 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2005Where will B&W be in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 .... years
Forecast the future of B&W. Where do you think it will be in: 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? If there is enough participation the average of the predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate.  SignatureNicholas 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/ prints will last up to 500years. > Forecast the future of B&W. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If there is enough participation the average of the > predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate. > prints will last up to 500years. They already do if you print using platinum and acid free paper. SignatureLF 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 > > prints will last up to 500years. > > They already do if you print using platinum and acid free > paper. According to the Image Permanence Institute 500 years is an acceptable estimate for an archivally processed and selenium toned gelatin silver print as well. Black and white silver imaging will always be practiced as an art form. Plus in 1000 years when all those digital files stored on hard drives and CDs have disappeared, photos on film (any film) will still be here. Difference between having a real bird in hand vs two cyberbush birds that don't really exist to begin with. > Forecast the future of B&W. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Black and white silver imaging will always be practiced > as an art form. Plus in 1000 years when all those digital > files stored on hard drives and CDs have disappeared, > photos on film (any film) will still be here. Difference > between having a real bird in hand vs two cyberbush birds > that don't really exist to begin with. Images from digital files can be archivally printed too. Why do you think that photos from color film will be around in 1000 years? I've got color prints that have already faded; there's no way they will last 100 years, let alone 1000. Bob Bob wrote: > Images from digital files can be archivally printed too. Why do you > think that photos from color film will be around in 1000 years? I've got > color prints that have already faded; there's no way they will last 100 > years, let alone 1000. Agreed. Color and BW printing (both traditional and inkjet) are qualitatively different. I'll put my money on pigment inks, but dyes are inherently less stable. The only hope for dye ink longevity is a very compatible substrate that can prevent oxidation of the inks. I don't know how one might prevent the breakdown of dye molecules from simple photon energy. Gelatin and swellable polymer substrates seem to be the key to dye ink longevity. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > I'll put my money on pigment inks, but dyes are > inherently less stable. The only hope for dye ink > longevity is a very compatible substrate that can > prevent oxidation of the inks. I don't know how I'm particularly interested in the archival qualites of color laser printout. I have a feeling that the prints will last as long as the paper, but I don't know with certainty. They don't seem to be impacted by UV. Bob > > I'll put my money on pigment inks, but dyes are > > inherently less stable. The only hope for dye ink [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > paper, but I don't know with certainty. They don't seem to be impacted > by UV. Those are _silver_ based images (assuming you're talking about lightjets, etc.) Inks and pigments have to be sprayed. You're mixing up a lot of terms and printing technologies here... >>>I'll put my money on pigment inks, but dyes are >>>inherently less stable. The only hope for dye ink [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > lightjets, etc.) Inks and pigments have to be sprayed. You're > mixing up a lot of terms and printing technologies here... Reread my question, and assume that I am not mixing anything up. I am actually wondering about toner based color laser printers -- i.e. the HP color LaserJet 4560n. I know that B&W laserjet toner is archival. I wonder about color. Bob > I know that B&W laserjet toner is archival. I > wonder about color. <is@is.is> replies: Oh that it were so. Xerox toner is anything but archival. It is carbon loaded vinyl and melted onto the paper, it doesn't penetrate. As the vinyl loses it's plasticizer to evaporation it will become brittle and flake off the paper. Too much plasticizer kills toner much quicker: as all know, the print on Xerox copies kept in plastic binders turns to goo. The large amount of plasticizer used in the flexible vinyl cover gets to the toner vinyl and makes it so flexible it becomes sticky. Dust to dust. Ashes to ashes. Plastic to goo. SignatureNicholas 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/ On 3/14/2005 2:05 PM Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus: >> I know that B&W laserjet toner is archival. I >> wonder about color. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it doesn't penetrate. As the vinyl loses it's plasticizer > to evaporation it will become brittle and flake off the paper. Actually, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that: I know for sure that Kodak toner, at least, is pigment (which may well be just carbon black) mixed with powdered polystyrene, not vinyl. Same for Canon toner. > Too much plasticizer kills toner much quicker: as all know, > the print on Xerox copies kept in plastic binders turns to goo. > The large amount of plasticizer used in the flexible vinyl > cover gets to the toner vinyl and makes it so flexible it > becomes sticky. Of course, I've noticed this too. 'twould seem in this case that the fault lies with the plastic binder (as in notebook binder) which contains the plasticizers, not the plastic binder used to fuse the pigment onto the paper. Don't see why a properly-stored laser print shouldn't be completely archival (depending on the paper, of course). Perhaps even color laser or color copier prints as well. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > Of course, I've noticed this too. 'twould seem in this case that the > fault lies with the plastic binder (as in notebook binder) which > contains the plasticizers, not the plastic binder used to fuse the > pigment onto the paper. Don't see why a properly-stored laser print > shouldn't be completely archival (depending on the paper, of course). > Perhaps even color laser or color copier prints as well. I know that the laser-printer output in our file cabinets from 25 years ago looks the same as the day it was printed. The photographs in the same files don't always look so good. I've also had some color laser prints on display (single pieces of paper taped to the wall) for 5 or more years and they show no signs of deterioration. I realize that 25 years of storage doesn't equal archival, but it's a good sign. Bob > I know that the laser-printer output in our file cabinets from 25 years > ago looks the same as the day it was printed. > I realize that 25 years of storage doesn't equal archival, but it's a > good sign. A google for the archival properties of Xerox toner turns up very little. Everyone is concerned about the paper. There doesn't seem to be much concern about what is printed on the paper. http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an19/an19-1/an19-106.html The standard archival ink until recently [an ancient recipe discovered by the Greeks] was made from iron salts and oak galls. When used on paper it eats away the paper and all that is left are holes where the writing has been. The holes, though, are of the finest archival quality. What goes around comes around ... * * * Interestingly, it was this well known ability of oak galls to turn metal salts to black that led to the use of gallic acid/gallol/pyro- gallol as a [the first?] photographic developing agent. SignatureNicholas 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/ >The holes, though, are of the finest archival >quality. LOL ! They must have used this on the heads of my companies management ! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email > >>>I'll put my money on pigment inks, but dyes are > >>>inherently less stable. The only hope for dye ink [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > color LaserJet 4560n. I know that B&W laserjet toner is archival. I > wonder about color. My mistake. But I'd say not. Thought you meant laser light output (i.e., digital images on silver halide paper exposed via laser light as in a lightjet.) Hopefully where it is today -- Tony > Hopefully where it is today. Tee he,...with all the great arguments attached ;-) SignatureLF 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 > > Black and white silver imaging will always be practiced > > as an art form. Plus in 1000 years when all those digital [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Images from digital files can be archivally printed too. Why do you > think that photos from color film will be around in 1000 years? Bob, I thought this thread was about b&w... _Film_ can easily last 1000 years, color or b&w. Ever hear of transparencies? No digital file will ever come close; in a 1000 years you probably won't even be able to read the media it's stored on even if the data hasn't yet corrupted (fat chance.) These issues and facts have been discussed ad nauseam (at least in in r.p.dakroom), so I guess you just haven't read the info. Plus, the very real likelihood/danger is _all_ digital information may disappear (big article recently in the NY Times on this...) except that diligently maintained by the government (after all, they have to spy on somebody...) BTW, inkjets are not photographs, they're reproductions from stored computer data. There is no photograph in the digital process. It's all regenerated data (electrons -> voltage -> digital signals -> magnetic data bits -> screen pixels) until output as an reproduction from a digital file (i.e., drops of ink sprayed onto paper.) Sprayed ink is not a photograph; it's fancy newsprint :) Now, when those repro images on fancy giclee newsprint have been around as long as real silver photographs (almost 200 years and counting), get back to me and we'll talk about inkjet longevity ;-) I've got > color prints that have already faded; there's no way they will last 100 > years, let alone 1000. In fact, typical color dye prints today do have a display life of at least 100 years. Color technology is more advanced than when I'm guessing you printed those. OTOH, it's _all_ a matter of storage and display with color materials. All color dyes, inks, etc will fade if not stored or displayed properly. If your prints have faded, I doubt it's the print's fault. I have ciba's on my wall that look like the day I printed then 30 years ago. >>Images from digital files can be archivally printed too. Why do you >>think that photos from color film will be around in 1000 years? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > _Film_ can easily last 1000 years, color or b&w. Ever hear > of transparencies? So when you said "film" you really meant "the subset of film comprised of archivally processed silver B&W film, plus Kodachrome"? Your use of the general term without the qualifiers was misleading. > No digital file will ever come close;> in > a 1000 years you probably won't even be able to read the > media it's stored on even if the data hasn't yet corrupted > (fat chance.) These issues and facts have been discussed ad > nauseam (at least in in r.p.dakroom), so I guess you just > haven't read the info. I've read the opinions, sure. Mostly they are discussions of 25 to 50 years hence, not 1000. In 1000 years maybe civilization will have collapsed and there will be no computers at all to read the digital files. It's also possible that technology will continue to evolve, and will do things beyond our wildest imagination. > Plus, the very real likelihood/danger > is _all_ digital information may disappear (big article > recently in the NY Times on this...) except that diligently > maintained by the government (after all, they have to spy on > somebody...) I don't read the NY Times. What is the theory? I suspect that for the most part things will go on in the future the way they do now. Important papers (with writing or images) will be preserved by people for whom they have meaning, and the rest will be discarded. > BTW, inkjets are not photographs, they're reproductions from > stored computer data. There is no photograph in the digital [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ink sprayed onto paper.) Sprayed ink is not a photograph; it's > fancy newsprint :) You're not going to get many takers for that argument. Just look at the meanings of the two roots, photo, and graph. There is nothing in the meaning of the word that requires silver gelatin emulsions. I don't make inkjet prints anyway, except when I use the 36" plotter. > Now, when those repro images on fancy giclee newsprint have > been around as long as real silver photographs (almost 200 > years and counting), get back to me and we'll talk about > inkjet longevity ;-) But there are ways to print digital files without using inkjets. Example: you can print a (B&W) images on a laser printer, and use acetone to transfer the toner onto a stainless steel plate. Without doing any testing, I think it would be much easier to maintain an archive of toner on steel plates than silver in gelatin on plastic. > In fact, typical color dye prints today do have a display life > of at least 100 years. Color technology is more advanced than > when I'm guessing you printed those. OTOH, it's _all_ a matter > of storage and display with color materials. All color dyes, > inks, etc will fade if not stored or displayed properly. In my testing, color toner does not fade. Rather simple, uncontrolled tests, like leaving a print on my dashboard. If I leave them outside in the yard they eventually fade, but I think that's more to do with the rain and the dogs than the sun. > If > your prints have faded, I doubt it's the print's fault. I have > ciba's on my wall that look like the day I printed then 30 > years ago. My mom has a book of color prints that date back 30 or so years; most of them look just fine, but one in particular has nearly vanished. These prints are all dark stored (together). The one print is clearly defective, in comparison to the others. Bob > >>Images from digital files can be archivally printed too. Why do you > >>think that photos from color film will be around in 1000 years? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of archivally processed silver B&W film, plus Kodachrome"? Your use of > the general term without the qualifiers was misleading. It still applies to film generally. Check out the Acetate Film Guide published by the Image Permanance Institute (free on their web site.) The difference between color and b&w films are twofold: base and dyes. Dyes fade, but light and heat are the major factors. Thus any color film can be preserved indefinitely by cold dark storage; theoretically thousands of years. B&W film on acetate (generally roll films) is also archival if storage conditions preclude vinegar syndrome (not all that hard to do.) Other b&w films on polyester base (like Tmax sheet films) are ridiculously long lived even under normal (room) storage conditions. Toning b&w films likewise ensures archivalness. > > No digital file will ever come close;> in > > a 1000 years you probably won't even be able to read the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > files. It's also possible that technology will continue to evolve, and > will do things beyond our wildest imagination. As it stands now there is no way to ensure digital is archival. Of course we can speculate. > > Plus, the very real likelihood/danger > > is _all_ digital information may disappear (big article [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > papers (with writing or images) will be preserved by people for whom > they have meaning, and the rest will be discarded. To a large extent I'm sure that's true. But the difference is with photographic materials people can ignore their preservation and stick them in a basement box and 200 years from now be rediscovered. maybe not in perfect condition but that senario is not likely to happen with digital images left unattended on someone's hard drive. The article is still there, you just have to register with a user name and password. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/technology/10archive.html "...no one has figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for the next decade, much less for the ages. Like junk e-mail, the problem of digital archiving, which seems straightforward, confounds even the experts... So dire and complex is the challenge of digital preservation in general that the Library of Congress has spent the last several years forming committees and issuing reports on the state of the nation's preparedness for digital preservation." > > BTW, inkjets are not photographs, they're reproductions from > > stored computer data. There is no photograph in the digital [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > meaning of the word that requires silver gelatin emulsions. I don't make > inkjet prints anyway, except when I use the 36" plotter. Not fond of dictionary (vernacular) definitions here but: "Photograph: a picture or other image obtained by the chemical action of light or other radiation on specially sensitized material such as film or glass." New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I can't go through this discussion when all these discussions are archived, but "photograph" means a physical chemically-actuated image on light sensitive materials. That's the scientific meaning of the word (i.e., coined specifically by scientist John Herschel, etc.) Other "images" idiomatically called a "photo" but are in fact reproductions. Digital produces no image whatsoever, only data representing an image. That's a scientific and technological fact. Also, the ISO defines digital image as an electronic signals which represents a still pictures. ISO 12231 Photography Electronic Still Picture Imaging Terminology. > > Now, when those repro images on fancy giclee newsprint have > > been around as long as real silver photographs (almost 200 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the yard they eventually fade, but I think that's more to do with the > rain and the dogs than the sun. Has to do with oxidation. Course dog pee would likely be acidic... > > If > > your prints have faded, I doubt it's the print's fault. I have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prints are all dark stored (together). The one print is clearly > defective, in comparison to the others. It's hard to troubleshoot individual occurances. My preference is to archaivally store the negatives/ transparencies. These are the originals, not the prints. [...] > Thus any color film can be > preserved indefinitely by cold dark storage; theoretically > thousands of years. [...] > As it stands now there is no way to ensure digital > is archival. Of course we can speculate. Any given digital storage media doens't need to be archival, due to the ability to make perfect copies. If you're going to postulate color negatives that are important enough to be dark-cold stored (frozen?) for thousands of years, it's equally plausable that the same people who maintain the refridgeration units could maintain digital files. For that matter, you could burn the digital file onto microfisch, so (theoretically) digital can be exactly as archival as film. > To a large extent I'm sure that's true. But the difference > is with photographic materials people can ignore their > preservation and stick them in a basement box and 200 > years from now be rediscovered. maybe not in perfect > condition but that senario is not likely to happen > with digital images left unattended on someone's hard > drive. I think you missed what I was getting at. I have conceded the digital files will be as gone as the negatives. What will last are the prints, and from that point of view, it doesn't matter if the print originates from a digital file or a negative, what matters is does anyone care to preserve it. Now if you're Ansel Adams people are going to preserve your negatives. And some other people's negatives will be preserved. And some people's digital files will be preserved. > The article is still there, you just have to register > with a user name and password. > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/technology/10archive.html Thanks. > "...no one has figured out how to preserve these electronic > materials for the next decade, much less for the ages. I don't know if he's biased or just sloppy. I've got files on my PC at work that I created more than a decade ago. They have somehow managed to survive through dozens of hard drive failures. I just make copies of the stuff I want to keep. No big mystery there. > Like junk e-mail, the problem of digital archiving, > which seems straightforward, confounds even the experts... I wonder what "experts" he talked to. I have a friend who's an expert. He used to maintain data for a fortune 500 company (now he does their security). He never seemed "confounded" to me at all. Mostly his solutions were expensive, but they were designed to be bulletproof. > So dire and complex is the challenge of digital preservation > in general that the Library of Congress has spent the last > several years forming committees and issuing reports on the > state of the nation's preparedness for digital preservation." Well it's the Government. Of course they form committees and issue reports. ;-) >>You're not going to get many takers for that argument. Just look at the >>meanings of the two roots, photo, and graph. There is nothing in the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (i.e., coined specifically by scientist John Herschel, > etc.) CCDs work because photons elevate electrons into higher orbits in the cell. I remember studying such activity in a course called "chemistry." Then again, Albert Einstein won the nobel prize in *physics* for explaining it. My chemistry professor seemed to believe that the photo-electric effect was chemical. The CCD is quite obviously light sensitive. In any case, this is a rec.photo. group (well, three of them actually), not a sci.photo group. I'm not sure that scientific jargon is appropriate. In any case, all the "professional photographers" who have migrated to digital have taken the word with them. I guess the word police were asleep at the switch. If we were discussing Latin, then we could say that words have absolute meanings carved