 |
 | 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 / April 2005"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?
Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > 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 >> Honest question. If this is too hot a >> topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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 ... 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  Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > "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. 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/ > 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...) ... 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 Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ 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. >> "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. > >> Honest question. If this is too hot a > >> topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >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. FROM: Rec.Photo Charters & FAQ rec.photo.darkroom Developing, printing and other darkroom issues This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects of photographic darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing from negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative chemistry. rec.photo.digital This group is for the discussion of all aspects of digital photography, including digital cameras, scanners, image manipulation software, printers, and CD-ROM technology. > Honest question. If this is too hot a > topic, no big deal. Others may feel different but I don't need the discussion here, there is No Darkroom in digital. There's always plenty of other forums to talk about the merits of digital work. Just MYOP FWIW. 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 I have to agree with Gregory. There is no darkroom in digtal and no digital in darkroom. Note that the charter states : rec.photo.darkroom Developing, printing and other darkroom issues This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects of photographic darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing from negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative chemistry. This newsgroup specifically does *NOT* permit the posting of commercial advertisments for products or services, even if they are related to photography. Let's cut a charter for a new group. >Let's cut a charter for a new group. What's the point? If you "need" a charter in order to start a new group, then so be it. Otherwise, charters only serve a useful purpose if they're enforced. These are unmoderated groups. Charters aren't enforceable. The charter is useless. cheers Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) >>Let's cut a charter for a new group. > > What's the point? If you "need" a charter in order to start a new group, > then so be it. Otherwise, charters only serve a useful purpose if they're > enforced. These are unmoderated groups. Charters aren't enforceable. The > charter is useless. You will be the first to be killfiled. >You will be the first to be killfiled. It took you a long time to smarten up - lots of us have been using filters for years. Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) > It took you a long time to smarten up - lots of us have been using filters > for years. Hell, I'm in my own killfile. Been using 'em since day-one. >Hell, I'm in my own killfile. Been using 'em since day-one. Well, at least you still have your sense of humour :-) , unlike many other newsgroup users. But....whether you stick with this group or start a new one for "digital darkroom", the fact that "killfiles" even exist says something very clearly about the lack of control that exists by the group founders. Lack of enforcement = neutered charters. Going to a new group to discuss digital darkroom activities will only be controllable if the group is moderated and the only way to moderate it it to set up a group on your own website, or to make use of the Yahoo (or similar) services. These groups that we are currently using strongly resemble the mess that CB radio became after the Feds in both our countries lost control. Back on topic.........I don't see any place in this newsgroup for digital discussion. I've learned a pile of analog stuff by lurking here. cheers Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) >Honest question. If this is too hot a >topic, no big deal. > >rafe b. >http://www.terrapinphoto.com mar2705 from Lloyd Erlick, Recently Rafe posted the following: ... Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom, but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf, and that is that both these groups (and I suspect yours as well) are essentially moribund. And I suspect we all know why. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com ... None of these groups is moribund. It's possible that events have necessitated some changes in terminology, such as 'rpe-large format film' or some such, but on the whole I find discussion of digitally based activities uninteresting and would prefer to be able to keep myself out of them. The recent threads that have been cross-posted to rp-darkroom have included a good deal of name calling and mocking of individiuals' real names. I prefer to remain apart from such discussions. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > ... > Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom, > but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf, > and that is that both these groups (and I > suspect yours as well) are essentially > moribund. And I suspect we all know why. You suspect wrong (oh my, what a SURPRISE!!). The reason rpelf is slow is that there are other excellent, extremely active (and almost troll-free) LF forums available. >> ... >> Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom, >> but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf, >> and that is that both these groups (and I >> suspect yours as well) are essentially >> moribund. And I suspect we all know why. >You suspect wrong (oh my, what a SURPRISE!!). The reason rpelf is slow >is that there are other excellent, extremely active (and almost >troll-free) LF forums available. I'd love to know where. I've had a 4x5 for months and i'm itching to learn more about it! > I'd love to know where. I've had a 4x5 for months and i'm itching to learn > more about it! Do you subscribe to View Camera Magazine? Steve Simmons has a forum going on there. There is also Apug. and www.viewcamera.com http://www.f32.net/ http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ Just do a google search. 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 Good suggestions! thanks. >> I'd love to know where. I've had a 4x5 for months and i'm itching to learn >> more about it! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Just do a google search. >Honest question. If this is too hot a >topic, no big deal. What does digital image processing have in common with a real darkroom, that it should be discussed in this group? In both cases you can start with a negative (or a slide) and end up with a photo, but as far as I can see all steps in between are completely different. (I can see a point in discussing the opposite: how to replicate in a real darkroom what you can do with Photoshop. What is a simple levels or curves in Photoshop would be quite tricky in darkroom color photo printing). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Honest question. If this is too hot a > topic, no big deal. > > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have no idea what the question means. > What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have > no idea what the question means. It refers to a mental state - a dark one. > > What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have > > no idea what the question means. > > It refers to a mental state - a dark one. Eeek! Then I say NO. >> Honest question. If this is too hot a >> topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have >no idea what the question means. Do you want to know? I suspect not. To me it means digital image processing and printing. But it allows for image capture on either film or direct digital. It's concerned with the processing/ printing rather than image acquisition. Laser or LightJet printing would tecnically fit this group's charter, I think. Inkjet and dye-sub, maybe not. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >> Honest question. If this is too hot a > >> topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To me it means digital image processing > and printing. skedaddle. >> Honest question. If this is too hot a >> topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have >no idea what the question means. You sit in the dark & do something with your digits???? :-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave Starr, Senior Shop Rat Emeritus: 14,647 days in a GM plant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus: > Honest question. If this is too hot a > topic, no big deal. Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom". But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say! 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 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then >sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say! LightJet printing would certainly qualify. Laser printing would qualify if you didn't require "silver based paper." But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or dye-sub output devices. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com LightJet does not qualify. It is a digital printing methodolgy. Also note that very few photographers are going to have one in their personal darkroom. >LightJet does not qualify. It is a digital printing methodolgy. Also >note that very few photographers are going to have one in their >personal darkroom. It is digital, no denying that. But it's also light on real photo paper, processed wet. Desktop LightJet? Hehehe. I can dream, can't I? rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com On 3/27/2005 4:42 PM rafe bustin spake thus: >>On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Laser printing would qualify if you didn't require "silver based paper." How so? This doesn't involve a darkroom, as far as I know. > But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or dye-sub output devices. Yes, for the same reason. See, the thing is, if you're going to discuss the "digital darkroom", then there has to be a, er, darkroom involved at some point, wouldn't you say? By the way, and apropos nothing, I'm curious why you have your line length set so short in your news client. 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 >See, the thing is, if you're going to discuss the "digital darkroom", then >there has to be a, er, darkroom involved at some point, wouldn't you say? > >By the way, and apropos nothing, I'm curious why you have your line length set >so short in your news client. OK, so this is where we digiheads most definitely have appropriated a term from analog/wet photography. But I think the term is reasonably appropriate and carries the obvious meaning. It's what happens _after_ image capture, including the making of the print. It would exclude discussions of digicams vs. film, for example. Line breaks inserted by me. Lots of folks use lo-res monitors and big fonts. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Honest question. If this is too hot a > topic, no big deal. > > rafe b. > http://www.terrapinphoto.com The topic, of digital darkrooms, has come up before in this news group, here is a link from 1999. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/browse_frm/thread/ec6e768 a56f20248?q=%22digital+darkroom%22 At that time the people of the group did not pretend to not understand the word or to act with hostility, but rather talked about the potential of the then new technique. But this group seems to have changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some find threatening. Scott >But this group seems to have >changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group Why does this psycho-babble persist ? Perhaps you simply don't understand the true definition of fear ? fear : feeling of anxiety: an unpleasant feeling of apprehension or distress caused by the presence or anticipation of danger showed no signs of fear I suggest you stop projecting your difficulties onto others and understand that we have used film for quite some time and have no need to regress to a relatively new and significantly inferior technology. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email > I suggest you stop projecting your difficulties onto others >and understand that we have used film for quite some time and have no >need to regress to a relatively new and significantly inferior >technology. Thanks John. That's all the answer I need. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >But this group seems to have > >changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group > > Why does this psycho-babble persist ? Perhaps you simply don't > understand the true definition of fear ? Why: you ask? Maybe because he "really" wants to talk about "Digital Darkroom" ;^) ,....My suggestion is he stand in a darkened closet and talk about (To himself) the great pictures he might take with his digital P&S. Then in effect it will be accurate terminology. Sorry Scott I couldn't resist. 