What was wrong with film?

MikeWhy writes:

... and also couldn't distinguish a good print from the crap the mini-labs
now spew out.

The minilabs aren't doing that anymore. The new digital minilabs, such
as the Fuji Frontier, produce stunning prints even from poorly exposed
film. The days of really bad one-hour prints are largely history now.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

jjs writes:

Do you think you could do it well enough to fool an expert?

Easily. It's not that hard.

First one defines the expert. One realizes the possiblity
that computers can recognize the manipulation of pixels non native
in two composited or otherwise altered data files.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

How many computer owners know how to format their computer drives or what
that even means? What % even know what usenet and newsgroups are?

I don't know. And neither do you, which was the point of my original
message.

Not to mention the fact that not knowing what usenet and newsgroups are
doesn't make anybody "computer illiterate." My wife spent many years working
with computers as an IBM employee. I doubt that she knows what newsgroups
and usenet are but she can tell you anything you want to know about
programming and using computers to handle commission payments to thousands
of sales personnel selling thousands of different IBM products in a large
part of the United States. If you call her "computer illiterate" because she
doesn't know what newsgroups or usenet are, be prepared to duck. : - )

It conveys much more information about you than
it does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you
isn't
flattering).


Yea and that wasn't meant as a personal attack? ;-)

I actually meant the first part before the parenthetical as a statement of
fact but I forgot about the "isn't flattering" part. You're right, that was
too personal, my apologies. I should have left that part out.


"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Reciprocity Failure wrote:

Seriously, I wonder how many -computer illiterate- digicam owners (which
would describe 99% of digicam buyers) . . . .

What a stupid statement.


How many computer owners know how to format their computer drives or what
that even means? What % even know what usenet and newsgroups are? Sure the
digital camera users who read newsgroups are computer literate, go listen
to the people looking at digicams (or selling them!) at compUSA etc and
you'll quickly see they are clueless. Given most people never read the
instructions on any product they buy, they aren't going to understand
what's going on here either...


It conveys much more information about you than
it does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you
isn't
flattering).


Yea and that wasn't meant as a personal attack? ;-)
--

Stacey

Recently, Gregory W Blank posted:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

jjs writes:

Do you think you could do it well enough to fool an expert?

Easily. It's not that hard.

First one defines the expert. One realizes the possiblity
that computers can recognize the manipulation of pixels non native
in two composited or otherwise altered data files.

One must also realize that such computerized recognition is only a
possibility, not a certainty. For example, a non-manipulated image using
camera-mounted flash can appear to be composited (distinct separation of
foreground and background information), while a composited image can
appear to be a flash image. The computer would have no data to discern the
difference between the two. The human eye can be a better judge of such
things, because the individual can assess the integrity of the *content*
of an image, which a computer can not do.

Neil

If it can be faked or altered, someone will have a reason to do so, and
will...
denny
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...
Recently, Gregory W Blank posted:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

jjs writes:

Do you think you could do it well enough to fool an expert?

Easily. It's not that hard.

First one defines the expert. One realizes the possiblity
that computers can recognize the manipulation of pixels non native
in two composited or otherwise altered data files.

One must also realize that such computerized recognition is only a
possibility, not a certainty. For example, a non-manipulated image using
camera-mounted flash can appear to be composited (distinct separation of
foreground and background information), while a composited image can
appear to be a flash image. The computer would have no data to discern the
difference between the two. The human eye can be a better judge of such
things, because the individual can assess the integrity of the *content*
of an image, which a computer can not do.

Neil

She 'was' young... All she had to do was have him watch a demo as she has
her photographer/buddy somewhere else in the country take a photo of
something, as directed over the phone by ye curmudgeon, then dump it onto
the phone line and load it into her laptop in front of ye curmudgeon, ready
to be sent to the composing desk, a minute from the taking... That he would
have instantly understood...
I'm not even all that fond of digital and I understand

denny
"jjs" wrote in message
...

"Gregory W Blank" wrote in Well, the poor young
dweeb started her
pitch with "After each shot you can look at the back of the camera to see
if
it came out!"

Mxsmanic said: :

There are far more digital camera owners than computer-literate people
(depending on one's definition of literacy). Therefore a large
percentage of digital camera owners are unsophisticated with respect to
computers.

That's probably true, depending on what you consider to be a "large
percentage." But that term is better than "99%" and "unsophisticated" is a
better choice of words than "computer illiterate."

However, digital cameras
have a far broader appeal than film cameras, and so the average digicam
user is far less sophisticated about photography than the average film
user.

Perhaps, I don't know what percentage of digital camera owners never used
film cameras before they bought a digital camera. I actually would have
guessed that almost everyone over maybe age 25 or so owned a film camera
before they bought a digital camera but I haven't seen any surveys or
statistics so I don't know.