in stone, as it were, but in English word meanings and usages change with time; the word photograph has been expanded to include digital by the vast majority. > It's hard to troubleshoot individual occurances. My > preference is to archaivally store the negatives/ > transparencies. These are the originals, not the > prints. Since they are studio photographs, the negatives stayed with the studios and are likely long gone. Bob > [...] > > Thus any color film can be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Any given digital storage media doens't need to be archival, due to the > ability to make perfect copies. Copies are meaningless if the media doesn't last or if you have no device to read it. If you're going to postulate color > negatives that are important enough to be dark-cold stored (frozen?) for > thousands of years, it's equally plausable that the same people who > maintain the refridgeration units could maintain digital files. No. Because film is it's own media. Nothing else is required to read it. Digital files require both long lasting media and stable devices to access and read that media, both of which are lacking. Read the NY Times article and think about what you're saying. The people quoted there aren't dummies as you might imply -- they're the people responsible for public archives concerned about digital's short lived nature. snip... > > "...no one has figured out how to preserve these electronic > > materials for the next decade, much less for the ages. > > I don't know if he's biased or just sloppy. I've got files on my PC at > work that I created more than a decade ago. O come on. 10 years? What is that, besides 10 years? Most people DO suffer data loss. Other than you, I don't know anyone who hasn't. They have somehow managed to > survive through dozens of hard drive failures. I just make copies of the > stuff I want to keep. No big mystery there. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > security). He never seemed "confounded" to me at all. Mostly his > solutions were expensive, but they were designed to be bulletproof. no such thing as "bulletproof" solutions and the average person who puts their family photo history on digital media will lose it. snip... > > "Photograph: a picture or other image obtained by the chemical > > action of light or other radiation on specially sensitized material [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > actually), not a sci.photo group. I'm not sure that scientific jargon is > appropriate. Clearly you are not into the factual science behind the processes. Big difference between photochemical and photoelectric. One produces a chemical reaction; the other a voltage. Your professor didn't articulate well; everything is chemically based, including the words that comes from your brain to your finger tips, but that's not the same thing as a as sound from a loudspeaker. > In any case, all the "professional photographers" who have migrated to > digital have taken the word with them. I guess the word police were > asleep at the switch. If we were discussing Latin, then we could say > that words have absolute meanings carved in stone, as it were, but in > English word meanings and usages change with time; the word photograph > has been expanded to include digital by the vast majority. Ah, the appeal to conformity as proof of actuality. In logic that's called a fallacy. > Clearly you are not into the factual science behind > the processes. Big difference between photochemical and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that's not the same thing as a as sound from a > loudspeaker. And your nervous system is electrically based. Atoms retain their shape and owe their chemical characteristics to the arrangement of their orbital electrons. Chemistry and electronics are intertwined at the most fundamental levels of matter. So what was your point? rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > > Clearly you are not into the factual science behind > > the processes. Big difference between photochemical and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So what was your point? The point is what comes out of your mouth isn't the same as what gets blared from your car radio speakers (o.k., politician's mouths excepted.) They represent different physical processes, i.e., as in oceans are not monkeys even though they both have H2O as the main component. Get it? Or consider that a _photograph_ can be made chemically using virtually no technology (i.e., no industrially manufactered and doped wafers and electronics.) Go ahead, try making a digital "photo" that way, then try to claim what you see on your computer screen is the same process as Talbot's 1839 Calotypes. So, what's _your_ point besides the fact that you and I have the same hydrogen atoms as stars? Or that both you and a TV set has an electrical system? Don't know about you, but I'm just a wee bit differently than a TV set and so is photochemical vs. digital. Clearly, the ability to adequately differentiate in the abstract is lacking around here... > Clearly, the ability to adequately differentiate > in the abstract is lacking around here... And here all along I thought it was the ability to generalize that was lacking. ;-) Bob > 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. Monochrome/silver photography is a better fit for your argument, but so what. But hey, if you'd like to volunteer as Luddite-in-residence, welcome. Stacey's resigned the position and gone to the dark side, and bobm hasn't been heard from in months. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > > Clearly, the ability to adequately differentiate > > in the abstract is lacking around here... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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! >> As Dave Littleboy pointed out just a day >> or two ago, the technology needed to make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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 rec.photo.equipment.large-format jjs <john@xstafford.net> wrote: : >> As Dave Littleboy pointed out just a day : >> or two ago, the technology needed to make [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > : > Quoting Littleboy to me undermines your credibility. : As The Ludite-in-training, I always thought you more of a curmudgeon like me!! :-) <snip> SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > In rec.photo.equipment.large-format jjs <john@xstafford.