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 >But this group seems to have changed in the last 6 years to a technology > fearing group Could it be that there has been a resurgence of interest in wet darkroom (and I add, larger formats) in the past six years? Perhaps the enthusiasts would rather see the group follow it's original intention. Besides, there are plenty of venues for digital stuff. > > Honest question. If this is too hot a > > topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The topic, of digital darkrooms, has come up before in this news group, > here is a link from 1999. And in a thread with all of 7 posts... > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/browse_frm/thread/ec6e768 a56f20248?q=%22digital+darkroom%22 > > At that time the people of the group did not pretend to not understand > the word or to act with hostility, but rather talked about the > potential of the then new technique. New techniques -- in 1999? Is that when you were born, or when you got your first camera? It's not a darkroom "technique." Not even close. It's software and data (i.e., digital imaging.) And it certainly isn't anything new since many of us own and use scanners and Photoshop and yes even digital cameras. I have Photoshop v1.07 on a vintage Mac SE I've owned since the late 1980's and no, they didn't call it "digital darkroom." Even then it was called software and image manipulation. That "hostility" you seem to perceive isn't fear, but our fed up responses regarding the continued deliberate misappropriation, misinterpretation, and misapplication of _accurate_ and factual photographic terminology by the undereducated, who have about as much photographic knowledge and depth as a pothole from last winter's snows... >But this group seems to have > changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only > interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it > is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some > find threatening. I agree; he should troll elsewhere... ... this group seems to have >changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only >interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it >is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some >find threatening. > >Scott mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick, This is attribution of motivation. It is an uncivil post. Please, let's not have this thread descend into name calling and mockery as several others have recently. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ >> Honest question. If this is too hot a >> topic, no big deal. >> rafe b. >> http://www.terrapinphoto.com >The topic, of digital darkrooms, has come up before in this news group, >here is a link from 1999. >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.darkroom/browse_frm/thread/ec6e768 a56f20248?q=%22digital+darkroom%22 >At that time the people of the group did not pretend to not understand >the word or to act with hostility, but rather talked about the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some >find threatening. Come now. No one fears technology. The problem is that we *have* seen film discontinuations, major suppliers in receivership, etc., followed by various posts which could all be summarized as simply, "Digital will wipe out everything you know and love, tee hee hee!" I don't blame people for getting sick of it. There are certainly ways to use digital along with film technology and I'll bet that's interesting to more people here than you'd think. Such things as making large digital negatives for use in palladium printing, or making separation negatives for gum dichromate prints, etc. And it's certainly *not* pointless to ask whether film can do some things better than digital methods. Film has certain economic and engineering characteristics. Digital capture has others; digital capture has real limitations of its own. There's nothing Luddite about being realistic about that. Photography itself only loses if it turns out that there are images you can (economically) make (or make honestly) with film that you cannot (economically) make with digital. But the more of this junk [and I confess to having contributed a little of it] there is, the fewer posts by experts like Knoppow. Frankly I enjoyed the scarpitti wars from some time ago more than this digichat; at least those were about silver halide photography. > Come now. No one fears technology. That seems to be changing, but maybe it is just my perception. > The problem is that we *have* seen film discontinuations, major suppliers in > receivership, etc., followed by various posts which could all be > summarized as simply, "Digital will wipe out everything you know and love, > tee hee hee!" I don't blame people for getting sick of it. I am happy to limit the discussion to strictly film, with no digital partaking in the process on this group. I should point out that in the thread dealing with "Where will B&W be in 5, 10... years" digital was attached before it had even been mentioned, I quote Tom "Difference between having a real bird in hand vs twocyberbush birds that don't really exist to begin with." The O.P did not talk about digital at all, as far as I can tell, nor had anyone else up until that point. I have done some rather interesting photography in my career, some of it where it would have been close to impossible to do with digital. I have used 4 x 5 glass plates that easily captured 2000 line pair /mm, ISO was around 0.04 BTW. For those who like to put this in pixels that is just over 50 billion pixels worth of image, not that any one would try to scan that. My "camera" BTW wieghed close to a ton. Some of you are probably saying I am full of BS and some of you have probably figured out what kind of photography I was doing. In my first job my whole office was also a darkroom, so in a very real way I spent 8 hours a day (some days a lot more) working in a darkroom. I have shot a lot a 4 x 5 glass plates as well as a lot of 70mm film ( I like the glass plates a lot better). I am also on record saying that I think some people will be doing film photography for a long time to come. If I get then sense of the group it would appear that the following topics would be considered OT, Anything dealing with the impact that digital photograph might or might not have on the availability of film. Any comparison of prints made from an enlarger to one made on a digital printer, such as the Fuji Frontier. Archiving negatives by scanning them to digital files. If these types of topics are of no interest to people in this group that is fine, I won't bring them up here. > There are certainly ways to use digital along with film technology and I'll > bet that's interesting to more people here than you'd think. Such things as > making large digital negatives for use in