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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this getting out of hand pretty quick. Scott |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Mar 2005 09:09:20 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:
rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this getting out of hand pretty quick. That's why I asked. I don't see anything in the name or charter that excludes digital darkroom, so if the natives want "analog only" I've no need to annoy them. If that's the case, there ought to be a group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom or some such. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:35:15 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote: .... there ought to be a group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom or some such. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com mar2705 from Lloyd Erlick, I think that is an excellent idea. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote: In the interest civil discourse,... Must also be why you crossposted a thread inviting opines predicting the future of b&w, knowing it would surely take on the present form of a never ending debate? (i.e., a meaningless and pointless topic in and of itself if not for the implied "digital-supplanting-traditional" subtopic...) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:26:23 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote: .... In my version of 'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem to exclude digital imaging from the group. .... mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick, Thank you! regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
This looks to me like a newsgroup unmistakably dedicated to
chemical photography. My guess is that a little digitalk would be considered on-topic if it explains how to do certain digital effects in a chemical darkroom. After all there are some of us who started digital and now do (or try to do) some chemical. In article t, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote: "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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote: In the interest civil discourse,... Must also be why you crossposted a thread inviting opines predicting the future of b&w, knowing it would surely take on the present form of a never ending debate? (i.e., a meaningless and pointless topic in and of itself if not for the implied "digital-supplanting-traditional" subtopic...) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote: On 27 Mar 2005 09:09:20 -0800, "Scott W" wrote: rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this getting out of hand pretty quick. ya think? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with why he posted it, now could it? That's why I asked. I don't see anything in the name or charter that excludes digital darkroom, so if the natives want "analog only" I don't know whether to laugh or engage the killfile. Digital "darkroom" is a bigger misnomer than digital "photography." Only a troll (or a supercilious zealot, which ever comes first...) would intentionally attempt to misread and misinterpret the clear intent and purpose of rec.photo.darkroom. Picture as synonym George Dubya Bush the 1st, misinterpreting the Constitution by flashing that infamously silly smirk of his and foisting: "It only says Congress shall make no religious laws, nothing about Executive Orders..." I've no need to annoy them. too late... If that's the case, there ought to be a group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom or some such. One can only chuckle someone actually thinks there's a darkroom compiled somewhere in all that Photoshop code. Must have been quite a plumbing job. |
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 |