm curious why you have your line length set
so short in your news client.


--
"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."

- Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by
the late Hunter S. Thompson

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


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The topic, of digital darkrooms, has come up before in this news group,
here is a link from 1999.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...al+darkroom%22

At that time the people of the group did not pretend to not understand
the word or to act with hostility, but rather talked about the
potential of the then new technique. But this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only
interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it
is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some
find threatening.

Scott

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:05:49 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:


See, the thing is, if you're going to discuss the "digital darkroom", then
there has to be a, er, darkroom involved at some point, wouldn't you say?

By the way, and apropos nothing, I'm curious why you have your line length set
so short in your news client.


OK, so this is where we digiheads most
definitely have appropriated a term from
analog/wet photography.

But I think the term is reasonably
appropriate and carries the obvious
meaning.

It's what happens _after_ image capture,
including the making of the print.

It would exclude discussions of digicams
vs. film, for example.

Line breaks inserted by me. Lots of
folks use lo-res monitors and big fonts.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:05:49 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:


See, the thing is, if you're going to discuss the "digital darkroom", then
there has to be a, er, darkroom involved at some point, wouldn't you say?

By the way, and apropos nothing, I'm curious why you have your line length set
so short in your news client.


OK, so this is where we digiheads most
definitely have appropriated a term from
analog/wet photography.

But I think the term is reasonably
appropriate and carries the obvious
meaning.

It's what happens _after_ image capture,
including the making of the print.

It would exclude discussions of digicams
vs. film, for example.

Line breaks inserted by me. Lots of
folks use lo-res monitors and big fonts.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

jjs wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
oups.com...


What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I
have
no idea what the question means.

It refers to a mental state - a dark one.


Eeek! Then I say NO.