palladium printing, or making > separation negatives for gum dichromate prints, etc. >From what I have read I think some would take object to even this. > And it's certainly *not* pointless to ask whether film can do some things > better than digital methods. Film has certain economic and engineering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you can (economically) make (or make honestly) with film that you cannot > (economically) make with digital. There are indeed things that film can do better and no reason not to talk about it, but this will always open up the debat as to just how the two compare, perhaps this is best not talked about on this group? > But the more of this junk [and I confess to having contributed a little of > it] there is, the fewer posts by experts like Knoppow. Frankly I enjoyed the > scarpitti wars from some time ago more than this digichat; at least those > were about silver halide photography. In the past there were discussions in this group dealing with digital techniques that did not degenerate into flame wars, it would appear that this is no longer possible here, given that it might best not bring up digital topics here, for the record I have neven been the on to bring up the topic on this NG. Scott > > Come now. No one fears technology. > > That seems to be changing, but maybe it is just my perception. Nah, you're absolutely right Scott, I've been using Photoshop on my computers since 1989 because I'm afraid of technology. Your perceptions are right on... ;^) > > The problem is that we *have* seen film discontinuations, major > suppliers in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > digital at all, as far as I can tell, nor had anyone else up until that > point. Perhaps you might pay more attention to what things contextually mean -- usually more important than the literal words. As I posted already, the _only_ reason there's even a discussion on "Where will B&W be..." is due to the claims of digital geeks (who btw typically know nothing about film) that film will necessarily become extinct because "digital is better." That is the underlying boast of digital marketing. Digital is _implied_ in the thread. > If I get then sense of the group it would appear that the following > topics would be considered OT, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If these types of topics are of no interest to people in this group > that is fine, I won't bring them up here. All these topics have been discussed here over the last few years (ad nauseam, in fact.) _This_ thread as posted by rafe b. is clearly a troll since anyone with a brain knows what the charter and purpose of r.p.d means. In fact I posted it for everyone to read... > In the past there were discussions in this group dealing with digital > techniques that did not degenerate into flame wars, it would appear > that this is no longer possible here, given that it might best not > bring up digital topics here, for the record I have neven been the on > to bring up the topic on this NG. Again it was rafe b. who started the flaming. Not liking honest and factual opinions about what digital really is (a nonphotographic process) he began calling those (me) he disagreed with "luddites." He'll likely do the same here given most object to his lame argument that Photoshop equates with real darkrooms and his even more absurd claim that because digital isn't mentioned by the r.p.d charter, r.p.d must therefore have intended to include discussions on digital imaging techniques. As I said before, one can only chuckle someone actually thinks there's a darkroom compiled somewhere in all that Photoshop code. Photoshop (aka, "digital darkrooms") is "image manipulation software" as per the rec.photo.digital charter quoted below: "[rec.photo.digital] is for the discussion of all aspects of digital photography, including digital cameras, scanners, image manipulation software, printers, and CD-ROM technology." > Frankly I enjoyed the > scarpitti wars from some time ago more than this digichat; at least those > were about silver halide photography. Ah bite your tongue young man :-) 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 ... If this is too hot a >topic, no big deal. > >rafe b. >http://www.terrapinphoto.com ... mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick, The topic is not too hot for me; not even warm. I find it uninteresting. In r.p.d. I can discuss what I find interesting, with people who also find it interesting. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > Honest question. If this is too hot a > topic, no big deal. Nah. Take it somewhere else. Most of what you'll see here are technologies and methods; digital stuff has very little in common with either of them. > > Honest question. If this is too hot a > > topic, no big deal. > > Nah. Take it somewhere else. Most of what you'll see here are > technologies and methods; digital stuff has very little in common with > either of them. IMHO I think there is relevance here. Working on a Mac with Photoshop software trying to tweak an extra something from an image seems no different to the hours spent in a real darkroom messing with different papers and films. The only difference here is you pay big bucks up-front for Photoshop, then it gets cheap or you pay as you go and probably take more care and time over your photography and printing as you're spending real money each time. I do think digital has encouraged people to take the 'scatter-gun' approach to picture taking - firing off hundreds of shots in the hope of getting one or two good ones. Those old-timers with plate cameras had to wait and wait because they only had 10 chances per day to get an image. Then again, digital has breathed life into photography by sidestepping indifferent D&P outfits and the RPS school of *real* (read Snob) photography and has allowed picture takers with a limited amount of time on vacation to alter and improve pictures which would have been left sitting in a drawer had they been film. > > > Honest question. If this is too hot a > > > topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > different to the hours spent in a real darkroom messing with different > papers and films. Especially if you don't know what you're doing in the darkroom to begin with... > Then again, digital has breathed life into photography by sidestepping > indifferent D&P outfits and the RPS school of *real* (read Snob) > photography and has allowed picture takers with a limited amount of time > on vacation to alter and improve pictures which would have been left > sitting in a drawer had they been film. Snob Photography: the difference between great art and vacation snapshots no one should ever see. As snobby Ansel Adams once remarked: "You can visit Yosemite and take pictures of nothing but parking lots; people do it all the time." Only now snapshooters with photoshop can take out the parking lots and replace them with plagerized scans of Ansel's postcards... > > > > Honest question. If this is too hot a > > > > topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Especially if you don't know what you're doing > in the darkroom to begin with... Really? I guess we all need to learn more... > > Then again, digital has breathed life into photography by sidestepping > > indifferent D&P outfits and the RPS school of *real* (read Snob) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the parking lots and replace them with plagerized > scans of Ansel's postcards... Have you ever had a picture published? > > > > > Honest question. If this is too hot a > > > > > topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Have you ever had a picture published? Yes. > Yes. Your as bad as Frank. 