"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

Peter Irwin wrote:

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Silver salt imaging detects the activated/inactivated state of
a silver grain - a 1-0, or digital, effect.

An on or off state does not make something digital.

Digital in this context always means that the information
is represented by numeric symbols. It is very convenient
to use on/off states as numeric symbols, but just because
something exists as an on/off state does not make it a
numeric symbol.

Yes. Exactly right


Film grain is present in a random size distribution and a
random spacial distribution. You could argue that these
are also ultimately numbers, but if you called them "digital"
on that basis, you would be stuck with everything in the
physical universe also deserving that label.

The resulting digital image is resampled and read out by the
pixels of the retina as 1-0 nerve impulses.

Again, neurons either firing or not firing does not make the
signals numeric representations of information.

Peter.
--

John wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:19:37 -0800, "Dana H. Myers" wrote:


Of course. The issue, apparently, is that some folks, or maybe
just Tom, can't get past the fact that a digital image is just
like a negative without all the chemicals and stuff.


Ummmm, no. That is not "the issue". One is digital, the other is analog. One uses
silver halide molecules excited by light and the other uses a Charge-Couple Device (CCD)
or a Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) sensor array and a software
interpreter to form images. While there are some similarities, the dissimilarities are far
greater in number and more significant.

You're picking at tiny details to find differences. Photography
is capturing a scene and producing a print or transparency, possibly
manipulating the image in the process.

You start with a scene - something you see - and end up with a
picture - something you see. That's photography. It doesn't
matter what the intermediate steps are from a functional perspective.


Amateur level digital imaging has yet to equal a
good 35mm camera

Actually, digital P&S is easily on par with 35mm P&S. Above 5MP,
the cameras are more influenced by the quality of optics than whether
it is film or digital up to 8x10 prints.

and certainly cannot compare with even the most basic of todays 120
cameras except for perhaps the venerable Kodak Brownie.

Sure. MF and above is a corner-case, though. If there's enough
of a demand for it, 33MP sensors

Dana

John wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:19:37 -0800, "Dana H. Myers" wrote:


Of course. The issue, apparently, is that some folks, or maybe
just Tom, can't get past the fact that a digital image is just
like a negative without all the chemicals and stuff.


Ummmm, no. That is not "the issue". One is digital, the other is analog. One uses
silver halide molecules excited by light and the other uses a Charge-Couple Device (CCD)
or a Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) sensor array and a software
interpreter to form images. While there are some similarities, the dissimilarities are far
greater in number and more significant.

You're picking at tiny details to find differences. Photography
is capturing a scene and producing a print or transparency, possibly
manipulating the image in the process.

You start with a scene - something you see - and end up with a
picture - something you see. That's photography. It doesn't
matter what the intermediate steps are from a functional perspective.


Amateur level digital imaging has yet to equal a
good 35mm camera

Actually, digital P&S is easily on par with 35mm P&S. Above 5MP,
the cameras are more influenced by the quality of optics than whether
it is film or digital up to 8x10 prints.

and certainly cannot compare with even the most basic of todays 120
cameras except for perhaps the venerable Kodak Brownie.

Sure. MF and above is a corner-case, though. If there's enough
of a demand for it, 33MP sensors

Dana

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

You start with a scene - something you see - and end up with a
picture - something you see. That's photography. It doesn't
matter what the intermediate steps are from a functional perspective.

Ah, I always thought painting and photography must
be the same medium. I mean, both produce pictures
from scenes. Silly art world, having considered them
different all these centuries. Thanks for clearing
that mystery up...

,
Amateur level digital imaging has yet to equal a
good 35mm camera

Actually, digital P&S is easily on par with 35mm P&S. Above 5MP,
the cameras are more influenced by the quality of optics than whether
it is film or digital up to 8x10 prints.

A whopping 5mp. Wow. And you can use a slightly
less dumbed down lens than you do with 3-4 mp.
What an advantage.

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

You start with a scene - something you see - and end up with a
picture - something you see. That's photography. It doesn't
matter what the intermediate steps are from a functional perspective.

Ah, I always thought painting and photography must
be the same medium. I mean, both produce pictures
from scenes. Silly art world, having considered them
different all these centuries. Thanks for clearing
that mystery up...

,
Amateur level digital imaging has yet to equal a
good 35mm camera

Actually, digital P&S is easily on par with 35mm P&S. Above 5MP,
the cameras are more influenced by the quality of optics than whether
it is film or digital up to 8x10 prints.

A whopping 5mp. Wow. And you can use a slightly
less dumbed down lens than you do with 3-4 mp.
What an advantage.

Tom Phillips wrote:

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:


You start with a scene - something you see - and end up with a
picture - something you see. That's photography. It doesn't
matter what the intermediate steps are from a functional perspective.


Ah, I always thought painting and photography must
be the same medium. I mean, both produce pictures
from scenes. Silly art world, having considered them
different all these centuries. Thanks for clearing
that mystery up...

You appear quite prone to dithering-about in semantics
to obscure the real point, and I find it fascinating
that you yourself earlier in this thread invoked the
names of Michaelangelo and Adams in the same sentence,
something I found specious (at best) and chose to simply
ignore.

Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.

Amateur level digital imaging has yet to equal a

good 35mm camera

Actually, digital P&S is easily on par with 35mm P&S. Above 5MP,
the cameras are more influenced by the quality of optics than whether
it is film or digital up to 8x10 prints.


A whopping 5mp. Wow. And you can use a slightly
less dumbed down lens than you do with 3-4 mp.
What an advantage.

What's your point? 5MP provides approximately the
same resolution as ISO 200 color print film. Subjectively
speaking, that's plenty of resolution for 98% of the people
that take have been taking photographs with 35mm cameras.
John mentioned "amateur level" and, in that context, digital
capture is as good as 35mm. Case closed.

Dana

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:


You start with a scene - something you see - and end up with a
picture - something you see. That's photography. It doesn't
matter what the intermediate steps are from a functional perspective.


Ah, I always thought painting and photography must
be the same medium. I mean, both produce pictures
from scenes. Silly art world, having considered them
different all these centuries. Thanks for clearing
that mystery up...

You appear quite prone to dithering-about in semantics
to obscure the real point,

You had a point?

and I find it fascinating
that you yourself earlier in this thread invoked the
names of Michaelangelo and Adams in the same sentence,
something I found specious (at best) and chose to simply
ignore.

What you ignore is the fact that digital and photochemical
imaging are completely different mediums. Those little
"intermediate steps" are what make the processes and arts
different (e.g., painting from photography, sculpture from
pottery, et. al.)

Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.

Well, like I said, must be the same as a painting then
(btw, I'm not the one engaging in semantics here...)

Amateur level digital imaging has yet to equal a

good 35mm camera

Actually, digital P&S is easily on par with 35mm P&S. Above 5MP,
the cameras are more influenced by the quality of optics than whether
it is film or digital up to 8x10 prints.


A whopping 5mp. Wow. And you can use a slightly
less dumbed down lens than you do with 3-4 mp.
What an advantage.

What's your point? 5MP provides approximately the
same resolution as ISO 200 color print film.

No, it's not and never will be. Of sure, if your
printing out 4x6 machine snapshots the _print_ res
is about the same to the human eye. But not the
actual resolution.

Subjectively
speaking, that's plenty of resolution for 98% of the people
that take have been taking photographs with 35mm cameras.
John mentioned "amateur level" and, in that context, digital
capture is as good as 35mm. Case closed.

Ah, the point and shoot crowd. Photography at it's best ;^)

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:


You start with a scene - something you see - and end up with a
picture - something you see. That's photography. It doesn't
matter what the intermediate steps are from a functional perspective.


Ah, I always thought painting and photography must
be the same medium. I mean, both produce pictures
from scenes. Silly art world, having considered them
different all these centuries. Thanks for clearing
that mystery up...

You appear quite prone to dithering-about in semantics
to obscure the real point,

You had a point?

and I find it fascinating
that you yourself earlier in this thread invoked the
names of Michaelangelo and Adams in the same sentence,
something I found specious (at best) and chose to simply
ignore.

What you ignore is the fact that digital and photochemical
imaging are completely different mediums. Those little
"intermediate steps" are what make the processes and arts
different (e.g., painting from photography, sculpture from
pottery, et. al.)

Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.

Well, like I said, must be the same as a painting then
(btw, I'm not the one engaging in semantics here...)

Amateur level digital imaging has yet to equal a

good 35mm camera

Actually, digital P&S is easily on par with 35mm P&S. Above 5MP,
the cameras are more influenced by the quality of optics than whether
it is film or digital up to 8x10 prints.


A whopping 5mp. Wow. And you can use a slightly
less dumbed down lens than you do with 3-4 mp.
What an advantage.

What's your point? 5MP provides approximately the
same resolution as ISO 200 color print film.

No, it's not and never will be. Of sure, if your
printing out 4x6 machine snapshots the _print_ res
is about the same to the human eye. But not the
actual resolution.

Subjectively
speaking, that's plenty of resolution for 98% of the people
that take have been taking photographs with 35mm cameras.
John mentioned "amateur level" and, in that context, digital
capture is as good as 35mm. Case closed.

Ah, the point and shoot crowd. Photography at it's best ;^)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:04:15 -0600, Frank Pittel wrote:


As to the permanance of film an negatives. I've got boxes of ektachrome slides and color negatives
from the seventies that didn't do so good in the perminent archive department.

I don't think anyone on this board would contend that RA4, C41 or EP2 are
archival. Certainly not I.


John - http://www.puresilver.org

"Are you planning on accepting the new definition of photography?" - Frank
"Just as soon as humanity accepts a new definition of the term humanity." - John

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 08:04:15 -0600, Frank Pittel wrote:


As to the permanance of film an negatives. I've got boxes of ektachrome slides and color negatives
from the seventies that didn't do so good in the perminent archive department.

I don't think anyone on this board would contend that RA4, C41 or EP2 are
archival. Certainly not I.


John - http://www.puresilver.org

"Are you planning on accepting the new definition of photography?" - Frank
"Just as soon as humanity accepts a new definition of the term humanity." - John