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I always thought you more of a curmudgeon like me!! :-) Compliments always welcome ;) Course it depends on one's definition of curmudgeon -- the origin and etymology of the word isn't known so no one knows where it came from or what it really means :) In my case no doubt pedantically... Luddite (or as the undereducated stafford spells it, "lud-ite") is a misnomer, usually misapplied as opposing technology when in fact the English laborers were trying to protect the system their livelihoods were dependent on (i.e., had more to do with economic policies of factory owners vs. weaver-craftsmen than technology.) While on the subject it should probably be pointed out for the digitally undereducated that luddite comparisons have little in common with phototgraphy vs. digital or the future of film photography. it's a diversionary tactic. Photography is a phenomenon of _science_, not technology (which of course is a major fact the techno-geeks either don't understand or conveniently ignore...), and cannot be threatened by it. Must drive them nuts semiconductors are not required to make a real photograph :) OTOH, digital images simply cannot occur in the absence of technology. The issue rather is why a new generation of techno-geeks simply refuse to take their own medium at face value and instead insecurely think they can only gain social and artistic legitimacy by misappropriating real photographic technology and terminology as their own (i.e., putting phony shutters and shutter sound effects on digital gadgets so they can fool themselves into believing they're using a real camera and exposing a real photograph everytime they hear a .wav file artifically go "click!") They're likewise so insecure in their own non-photographic imaging medium they insist film must eventually disappear. Truth is, people likewise thought George Eastman's snapshot technological revolution ("you push the button, we do the rest") would spell the doom of fine art photography as we know it, since up until that time (1888) you actually had to know something (i.e, be skilled) about photography in order to make a photograph. All it did was make serious fine art photography more popular, and seems to me silver-based b&w photography is more popular than ever and doing quite well. People aren't as technetronically ignorant as the digital-geeks would make society it appear; they know the difference between a valueless gadget-driven output and the real thing. Just see if anyone will pay $2500-$15000 for _any_ inkjet/giclee as they do for Yousuf Karsh prints (see Lloyd's thread.) If anything b&w photography/print making will become _more_ valuable as a craft since the new knowledgeless generation of digital practitioners simply don't have the skills, craft, or talent to produce fine art photographs on their desktop computer-imaged outputs. PS, pardon my curmudgeonly rant :) > If anything b&w photography/print making will become _more_ valuable as > a craft since the new knowledgeless generation of digital practitioners > simply don't have the skills, craft, or talent to produce fine art > photographs on their desktop computer-imaged outputs. All they can produce are dimensionally flat appearing overly saturated representations of photographs,....yee ha !!! >While on the subject it should probably be pointed out >for the digitally undereducated that luddite comparisons [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >don't understand or conveniently ignore...), and cannot be >threatened by it. Spare us the technobabble, Cricket. Let's cut to the chase... >Must drive them nuts semiconductors are >not required to make a real photograph :) Not at all. I've been actively taking photos and printing them since I was a kid... long before Intel's 4004 processor was a gleam in Andy Grove's eye, but about the time of the original uA709 op amp. From 1968 through 1970, I shot and developed about one roll of Tri-X per day. Developed the film after school, let it dry during dinner, and made prints in the evening. If I choose to capture my images on silicon these days, or make my prints on an Epson, why is that any less legit? Is art not allowed the benefits of technology? Is there some reason we're obliged to do without it? >OTOH, digital >images simply cannot occur in the absence of technology. Nor can photographic images of any other kind, unless you resort to some bogus definition of "technology." >The issue rather is why a new generation of techno-geeks >simply refuse to take their own medium at face value and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >real camera and exposing a real photograph everytime they >hear a .wav file artifically go "click!") If you can't make an argument without inventing a strawman, why bother, Tom? My "social and artistic legitimacy" isn't dependent on any of these foolish things you cite. My artistic legitimacy, as a photographer, depends on the images I create, nothing more and nothing less. And my social legitimacy isn't up for discussion. >They're likewise >so insecure in their own non-photographic imaging medium >they insist film must eventually disappear. I'm not insisting on anything, just looking at economic realities, factory closures, cancellations of product lines (cameras, films) and so on. If you choose to ignore all that, feel free. You can run (from reality) but you can't hide. Me, I'd like to know that I can buy C41 sheet film for my 4x5 for at least a few more years before I invest too much more in that outfit. >Truth is, people likewise thought George Eastman's snapshot >technological revolution ("you push the button, we do the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >more popular, and seems to me silver-based b&w photography >is more popular than ever and doing quite well. Cool. So what's your point? BW photography is a special art. As a certified "digihead" I have enough respect for BW printing that I've not seriously tried doing it digitally. When I'm good and ready for that move, I will. I have thousands of BW negatives just waiting. >People aren't >as technetronically ignorant as the digital-geeks would make >society it appear; they know the difference between a valueless >gadget-driven output and the real thing. Just see if anyone >will pay $2500-$15000 for _any_ inkjet/giclee as they do for >Yousuf Karsh prints (see Lloyd's thread.) Here's one fellow getting a fair price for BW giclees, and I could name a few more. http://www.nubar.com I've seen the prints close up, and they're beautiful. Of course, "market value" is only one measurement of the value of art. >If anything b&w photography/print making will become _more_ valuable as >a craft since the new knowledgeless generation of digital practitioners >simply don't have the skills, craft, or talent to produce fine art >photographs on their desktop computer-imaged outputs. Painting your opponents with this sort of broad brush does nothing for your credibility, Tom. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >While on the subject it should probably be pointed out > >for the digitally undereducated that luddite comparisons [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Spare us the technobabble, Cricket. > Let's cut to the chase... Which is all you do... snip. >snip. No testicles, Tom? Slink away, little coward. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >snip. > > No testicles, Tom? > Slink away, little coward. I let dogs (and trolls) chase their own tails and lick their own balls. >>OTOH, digital >>images simply cannot occur in the absence of technology. > >Nor can photographic images of any other kind, >unless you resort to some bogus definition of >"technology." LOL ! With a few basic chemicals I can create a sensitized plate and a subsequent negative using a box camera with a pin-hole "lens". I can develop the image in a cup of coffee with some home-made caustic (pot ash) for an alkali. I can stop the development with some vinegar and fix the image with table salt. I can coat the same emulsion on a piece of paper and contact print the negative. I have a photograph. Now, exactly how are you going to make that CCD/CMOS/whatever ?!!! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email >>>OTOH, digital >>>images simply cannot occur in the absence of technology. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Now, exactly how are you going to make that CCD/CMOS/whatever >?!!! Chemistry isn't technology? How do you intend to form the image? Pinholes will do, I suppose, but Canon L lenses are a lot better. And shutters come in handy sometimes. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >>>OTOH, digital > >>>images simply cannot occur in the absence of technology. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And shutters come in handy sometimes. Silver salts, a sensitized substrate, sodium chloride, and pinhole phenomenon are all or can be all naturally occuring. That's fundamentally what photography is. Shutters, lenses, camera bodies not necessary. Cathode ray tubes, the digital conversion and regeneration of photoelectrons, silicon wafer etching, doping, LCD displays, etc etc etc, are not naturally occurring phenomenon. And that's fundamentally what digital imaging is. Just that simple. >> >>>OTOH, digital >> >>>images simply cannot occur in the absence of technology. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > photoelectrons, silicon wafer etching, doping, LCD displays, > etc etc etc, are not naturally occurring phenomenon. Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I think I've seen yet and I've come up with some pretty good ones. I still define photography as the recording of a moment in time that existed in front of the recording device, which then the interpretation of that moment in time which will make the viewer feel what the person who took the image felt at the time, is what makes someone a good photographer. If the end result doesn't reflect what was in front of the camera at a certain moment in time (i.e. is a composite of several different moments/locations or things are removed or added to the image) for me isn't a photograph anymore but can still be "art" or whatever you want to call it and can still be very effective. But that's only how I judge my work. I've done both and sometimes a composite "art" image better defines how I felt at that point in time than an actual photograph does. I think -that- is more important than -how- it is accomplished. Then again some people see cropping anything from a negative as not being a "real" photograph so everyone has their own views. Maybe I'm getting old but I'm at the point where the end result is all I care about anymore.. SignatureStacey >Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. >Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I >think I've seen yet and I've come up with some pretty good ones. LOL, Stacey, it pains me to agree with you. Means, ends... both have value. Sometimes I wanna get snap happy with my 10D, and sort it all out later. And sometimes I feel like looking at stuff upside-down and backwards on the ground glass of my ShenHao. Five film holders for one afternoon's outing. Sometimes I wanna shoot Reala with my Nikon, cuz no camera ever felt better in my hands. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. > >Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I > >think I've seen yet and I've come up with some pretty good ones. > > LOL, Stacey, it pains me to agree with you. You should read more... > >Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. > >Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I > >think I've seen yet and I've come up with some pretty good ones. > > LOL, Stacey, it pains me to agree with you. I guess you two are having too much fun to consider all the case where photo sensitivity occurs naturally without any intervention by man, naturally occurs without technology as a sole function of chemistry and light. SignatureLF 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 >> >Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. >> >Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >any intervention by man, naturally occurs without technology >as a sole function of chemistry and light. I guess I fail to see the relevance, is all. You guys are all hypocrites... using lots of electronics, fiber optics and the internet to praise photography for its primtive-ness. Gimme a break. When I want primitive-ness, I strap on a pack and take a long hike on the Appalachian Trail. If an image occurs in the forest... and nobody's there to see it.... is it still an image? rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >> >Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. > >> >Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com This is an interesting and important topic of discussion, I think, but the ad hominum attacks on both sides are really limiting its uselfulness. Cant we discuss it without all that? >This is an interesting and important topic of discussion, I think, but >the ad hominum attacks on both sides are really limiting its >uselfulness. Cant we discuss it without all that? The use of technology is central to the discussion, yet the discussion itself couldn't be taking place without technology. Pointing out hypocrisy isn't entirely ad hominem, and hardly the worst of the mud that's been slung thus far. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >This is an interesting and important topic of discussion, I think, but > >the ad hominum attacks on both sides are really limiting its [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com I wasnt singling you out, if you read what I said. Pointing out contradiction is not ad hominem. Calling people names in attempt to discredit their argument is. And I'll say it again-it has come from both sides. But you seem to be missing something important, or creating something that was never an issue. Nobody has complained about the existence of technology, so there is no need to defend it. There is no hypocrisy at all in someone making a distinction between the technology (or lack of) of photography and DI while using computers and Usenet. They are completely unrelated issues. Someone has merely advanced the argument that the requirement of advanced technology is another reason that DI is not the same process as photography. It has nothing to do with judging the value or usefulness of technology. >Someone has merely advanced the argument >that the requirement of advanced technology is another reason that DI >is not the same process as photography. It has nothing to do with >judging the value or usefulness of technology. There certainly have been clear cut statements that photography is "science" while DI (as you refer to it) is "technology." I contend that this distinction is bogus and useful only as a sink of bandwidth among clueless w.nkers on USENET with too much time on their hands. Oops, there goes that ad hominem again. Long years on USENET have taken their toll on my manners, sorry. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > When I want primitive-ness, I strap on a > pack and take a long hike on the Appalachian > Trail. Uphill, both ways. I got my primitives in this AM. Shoveled through 4' snow drifts. >> When I want primitive-ness, I strap on a >> pack and take a long hike on the Appalachian >> Trail. > >Uphill, both ways. Pretty much. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/trail_map.jpg /rafe >>Uphill, both ways. > Pretty much. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com/trail_map.jpg True, and thanks for the maps. My father and I spent a lot of time living on the Northern part of the Trail when I was a kid. Dad was a powerful hiker. Until only six months ago I could still haul a lot of gear. "Tough breaks" as they say. OBPhotography - I am going out in an hour with the 4x5 and a 75mm F5.6 Super-Angulon. Gee, it fits in my pocket! >>>Uphill, both ways. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >breaks" as they say. OBPhotography - I am going out in an hour with the 4x5 >and a 75mm F5.6 Super-Angulon. Gee, it fits in my pocket! Look at it again... I've replaced the original with a better view that shows the entire fold-up map of this section. A quick and dirty compositing job in PS. (It's half a meg, just so you know.) Where else will you catch this much vertical in 43 miles of walking? The AT in Maine is as good as it gets. Pretty much anywhere in Maine. I've walked it all. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Look at it again... I've replaced the original > with a better view that shows the entire fold-up map [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Where else will you catch this much vertical > in 43 miles of walking? 4,270 foot altitude is good for the East. Molly and I are good to 15,000 feet. Getting there is another story. All we have right here (right outside the window) are 600' bluffs. On 3/19/2005 5:01 AM Gregory Blank spake thus: >>> Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. >>> Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > any intervention by man, naturally occurs without technology > as a sole function of chemistry and light. OK, gotta jump into this extremely specious argument. Can't take it any more. So yes, let's consider perhaps the prime naturally-occuring case of photo[chemical]sensitivity, our own eyes. Think about how our retinas work. They're *MUCH* more akin to a digital camera than to silver-based photography. You have a photoreceptor--naturally-occuring, mind you--with thousands of discrete sensitive points (like pixels) which translate light levels and colors into electrical signals. So this actually argues *against* your case for excluding digital. Explain that. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > So yes, let's consider perhaps the prime naturally-occuring case of > photo[chemical]sensitivity, our own eyes. Think about how our retinas > work. They're *MUCH* more akin to a digital camera than to silver-based > photography. You have a photoreceptor--naturally-occuring, mind you--with > thousands of discrete sensitive points (like pixels) which translate light > levels and colors into electrical signals. But wait! The eye is chemical/analog! It is "natural". DI doesn't really emulate the human eye. Not remotely. IMHO! Say, if you want a good read, get Margaret Livingston's "Vision and Art: the Biology of Seeing". I use the book to keep my laptop from burning my lap. Right now, in fact. > So this actually argues *against* your case for excluding digital. Explain > that. Just did. :) Oh, this is nutz. I'm going out to make pictures. Naturally. >> So yes, let's consider perhaps the prime naturally-occuring case of >> photo[chemical]sensitivity, our own eyes. Think about how our retinas [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Margaret Livingston's "Vision and Art: the Biology of Seeing". I use the >book to keep my laptop from burning my lap. Right now, in fact. Actually it seems that the human eye's processing of color occurs on at least two levels (and neural layers.) One of which works on the RGB model, and another which works on the opposition model (as in L*a*b.) And furthermore, it's a crappy design, because light has to travel *through* these processing layers to get to the rods and cones. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:06:55 -0800, David Nebenzahl >So yes, let's consider perhaps the prime naturally-occuring case of >photo[chemical]sensitivity, our own eyes. Think about how our retinas work. >They're *MUCH* more akin to a digital camera than to silver-based photography. >You have a photoreceptor--naturally-occuring, mind you--with thousands of >discrete sensitive points (like pixels) which translate light levels and >colors into electrical signals. And backed up with curiously fallable memory, I might add. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > On 3/19/2005 5:01 AM Gregory Blank spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > photo[chemical]sensitivity, our own eyes. Think about how our retinas work. > They're *MUCH* more akin to a digital camera than to silver-based photography. Actually, much of human eyesight is still mystery. Oh, theoretically we think we know how we see, but only in theory. BTW, the human brain does not convert voltages into digital signals and store the signals as data, which is how digital works. The electrical impluses in your brain (well everyone else's brain perhaps...) are not photoelectrically generated... > You have a photoreceptor--naturally-occuring, mind you--with thousands of > discrete sensitive points (like pixels) which translate light levels and > colors into electrical signals. > > So this actually argues *against* your case for excluding digital. Explain that. As per above, only an utter idiot would try to compare natural eyesight to semiconductor manufacturing... On 3/20/2005 1:04 PM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> So yes, let's consider perhaps the prime naturally-occuring case of >> photo[chemical]sensitivity, our own eyes. Think about how our retinas work. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > impluses in your brain (well everyone else's brain > perhaps...) are not photoelectrically generated... I never said the brain converts anything to digital signals and stores the results as data. Obviously, our brains don't work at all the same as our digital computers (as in TTL/CMOS, whatever, 1/0 voltage level machines). However, the brain most definitely does convert voltages--the signals that are transmitted by the optic nerve--into what we perceive as vision. You're right, of course, that the details of how this all works are poorly understood. But the electrical impulses FROM THE EYE are definitely photoelectrically generated. The similarities between how our eyesight and digital cameras work are so obvious that it would take someone with a pretty good-size agenda to miss them. Certainly more similar than our eyesight and silver-based photography. >> You have a photoreceptor--naturally-occuring, mind you--with thousands of >> discrete sensitive points (like pixels) which translate light levels and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > As per above, only an utter idiot would try to compare > natural eyesight to semiconductor manufacturing... Which I did not do. This isn't even a strawman, just a spurious argument altogether. You'll have to do better than that. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > On 3/20/2005 1:04 PM Tom Phillips spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > of course, that the details of how this all works are poorly understood. But > the electrical impulses FROM THE EYE are definitely photoelectrically generated. No, they're photochemcially generated. According the Land theory vision is a function of the neuro-integration of transmitted signals -- signals thought to be activated by PHOTOCHEMICAL proccesses. I.e., there is a chemical reaction that initiates the nerve impulses that are then sent to the brain to somehow be percieved as visual sight. So, eat your carrots and stop thinking human biochemistry can be dumbed down to a cheapo digital camera :) > The similarities between how our eyesight and digital cameras work are so > obvious that it would take someone with a pretty good-size agenda to miss [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Which I did not do. This isn't even a strawman, just a spurious argument > altogether. You'll have to do better than that. I think I justs did :) The brain works biochemically; we see biochemically. >> On 3/19/2005 5:01 AM Gregory Blank spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > As per above, only an utter idiot would try to compare > natural eyesight to semiconductor manufacturing... "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> > Actually, much of human eyesight is still mystery. > Oh, theoretically we think we know how we see, but > only in theory. [...] Translation: "Since I, Tom Phillips, remain am willfully ignorant or just too dim to understand what I have researched, then you all are wrong." On 3/20/2005 2:51 PM jjs spake thus: > "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Translation: "Since I, Tom Phillips, remain am willfully ignorant or just > too dim to understand what I have researched, then you all are wrong." Hey, John, let's not muddy up this argument further by needless nitpicking. I agree with T.P. on this: we know bits and pieces, but the overall process is poorly understood. Or do you care to explain to us exactly how human vision works? Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson >On 3/20/2005 2:51 PM jjs spake thus: >> Translation: "Since I, Tom Phillips, remain am willfully ignorant or just >> too dim to understand what I have researched, then you all are wrong." > >Hey, John, let's not muddy up this argument further by needless nitpicking. I >agree with T.P. on this: we know bits and pieces, but the overall process is >poorly understood. I think we know that the nervous system is electro-chemical in nature. That much is beyond doubt. Neural activity can be measured in electrical units, and electrical signals can be used to simulate neural activity (eg., in cochlear implants.) There is no reason to believe that the human retina is fundamentally different in that regard. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com On 3/20/2005 3:38 PM rafe bustin spake thus: >> n 3/20/2005 2:51 PM jjs spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > human retina is fundamentally different > in that regard. Yes, I agree with everything you've said. What's poorly understood are the "downstream" processes, what might be called the software of the visual system. How do those electrical signals get decoded and turned into the perception of a stunning landscape (or whatever)? I know that *something* is known of these processes, but only bits and pieces, not any kind of holistic picture by any means. Fascinating stuff, though. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson >Yes, I agree with everything you've said. What's poorly understood are the >"downstream" processes, what might be called the software of the visual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I know that *something* is known of these processes, but only bits and pieces, >not any kind of holistic picture by any means. We know that color vision seems to follow both the tristimulus (RGB) and the oppostion model (Lab). And I believe we know the corresponding physiology behind both these behaviors. From there it goes into the Adobe Color Engine and then... I think maybe to Duluth, or possibly the Isles of Langerhans. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > On 3/20/2005 3:38 PM rafe bustin spake thus: > > Neural activity can be measured in electrical > > units, and electrical signals can be used > > to simulate neural activity (eg., in cochlear > > implants.) Please show how a digital camera is equal to how the eyes absorb light and the brain processes imagery. The brain is infinitely more sophisticated and complex (biochemical nerve impulses, neurotransmitters, etc.) Sure you can introduce an electrical impulse to the brain and the brain can perceive it (_very_ crudely.) But this isn't the same as an manufactured electronic device that regenerates an electrical voltage to a digital signal. Neural activity is _biochemical_. > > There is no reason to believe that the > > human retina is fundamentally different > > in that regard. Human visual nerve impulses are PHOTOCHEMICALLY activated. Try reading and doing some research before letting your undereducated fingers go wild at the keyboard. Friday I was Daguerrotyped. > Yes, I agree with everything you've said. What's poorly understood are the > "downstream" processes, what might be called the software of the visual > system. How do those electrical signals get decoded and turned into the > perception of a stunning landscape (or whatever)? The eye does the work we are concerned with. If you wish to delve into how the human brain works, then that is simply a red herring - for what reason I cannot imagine. > On 3/20/2005 2:51 PM jjs spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Or do you care to explain to us exactly how human vision works? stafford doesn't even know how photography works. Of course when you actually do provide a verifiable cite to him (such as James Theory of the Photographic Processes or possibly Edwin Land's theory) he rejects that as well. He's such a laughable troll. A decent troll could at least come up with a deceptively specious argument that might make you scratch yourn head instead of an childish ad hominem. > stafford doesn't even know how photography works. And there you go - Tom Phillips has poured cement around his ankles and is now ready to jump into the water. It truly must suck to be you, Tom. Life is too short to be unkind. I have a sneaking suspicion that it truly sucks to be any of us. > On 3/20/2005 2:51 PM jjs spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Or do you care to explain to us exactly how human vision works? We know how human vision works. There are no mysteries. On 3/20/2005 5:09 PM jjs spake thus: >> On 3/20/2005 2:51 PM jjs spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > We know how human vision works. There are no mysteries. OK, then explain it to me. Succinctly, please. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson >>Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. >>Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I >>think I've seen yet and I've come up with some pretty good ones. I don't think anybody was claiming that digital is bad because it is artificial or whatever. I think you could probably summarize the post with something like, "Lighten up--it doesn't have to be *that* complicated to take a picture!" > >> >>>OTOH, digital > >> >>>images simply cannot occur in the absence of technology. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Please show ONE place a chemical photograph has ever naturally occurred. Why is it comprehension drops so dramatically on USENET? I never said that, and you know it. What I said, and what is factual history, is fundamentally photography is not technology based; it's a scientific phenomenon. It was discovered, not invented technologically. Go, read how the first/ early photoresearchers created images... > Both are technical developments from science, This is the lamest argument I > think I've seen yet and I've come up with some pretty good ones. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Stacey > ...read how the first/ > early photoresearchers created images... Clue: Johann Heinrich Schulze,, Carl Scheele, Giacomo Beccaria, Jean Senebier, William Lewis and Joseph Priestley, and finally Thomas Wedgwood who succeeded in creating the first negative images in 1802 based on the discovered photochemical properties of silver salts by the aforementioned researchers and chemists. Wedgwood did not use a camera, lens, or device of any sort to make his images. He did not use metal or glass plates. >> ...read how the first/ >> early photoresearchers created images... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >a camera, lens, or device of any sort to make his >images. He did not use metal or glass plates. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message