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 > > Yes. > > Your as bad as Frank. I gues Frank and I have something in common after all... : : > Yes. : Your as bad as Frank. Nobody's as bad as I am!! SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : Your as bad as Frank. > > Nobody's as bad as I am!! I think everyone thinks they are the worst, very few explore the nature of personal evil though and see the devil for what, is or is not. Here's a nice website: who needs digital photography? http://www.sketchovision.com/clips_foa.html >: > Yes. > >: Your as bad as Frank. > >Nobody's as bad as I am!! Leave your sex life out of this ! 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 : >: > Yes. : > : >: Your as bad as Frank. : > : >Nobody's as bad as I am!! : Leave your sex life out of this ! I see you're on to me SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus: > Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. I'm coming down on the side of the naysayers here, if anyone's keeping count. To me, "digital darkroom" is marketroid-speak, akin to "Internet cafe" and "enterprise connectivity leveraging virtual assets" or some such crap. There's no darkroom involved (unless one counts the tiny dark chamber inside a laser-printer cartridge), so it's a stretch at best. Plus, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of other places arond to discuss what is essentially the fine points of producing prints digitally. Doing so here would be redundant. And I agree with another poster: the topic is not so much too "hot" as it is potentially boring to those interested in "real" darkroom work. On the other hand, I think it's good to bring up topics digital here from time to time, if for no other reason than to blow away some of the incredible cobwebs that seem to form here. 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 > Honest question. If this is too hot a > topic, no big deal. The topic is indeed too hot. Given that very little of a digital photography workflow takes place in the dark, I don't see any reason to try to change the traditional darkroom group's charter. Dana P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on. > P.S. It gives me pain to say it, but digitial has > finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high > school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on. I wouldn't say that, I shoot digital and I shoot 35 mm film for some subjects. & If your sending out jury slides there certainly is a need for film. Of course there are other get arounds but its easier to just shoot slides on a copy stand. 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 > > Honest question. If this is too hot a > > topic, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > finally obviated 35mm photography. My local high > school is happy to take my daylight tanks and so on. I suppose that depends on if you plan to have those images as data be around for longer than the life of your computer technology or be passed on to future generations. There's no such thing as archival digital storage. 35mm photographers I know who care about the longevity of their work shoot on film, then scan, or shoot both digital and film. As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs, music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet 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...To save a digital file for, let's say, a hundred years is going to take a lot of work," said Peter Hite, president of Media Management Services, a consulting firm in Houston. "Whereas to take a traditional photograph and just put it in a shoe box doesn't take any work." Already, half of all photographs are taken by digital cameras, with most of the shots never leaving a personal computer's hard drive." Even Digital Memories Can Fade, November 10, 2004. >As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million >home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs, >music of every genre, college papers, the great American novel >and, of course, mountains of e-mail messages. Yet no one has >figured out how to preserve these electronic materials for >the next decade, much less for the ages. As a person who does a bit of geneology research and whose Father has done a lot of the same, I know without a doubt that we would have been hindered greatly in our research by a lack photographs, and possibly even more so by the lack of "notes on the backs of photos" had we not had the photos in the first place. So, I fully agree that until we get "digital" storage figured out, analog is going to be the more secure method. But..... just to add another direction of thought... "I" care about archived information. Does the average person? The average "Wally" or "June" who's born, lives, goes to baseball games, PTA meetings, gets ill and dies.....do they care? Is this "mountain" of information relevant/important to them at all? How much of it really does need to be saved after all? If I had my druthers, we'd save all of it, but I'm not sure that we can economically do that, even (and possibly especially) in analog format. just a thought... Signatureregards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) > >As the New York Times reported "The nation's 115 million > >home computers are brimming over with millions of photographs, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > just a thought... Well it isn't necessarily a matter of public archiving (if that's what you're referring to "economically.") In my family they cared enough to archive photos dating back 120 years, and American family history to the revolutionary war. I think most people consider their family history and mementos pretty important. This is what I was really referring to, as opposed to government archiving. OTOH the government has been archiving stuff in analog form for a