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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote: What I really wish is that I could somewhere use the most advanced output device to draw my own conclusions regarding how good, good can be. I do know any conventional print I in house make, blows away any thing I have seen come from prolabs printing my work either conventional or digital. I think for so long "many" have lusted after the control that digital somewhat affords, that those many, without the controls of doing your own work conventionally,.. are quite willing to suckit up and say this is great without a real frame of reference. I think that's true. Or they lack the skill to good making negative and prints. Of course I'm talking science (the factual process) while most -- I assume -- are concerned with subjective comparisons. Such subjective values are in the eye of the beholder. But the facts are the facts. And if you look at the facts not only are digital and photochemical imaging very different mediums, produing different results, for straight pictorial imaging film always comes out the better medium due to it's superior imaging abilities. Color or b&w makes no difference. Digital, however, can be endlessly manipulated by software and made to look good even when the actual image is a piece of anti-aliased interpolated garbage. I hope I stated that thought clearly? I would like to state clearly I have never met John Edwards ;-) In article , Tom Phillips wrote: No, it's not. More misinformation. The fact is no digital color space (the gamut) can or ever will equal the gamut and depth of color available in traditional color dye materials. Doesn't happen. In fact, the more a digtal image is processed towards output, the less gamut there is available in digital devices and the more color information that is actually lost. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. -- 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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
The Wogster wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: The Wogster wrote: Tom Phillips wrote: In article , Gregory Blank wrote: Ok what do you need a darkroom for then? In article , Helge Buddenborg wrote: That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, "Digital Photography is "GREAT". What he misses (completely) is that digital imaging, though an imaging medium, is not a *photographic* medium. The physics simply don't support this. And when people begin to see through the marketing hype and in 20 years lose all those non-existent image files on their hard drives they will realize film is the better medium. There simply is no permanent archival storage for digital and never will be, since as mere data it's dependent on 100% on electronics rather than concrete materials. There is no permanent archival storage for data, yet. Read my lips: it's electronic. It can _never_ be permanent. It's ones and zeros, mere data, representational, not a real image, 1000% dependent on electronics and the storage mediums that can actually read it, which changes constantly. Shall I go on? It comes down to standards, if governments, were to legislate that, these file formats, Never going to happen. stored on this media type, will be readable by all players made from this date forward. You would have, effectively, a permanent digital storage medium, providing the media would last indefinitely, under adverse conditions. However it means that future storage methods would not be developed, nor would new file formats. However photographs are not the only data that need this kind of storage, so active work is being done in this area all the time. Guess I need to go on: There's no such thing as a digital "photograph." A photograph is a real, tangible image actually created by the action of light on a light sensitized material. It's chemical and permanent. Even if the emulsion degrades due to exceptionally horrendous care and storage, the silver metal compounds it's composed of lasts forever. Digital disappears the moment your hard drive, CD-R, DVD, etc., fails. Not to mention silicon doesn't record anything (it can't, the physics don't allow it) and the regenerated voltage/image data stored on your computer is, all together now -- mere data that represents an image. So I suppose, that that digital representation, when printed by a laser onto a piece of paper covered with AgBr and then processed, is still simply a representation? it's a reproduction (regenerated output) of a digital image, not a photograph created by the direct action of light which is what happens when you expose film. This does not happen when you scan with a silicon sensor... This makes zero sense; reminds me of king dubya talking about foreign policy... and longer then film will last, Ignorance abounds. Film (according to Dr. James Reilly of the Image Permanence Institute) begs to differ. If properly stored, his Storage Guide for Acetate Film states film can theoretically be preserved for thousands of years. Regarding film on polyester base (b&w sheet films like Tmax), these are stated matter of factly to have an estimated life of 500 years even when stored under normal "room" conditions. If the images on film or paper are toned or otherwise protected from oxidation, the emulsions should also last. would need to last under less then ideal conditions. The problem is that you would need to wait 500 years to see if it lasts 500 years. W W/dubya? hmmm...must be related. Nope, no relation, I just get tired of typing Wogster all thr time, and shortened it to W. W Cheney, then? He certainly is a wogster if I ever saw one. I would like to state for the record I have never met John Edwards :-) |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