However, I would dispute your statement that the "average digicam user" is
less sophisticated that the "average film user." Anyone who has ever worked
in a camera store can regale you with tales of the questions they were asked
about film and film cameras. Indeed the entire history of the consumer
photography industry is one of "dumbing down" photography so that it can be
sold to a market that, by and large, doesn't know or care to know anything
about the products they're using. That was at least as true of film as it is
of digital, perhaps more so.

There's more to photography than photojournalism.

Of course. But the story about which I commented involved a photo journalist
so that's where I directed my comments.

It's just tiring to see people claim that digital is
the solution to all problems.

I actually don't recall seeing claims made that digital solves "all
problems" though I'm sure you could find someone who would say that. I think
almost all users of digital cameras would say that digital solves some
problems but creates others. And it's equally tiring to see people claim
that digital stinks, it's no good, everyone who uses a digital camera is an
idiot, they don't know anything about image quality, digital quality is no
good, can't be compared with 35mm, etc. etc.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Reciprocity Failure writes:

It was a stupid statement because neither the author
nor anyone else here has any actual knowledge of the extent to which
digital
camera users know anything about computers.

There are far more digital camera owners than computer-literate people
(depending on one's definition of literacy). Therefore a large
percentage of digital camera owners are unsophisticated with respect to
computers.

However, it's amusing to see the straws at which some are grasping in
their
efforts to convince themselves that everyone who uses a digital camera
is an
idiot.

Not everyone who uses a digicam is an idiot. However, digital cameras
have a far broader appeal than film cameras, and so the average digicam
user is far less sophisticated about photography than the average film
user.

The "Pulitzer Prize Winning Photo Journalist Meets Technie Dweeb"
was the best.

A camera salesperson should have known better, though.

Most, probably all, major metropolitan newspapers as well as
many smaller ones no longer use film.

There's more to photography than photojournalism.

But they haven't switched to digital
technology because it enables the photographer to see the photograph at
the
time it's being made.

Probably, but I'm amazed at the number of press photographers I see who
spend half their time squinting at the screens on the backs of their
digital cameras. You'd think that with years of experience they
wouldn't need to check every shot, but a lot of them do, anyway. I
prefer to just continue shooting, so that I don't miss half the shots.
I can always sort through them later.

Indeed, the easiest way to spot digital photographers at press events is
to look for people who are staring at the backs of their cameras instead
of through the viewfinder at the event they are supposed to be shooting.
Of course, most press photographers are shooting digital today,
particularly those working as employees (as opposed to freelance).

It's obviously painful for some to acknowledge but digital actually
makes a
lot of sense for many people and many industries, everyone who uses it
isn't
a computer illiterate or someone who can't read a manual.

It does indeed. It's just tiring to see people claim that digital is
the solution to all problems.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article ,
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:

She 'was' young... All she had to do was have him watch a demo as she has
her photographer/buddy somewhere else in the country take a photo of
something, as directed over the phone by ye curmudgeon, then dump it onto
the phone line and load it into her laptop in front of ye curmudgeon, ready
to be sent to the composing desk, a minute from the taking... That he would
have instantly understood...
I'm not even all that fond of digital and I understand

denny
"jjs" wrote in message
...

"Gregory W Blank" wrote in Well, the poor young
dweeb started her
pitch with "After each shot you can look at the back of the camera to see
if
it came out!"



You clip that quote wrong makes it look like I stated the above - I did not.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

In article .net,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

One must also realize that such computerized recognition is only a
possibility, not a certainty. For example, a non-manipulated image using
camera-mounted flash can appear to be composited (distinct separation of
foreground and background information), while a composited image can
appear to be a flash image. The computer would have no data to discern the
difference between the two. The human eye can be a better judge of such
things, because the individual can assess the integrity of the *content*
of an image, which a computer can not do.

Neil

So for discussions sake, you don't believe given enough data
a computer can give a probability assessment as to whether
the image is real or fake?

If that is the case why do you believe this to be true?

If this really became a legal, issue I would guess the source of
the image generation could be analyzed to determine
if the origin was compromised.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

In article ,
"Reciprocity Failure" wrote:

That's probably true, depending on what you consider to be a "large
percentage." But that term is better than "99%" and "unsophisticated" is a
better choice of words than "computer illiterate."

True. When I first saw'illiterate' applied to computer competence I
laughed because the very use of the term in that context demonstrated
illiteracy; it required a real stretch to the weakest association to
justify. Regardless, by popular convention society has created a whole new
class of 'illiterates' by the very illiteracy of those who use the term.