long time. I mean, of what use is a digital archive (other than for purely informational purposes) of original artwork or documents, such as an original copy of Thomas Paine's Common Sense? Or Joseph Nicephors Niepce's first extant 1827 photograph? It's the originals that have value, not the scanned copies. > Well it isn't necessarily a matter of public archiving > (if that's what you're referring to "economically.") [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consider their family history and mementos pretty > important. Archiving of digital artifacts is actually more deterministic than archiving analog artifacts. Digital artifacts can be duplicated perfectly and repeatedly without degrading the source, and digital artifacts may be stored in a variety of forms. There's no reason to lose all of your family photos in a flood or fire because the single physical item was damaged or destroyed. I suppose it is easy to get into a discussion about accelerated aging studies of digital storage media, but that is completely specious. Unlike analog storage, you can still get perfect reproduction from degraded storage media - then discard the degraded media. The bottom line is that, once you have bits, you can deterministically duplicate those bits and securely store them anywhere. If you care to preserve your digital images, it is easier to do so than to preserve analog images. That's just a physical fact and no amount of rhetoric will change it. Dana > > Well it isn't necessarily a matter of public archiving > > (if that's what you're referring to "economically.") [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > consider their family history and mementos pretty > > important. READ my lips: There is no such thing as archival digital storage. And if I remember you and I have have these go rounds in the past. So it seems pointless to do it again. The Librarian of Congress and other archivist experts disagree with you, and I don't see the NYT calling on your expertise... > Archiving of digital artifacts is actually more > deterministic than archiving analog artifacts. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dana >>>Well it isn't necessarily a matter of public archiving >>>(if that's what you're referring to "economically.") [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with you, and I don't see the NYT calling on > your expertise... You didn't read a word I wrote, Tom. If you did, you'd have figured out that we agree that archiving digital artifacts has nothing to do with the longevity of the digital storage media. If you insist on continuing to think in terms of preserving a physical item, rather than preserving information, then you'll never understand. There's no "go round" to have here - you simply don't understand how data archiving works. It simply isn't the same as putting a tape or CD or floppy diskette in a dark, cool, humidity-controlled vault along with the Declaration of Independence or the Magna Carta and depending on the long-term physical integrity of that tape, CD, or floppy diskette. That's what those archivists do - maintain long-term physical integrity of items. "Digital" separates the information from the physical item used to store the information, and it makes it possible to perfectly duplicate that information, such that the physical integrity of any single piece of physical storage is irrelevant. There's no "go round" here. The issues are separate. Preserving data is not the same as preserving physical items. Dana > >>>Well it isn't necessarily a matter of public archiving > >>>(if that's what you're referring to "economically.") [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You didn't read a word I wrote, Tom. Yeah, I did, Dana, all of it :) > If you did, > you'd have figured out that we agree that archiving > digital artifacts has nothing to do with the longevity > of the digital storage media. But I don't agree. It has everything to do with the longevity. For the simply reason that redundancy means nothing if the data storage media aren't archival. I.e., doesn't matter if you redundently archive teh same data on 100 different CD-Rs, since they can all go bad. Sure, you can recopy and recopy in addition to redundency, but that is not archival, it's high maintenance and very few individuals outside corporations and governments have the economic resources to ensure that kind of perpetual backup. > If you insist on continuing to think in terms of > preserving a physical item, rather than preserving > information, then you'll never understand. But what you don't understand is it's the physical item that has the value. Ten thousand Mona Lisa's, or 40,000 scanned Ansel Adams negatives, aren't of any value as mere data. It's the actual _artwork_ that has value, the actual Declaration of Independence, the actual treaties Woodrow Wilson signed, et al. There's > no "go round" to have here - you simply don't > understand how data archiving works. Yes, I do. It's not archival. It's perpetual backup. Not the same thing at all. It simply > isn't the same as putting a tape or CD or floppy diskette > in a dark, cool, humidity-controlled vault along [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that the physical integrity of any single piece of physical > storage is irrelevant. Again, the physical integrity is what counts. Information is just information. > There's no "go round" here. I could dig up our past discussions, providing Google still has them ;) > The issues are separate. > Preserving data is not the same as preserving physical > items. >>If you insist on continuing to think in terms of >>preserving a physical item, rather than preserving [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > has value, the actual Declaration of Independence, the > actual treaties Woodrow Wilson signed, et al. Well, the "mere data" *is* the image. Part and parcel. A print - the actual tangible artwork - is an instantiation of that. There was a time when the image and the instantiation were inextricably linked - even today, a manipulated print contains more information than the negative from which it was printed. If you will, a print is always a derivative work from the negative, not the same. But digital makes us confront the reality that the image is nothing more than information. Mere data, in your own words. So when you start talking about the collectibility and value of prints, that's another discussion, and one that seems to completely obviated any discussion of digital storage media. If the print alone is what you think of, then the archival properties of the output are all that is relevant. > There's > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, I do. It's not archival. It's perpetual backup. > Not the same thing at all. Well, I'm not