"Lloyd Usenet-Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message ... On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:46:06 -0400, The Wogster wrote: ... For me, I don't care, it's easier to download a photo, then to soup films, and it's easier to balance it, and post process in PhotoShop, and print on inkjet, then it is to spend the day in the fume room, making test prints. One issue, if you know the fume room, it's easier to learn about digital. Same process, different methodology. ... oct604 from Lloyd Erlick, If it's 'the fume room', there is something wrong. A regular old darkroom need not smell, let alone have 'fumes'. Probably people who use digital printers operate them correctly. That type of image making should be compared to a correctly operated darkroom, if comparisons are to be made. I like the smell of RA-4 chemicals in the morning... it smells like... photography! Ken Hart |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:15:06 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote: Yep. It's called "commerce". "New and improved" sells new equipment. Old equipment and methods are replaced and rapidly become extinct. All in the name of Big Bizness. In two years your 32 bit OS will be extinct. Ready for that ? Careful there, John -- I'm still running Windows 98 (SE, having finally updated from original 98 to run a game last winter); even XP Home Edition is three years old now... Yep. And I have the _beta_ of XP64. There are at least 4 versions of Linux for 64 bit systems and the dual-core procs are on the horizon and closing fast. 98SE was always good for a mail station, gaming, a word processor but it's inability to effectively address more than 256MB of RAM limited it severely. FYI, I'm running XPP/SP2 on an 3K AMD64 w/1GB RAM, 2X160 GB and 1XDVD/RW drives. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:39:33 -0400, The Wogster
wrote: So I suppose, that that digital representation, when printed by a laser onto a piece of paper covered with AgBr and then processed, is still simply a representation? I thunk it qualifies as a digital image. Doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative. Just the same as a photograph is something captured using a photo-chemical process. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
One could say that all photographers are wimps -- if we were "willing to do
the work" we would learn to draw and paint. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Michael A.
Covington" wrote: One could say that all photographers are wimps -- if we were "willing to do the work" we would learn to draw and paint. Interesting you bring that up. When photography was first commercially introduced painters attacked it. They called it names, they said it wasn't art, they saw it as a threat to their art and business. Photographers (pictorialists) responded by trying to make photographs look like paintings. All they did was undermine photography's potential by trying to piggy back it into legitimacy on painting's back. In reality, everyone, photographers included, neglected to realize photography was not a competitor, but a new medium that had it's own limitations and applications. If pictorialists had simply accepted photography as it's own medium instead of trying to imitate painting it would have gotten out from under paintings shadow much earlier and been accepted as an art in it's own right. There's a lesson there for digital imaging, which instead of being marketed and advocated as a new medium with it's own limitations and uses, is being offered as a replacement for (imitating) film when it's not film and cannot do what film does. Anymore than photography could do what painting does. Digital needs to find it's own market based on it's own limitations and stop piggy backing itself into the marketplace on photography's back/turf via false claims and advertising. There's room for both, but the misinformation needs to stop. -- Tom Phillips |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Blank wrote:
In article , Donald Qualls wrote: Daguerreotypists were at somewhat less risk than hatters in the mid-19th century, because they used only small quantities of mercury and kept it confined In a box: Interesting side bar, the angle one fumes the plate determines the angle the image can be viewed. I had never heard that; I'd have expected, if I thought about it, that it would be more related to the angle of incidence of the exposing light (due to interference similar to what produces the colors in a color Dag). Have you heard of a mechanism on that? Fuming, if not done in a moderately hard vacuum (which could allow impinging ions/molecules to travel ballistically) *should* be angle-independent due to diffusion and the random-walk path of the halogen molecules before they reach the silver surface -- or are you talking about mercury atoms in development? Should be the same deal. I wonder if modern vacuum development setups (used to avoid heating the mercury, so to minimize vapor exposure of the worker) might produce this, but I wouldn't think they use anything like a hard enough vacuum -- I had thought it was just a couple inches of, um, mercury (heh), er, a hundred or so millibars of vacuum, to promote evaporation at room temperature; a pressure that still contains more than enough air molecules to ensure diffusive, rather than ballistic behavior. Ballistic behavior (for things like vacuum evaporative coating) requires a vacuum in the range of a millionth of a Torr up to about ten times that figure, which gets down to a few hundred molecules per cubic millimeter and allows fairly long path lengths. Don't you just love ether? I do like the smell of ether, but preferably in milligram quantities. If you do, too, and have any other hobby time besides photography, you should consider getting a model airplane diesel engine; they run on a fuel made up of approximately equal parts kerosene, lubricating oil, and ether (with a little ethylene dioxide as an igniter). Smells really good (if you like that sort of thing), but don't open the can when it's 95 degrees in the shade; it'll bubble like a thermos of hot coffee when you open it at the ski resort. Please test run your engine only outdoors... -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
John wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:15:06 GMT, Donald Qualls wrote: Yep. It's called "commerce". "New and improved" sells new equipment. Old equipment and methods are replaced and rapidly become extinct. All in the name of Big Bizness. In two years your 32 bit OS will be extinct. Ready for that ? Careful there, John -- I'm still running Windows 98 (SE, having finally updated from original 98 to run a game last winter); even XP Home Edition is three years old now... Yep. And I have the _beta_ of XP64. There are at least 4 versions of Linux for 64 bit systems and the dual-core procs are on the horizon and closing fast. 98SE was always good for a mail station, gaming, a word processor but it's inability to effectively address more than 256MB of RAM limited it severely. FYI, I'm running XPP/SP2 on an 3K AMD64 w/1GB RAM, 2X160 GB and 1XDVD/RW drives. I keep hearing about the limitations of 98SE from people running the "latest and greatest." Funny, I don't have to manually disable Windows Messenger's pop-up spam vehicle or otherwise turn off a bunch of new "features" Microsoft saw fit to force on users when XP came out. And I have 1 GB RAM and see considerable performance improvement in, for instance, image editing with the GIMP, so I'm not sure what's meant by "inability to effectively address more than 256 MB of RAM" in this context. I do have to go through a little rigamarole to partition a hard disk bigger than, IIRC, 40 GB. Darn. It works fine, just doesn't report the sizes correctly on screen (idiots, using 16 bit arithmetic in software for a 32 bit OS, haven't learned anything useful since Bill said "Nobody could possibly need more than 640k of memory."). The only limitation of 98SE that I find significantly annoying is the maximum single file size of 4 GB; I sometimes (like once a year or so) want to make a backup to free space that's larger than that and have to break up the job. My main reason for avoiding XP, however, has been incompatibilities; I still have and use a bunch of old DOS software, some of it installed when I was running DOS 3.31. Most of it doesn't work, or doesn't work correctly, under XP. And XP adds *nothing* I need, just moves around the old familiar controls so I have to dig in menus or use the (much more annoying, in XP) system help to find stuff that's 3-4 clicks away in 98SE. Add to that the inability, with XP, to avoid IE 6, with its very own load of security issues and annoying "features"... Oh, and not to mention I have to pay out $90 or so to upgrade and get all that stuff I don't want or need (and XP is reported not to like installing as an upgrade, which is a serious issue for someone with seventeen years of pack-rat data and applications on his hard disks). Even though Microsoft is dropping 98SE support this year (dropped original 98 last year, IIRC), I'll keep it until I need to run something that won't run in 98SE, and then I'll probably try to figure out how to set up dual boot. No, SE doesn't support USB 2.0 for getting pictures off a digital a bit faster -- darn, that means the digital has to get plugged into my wife's XP machine and then the pictures transferred through the house network -- which, I might add, works fine with three 98SE (ranging from 266 MHz to 1.4 GHz) and two XP machines (1.8 and 2.0 GHz) on it. Sometimes, I think the reason I like the darkroom is because my Omega D2V won't need a software upgrade in my lifetime... -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | Digital Photography | 86 | December 14th 04 04:45 AM |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 31 | December 14th 04 04:45 AM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 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 |