Where will B&W be in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 .... years

"bob" wrote

For that matter, you could burn the digital file onto microfisch, so
(theoretically) digital can be exactly as archival as film.

Whaaat? Heresy! If it's on film it's not digital, is it? I mean,
if it's digital then it's not photography so it's a photograph it
can't be digital. Logic is logic ...

[Serious replies to alt.dev.null]

--
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/

Rafe Bustin wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

Clearly, the ability to adequately differentiate
in the abstract is lacking around here...

As Dave Littleboy pointed out just a day
or two ago, the technology needed to make
today's color films is anything but mundane.
IOW, it's high tech and apparently in Fuji's
opinion, no longer worth the trouble to make.

Quoting Littleboy to me undermines your credibility.

Monochrome/silver photography is a better
fit for your argument, but so what.

"But so what?" Is that all you can retort?
Great argumentative logic you have.

But hey, if you'd like to volunteer as
Luddite-in-residence, welcome.

The world according to Rafe? in which photography
began with semiconductor manufacturing?

Well, hey, let me know when you learn to read first.
This thread is about _black and white_ photography.
You can start a new thread on color, but color is
as basic and fundamental as b&w and color prints
exist that are a good 150 years old. The color
theory that color photography is based on is not
new. My, how Luddite of photo science in general!

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
bob wrote:

Film is not necessary for prints on silver based
papers though.

Yes, it is. Just go to any lab where you can get
digital silver-based output and ask for a platinum
print, or even a standard b&w print on your choice
of papers. The whole point of b&w printing is the
artistic controls derived from various film developers,
methods, and a wide range of different papers, print
developers, toners, etc. etc. etc. Creative printing
(as opposed to the one-size-fits-all from a lab) is
not a separate endeavor from the _negative_. No digital
output can reproduce the fine art nuance an artist
gets from such a printing process.

Anyone who thinks so knows nothing at all about
creative photography.

Maybe not but it is a very cost effective way for those of us with
darkrooms and little desire to make bw prints at the price point
places are charging for those specialized prints.

I wonder what Ansel would think.

I don't know either, he's dead.

Given the care and preservation he gave his
negatives, not hard to imagine. He, like most
of us, would have welcomed electronic technology
but not as a replacement for negatives IMO.

Course still prefering negatives I'm just a luddite...

In article ,
bob wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
bob wrote:


I see you never did address the issue of digital images printed on
silver halide paper. Too hard to reconcile that with your world view I
suppose.


How about cost effectiveness, I guess you don't mind spending
$50.00 for an 8x10 fiber based print.


I didn't say FB. I said silver halide. $2.26 at Wal-Mart. $4 at Walgreens.

Besides, the question wasn't "how much does it cost?" the question was,
"is it a photograph?" ("it" being a silver halide print from a digital
file.)

Bob

What good are those? Clearly not archival as you questioned from the
onset. Are we producing work even remotely to last? If your doing Walmart
I think not.

--
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

"Rafe Bustin" wrote in message
om...

But hey, if you'd like to volunteer as
Luddite-in-residence, welcome.

I'll take that job! When can I start?

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
bob wrote:

Film is not necessary for prints on silver based
papers though.

Yes, it is. Just go to any lab where you can get
digital silver-based output and ask for a platinum
print, or even a standard b&w print on your choice
of papers. The whole point of b&w printing is the
artistic controls derived from various film developers,
methods, and a wide range of different papers, print
developers, toners, etc. etc. etc. Creative printing
(as opposed to the one-size-fits-all from a lab) is
not a separate endeavor from the _negative_. No digital
output can reproduce the fine art nuance an artist
gets from such a printing process.

Anyone who thinks so knows nothing at all about
creative photography.

Maybe not but it is a very cost effective way for those of us with
darkrooms and little desire to make bw prints at the price point
places are charging for those specialized prints.

I wonder what Ansel would think.

I don't know either, he's dead.

Given the care and preservation he gave his
negatives, not hard to imagine. He, like most
of us, would have welcomed electronic technology
but not as a replacement for negatives IMO.

Course still prefering negatives I'm just a luddite...

I think your responding to "Bob".

--
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

bob wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
bob wrote:


I see you never did address the issue of digital images printed on
silver halide paper. Too hard to reconcile that with your world view I
suppose.


How about cost effectiveness, I guess you don't mind spending
$50.00 for an 8x10 fiber based print.


I didn't say FB. I said silver halide. $2.26 at Wal-Mart. $4 at Walgreens.

Besides, the question wasn't "how much does it cost?" the question was,
"is it a photograph?" ("it" being a silver halide print from a digital
file.)

Yeah, that's where I go. Walmart. Walgreens sucks

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Rafe Bustin wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

As Dave Littleboy pointed out just a day
or two ago, the technology needed to make
today's color films is anything but mundane.
IOW, it's high tech and apparently in Fuji's
opinion, no longer worth the trouble to make.

Quoting Littleboy to me undermines your credibility.

As The Ludite-in-training, permit me to suggest that you study up on your
rhetoric and innuendo. They are the only tools an ignoramus has, but you
must MASTER them. Your statement above is just embarassingly poor innuendo.

Monochrome/silver photography is a better
fit for your argument, but so what.

"But so what?" Is that all you can retort?
Great argumentative logic you have.

Ah, Cricket, when one makes a retort such as that and then suggests logic,
then he must give an example of logic, otherwise it is just a sign of
impotence, or an instance of "Your Momma" kind of arguing.

But hey, if you'd like to volunteer as
Luddite-in-residence, welcome.

The world according to Rafe? in which photography
began with semiconductor manufacturing?

Now you set up an impossible situation. You have lost your Queen, Bishops
and Rooks... and the earth you stood upon. That's what happens when you just
flat-out lie to misrepresent your opponent.

Finally, I thought you were going to be using your real name when you came
back.

In article ,
bob wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:

Uh this is rec. photo.darkroom or did you forget
when has the population at large really understood
much of any one given specialized process....you only
ever have a small group that formally understands a
relative issue,.. not the population at large.

Well, OK, but the population at large uses things they call cameras to
make what they call photographs. "They" don't seem to distinguish
between digital based and film based images. If you wasnt to argue that
a small subset of the population use the word photograph more
restrictively I would not argue against that, but to claim that all
those other people aren't allowed their usage of the word seems rather
pompous.

They can a will, just as I can and will correct them when I see fit :-)

You must be confused about what I'm talking about. Wal-Mart will print a
digital file on an 8x10 piece of silver halide paper for under $3.
Ilford MG IV runs $41/100. To my way of thinking there's not that much
difference in cost, at least not in the quantities I'm involved in.

There's a huge vast quality issue between Walmart prints and
handmade prints I do,...vastly mine are better. As well as color prints
I make in my darkroom.

--
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 ,
bob wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
bob wrote:


Wrong. It is physically impossible for a digital
sensor to record anything. It doesn't record, it
converts photoelectrons into digital signals.
Nothing is ever recorded.

That last bit is pretty interesting. So if "nothing is ever recorded",
then how is the image conjured up at a later point in time.


Its a algorithmic calculation that writes

If it "writes" then a recording is made.

Its not a direct recording its a mathematical instruction at a much
larger scale than the atomic level film records.

--
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