making words up. dictionary.com defines archival as: "Of, relating to, kept in, or suitable for archives". An archive is defined as: "A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest." I believe you're intentionally smearing the clarity of what an archive is - it is a place to preserve information. Even physical archives periodically transfer information from one medium to another, such as paper to microfiche. Perpetual backup is what an archive is. Now, if you're talking specifically about the preservation of physical items, that's a more limited scope, and has nothing to do with digital. > It simply > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Again, the physical integrity is what counts. > Information is just information. Information is everything. It is the soul of an artwork, the print is just the body. Bodies die and decay; some believe that souls exist in perpetuity. Such is the distinction we are presented with here. Dana > >>If you insist on continuing to think in terms of > >>preserving a physical item, rather than preserving [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, the "mere data" *is* the image. Well that's silly :) O.K., maybe your prints are mere data. Mine are artistically a great deal more than mere data, if they're at all worth even the paper they're printed on. More goes into a print than negative data, and negative data is more than mere exposure and development. It all represents what I both pre-envisioned and _hope_ for. No scanned archive can capture or preserve that. Mere information is useless; it's what an artist creates interpretively that has value. > A print - the actual tangible artwork - is an instantiation > of that. There was a time when the image and the instantiation > were inextricably linked - even today, a manipulated print > contains more information than the negative from which it > was printed. If you will, a print is always a derivative > work from the negative, not the same. No. Not at all. The negative is _always_ made with the print in mind. At least if one knows what one is doing. Print/negative are equal, not derivative. > But digital makes us confront the reality that the > image is nothing more than information. Mere data, in > your own words. And the universe is mere mathematics (not!) > So when you start talking about the collectibility > and value of prints, that's another discussion, and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Perpetual backup is what an archive is. And (digitally) it's not "archival." > Now, if you're talking specifically about the preservation > of physical items, that's a more limited scope, and has > nothing to do with digital. Uh, yeah. What good is a photograph if not "physical"? A visual work of beauty that transcends it's mere "data"? > > It simply > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Information is everything. It is the soul of an > artwork, the print is just the body. I think you might get an argument from Michelangelo on that one, not to mention Ansel Adams... Bodies die > and decay; some believe that souls exist in perpetuity. > Such is the distinction we are presented with here. Digital storage, however, does not exist in perpetuity. >>> Ten thousand Mona Lisa's, >>>or 40,000 scanned Ansel Adams negatives, aren't of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well that's silly :) Actually, no, it isn't. The "mere data" is the image. It isn't the artwork, but it is the visual representation of that artwork. > O.K., maybe your prints are mere data. Mine are > artistically a great deal more than mere data, if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mere information is useless; it's what an artist creates > interpretively that has value. Well, I'm glad that you seem to gain such a sense of self-esteem from your handiwork. However, the end result of all your angst is a picture. A two-dimensional picture, one which is easily represented as "mere information". For some odd reason, you're unwilling to believe that the entire process of creating a photographic print results in nothing more than a... photographic print. For some reason that can't be objective, you're not willing to accept that all of your work, your emotions, your _hopes_.. end up as an image. I respect your sense of romance at least as much as I find it quaintly bombastic or even innocently arrogant. Such passion is rarely found today in a world that looks for quick hook, that aims below the belt too often, a world which rewards too many with too much for too little. But none of that refutes the simple fact that a digitally- captured image is... an image - just like the latent image in negative. Once that capture is manipulated... it is still an image. If you are the romantic visionary you fancy yourself as, then you'll be that prodigy regardless of what method you use to capture an image, to manipulate it, to arrive at what you envisioned before you started. >>A print - the actual tangible artwork - is an instantiation >>of that. There was a time when the image and the instantiation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > print in mind. At least if one knows what one is doing. > Print/negative are equal, not derivative. You're quite wrong. A negative is a capture of an specific scene. In the process of printing, it may be manipulated. In any case, the resulting print is not the negative. They are indeed two different works. In fact, many different prints, prints which have little in common, can be derived from a single negative. Perhaps your vision permits you to derive only one True Work from a neg, but that's just your discipline and does not change the fact that each print is a distinct derivative work, and not the same work as the negative. >>But digital makes us confront the reality that the >>image is nothing more than information. Mere data, in >>your own words. > > And the universe is mere mathematics (not!) This strikes me as specious. Perhaps it is painful to be confronted with the simple fact that images are nothing more - and nothing less - than information. You can not logically or factually refute this. >>So when you start talking about the collectibility >>and value of prints, that's another discussion, and [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > And (digitally) it's not "archival." Please, you're smearing words to suit your own perceptions. Perhaps you need to find some new words. Because - information is indeed archival. 10 is always 10, black is always black. Information does not decay. Physical instantiations of information, though, are different. But that's where you seem unwilling to jump the gulf, which is strikingly ironic. Do you have so much invested in every print you make that you must discount the very soul of the print - the image presented on the paper? >>Now, if you're talking specifically about the preservation >>of physical items, that's a more limited scope, and has >>nothing to do with digital. > > Uh, yeah. What good is a photograph if not "physical"? > A visual work of beauty that transcends it's mere "data"? The print is the instantiation of an image. If you perpetually preserve the image - the information - then the paper can rot and a new instantiation produced. Ouch. That means the image is really the key, not just the paper and chemicals that make it up. >>>It simply >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I think you might get an argument from Michelangelo > on that one, not to mention Ansel Adams... ... and they would be quite wrong. I actually find it quite arrogant and disrespectful of you to attempt to put words into the mouths of people that can not speak for themselves (though, in fact, I believe Adams would probably disagree with you, perhaps strongly, but that's just my impression based on Adam's books. He seemed to be all about using the technology at hand to accurately capture and portray what he envisioned, and he just had the misfortune to pass on before he could explore the newest photographic tools). > Bodies die > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Digital storage, however, does not exist in > perpetuity. But, despite your repeated attempts to shun the truth, digital images *do*. Dana > >>> Ten thousand Mona Lisa's, > >>>or 40,000 scanned Ansel Adams negatives, aren't of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the image. It isn't the artwork, but it is the > visual representation of that artwork. O come on Dana. "Data" is only data if scanned and stored as numerical information so it can be processed computer. You can't seriously be trying to claim that's equal to a print of Pepper 30 by Weston himself. > > O.K., maybe your prints are mere data. Mine are > > artistically a great deal more than mere data, if [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, I'm glad that you seem to gain such a sense of > self-esteem from your handiwork. Well if you don't in your own photography I don't know why you'd be doing it. Creative expression is the major motivation behind any anyone who works in the arts, whether your a Picasso or just an humble hobbyist. > However, the end result of all your angst is a picture. > A two-dimensional picture, one which is easily represented [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I respect your sense of romance at least as much as I find it > quaintly bombastic or even innocently arrogant. As opposed to your sterile view or art as being "mere data"? I tend to think your's is the more hubristic as it lacks a human element, which is what makes art "art." >Such passion > is rarely found today in a world that looks for quick hook, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > captured image is... an image - just like the latent image in > negative. I never said it wasn't an "image." All I've ever said was digital imaging is imaging, just not a photograph. But it in no way compares to a latent image which is in fact an optical image (i.e., film is optical, digital is data.) No digital image is an optical image. But since you bring it up, the ISO defines a digital image as one which _represents_ a still picture, and is not a real (optical) image until output. And frankly, there's a lot of smart people at many companies who debate and define these standards even all us lowly "romantic, bombastic" phototgraphers base much of what we do on. > >>A print - the actual tangible artwork - is an instantiation > >>of that. There was a time when the image and the instantiation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You're quite wrong. No, I'm not. The negative is a capture of what the photographer envisions the print to be. Adams called this previsualization. But of course you know this... > A negative is a capture of an specific > scene. In the process of printing, it may be manipulated. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not change the fact that each print is a distinct derivative > work, and not the same work as the negative. Negative and print are equal partners in photography. > >>But digital makes us confront the reality that the > >>image is nothing more than information. Mere data, in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This strikes me as specious. Not specious at all, since in fact everything in the universe can be described mathematically. Math is the language of the universe. But it would be a rather sterile and valueless one if that's all it was. Data is only data.. >Perhaps it is painful > to be confronted with the simple fact that images > are nothing more - and nothing less - than information. You're weird, Dana :) No one who has ever studied art that I know would agree. > You can not logically or factually refute this. And who ever said art had to be logical of factual? Art is expression. A physical work of art transcends mere data and (for the umpteenth time) is why it has value. > >>Perpetual backup is what an archive is. > > > > And (digitally) it's not "archival." > > Please, you're smearing words to suit your > own perceptions. Get a grip on reality. Digital data storage is not archival. There is no media or method that makes it archival. Maybe some day there might be, but it ain't today and that's a fact as cold and hard as Michelangelo's David carved in solid marble. > Perhaps you need to find some > new words. Because - information is indeed > archival. 10 is always 10, black is always > black. Information does not decay. That's the stupidist thing I ever heard. Information is often lost for all time, because it's not the information that matters, it's what people do or create with that information (i.e., the physical manifestations of information, as in art.) I have to snip this down. Sorry, I simply don't have all day to banter... > >>>Again, the physical integrity is what counts. > >>>Information is just information. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ... and they would be quite wrong. If they are, I'd still take their view of what an artwork is than yours. I actually find it > quite arrogant and disrespectful of you to attempt to > put words into the mouths of people that can not speak > for themselves Oh get real. You're the one trying to claim their creative works are merely "data." (though, in fact, I believe Adams would > probably disagree with you, perhaps strongly, but that's > just my impression based on Adam's books. Well with your view that art is mere information it's no wonder you'd misinterpret Adams, who practically invented "previsualization" a |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message