 |
 | 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 / February 2006The End Times Are Here
Pixel Counting Joins Film in Obsolete Bin http://tinyurl.com/de4go Can anyone recommend a good freezer?  SignatureIt is not our patriotic duty to send children to be butchered & slaughtered & to butcher & slaughter others every time a general or a politician gets a hardon for a war. Rather, it is our patriotic duty to demand the highest burden of proof to justify war. It is also our patriotic duty to hold treasonous, corporate whore, war criminals accountable for their actions. Kenmore > Kenmore Sears? Signature"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 greg_____photo(dot)com > Pixel Counting Joins Film in Obsolete Bin > http://tinyurl.com/de4go > > Can anyone recommend a good freezer? I wouldn't worry about buying a freezer. Pixels are reaching an "end" because the current "megapixel" CCD/CMOS technology is reaching it's limits. You can only cram so many pixels on a sensor because they can only get so small and most snaphooters are only interested in 8x10 output or less. That's why 8 mp is enough to satisfy the consumer market and these guys will never buy a better light. While the present trend is for cheap digital point and shoots, the fact Pogue ignores is there are already about 250 million 35mm film cameras in use in the US alone. An interesting thing is the article acknowledges some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since digital cameras are and never have been cameras at all. They're imaging scanners that have been marketed as cameras and "photography." "ABANDONING THE FILM LOOK -- Now that consumers are comfortable with going all digital, camera companies no longer feel compelled to mimic the size, shape and features of film cameras. Today's cameras embrace their electronic nature, taking on more radical looks and talents. You can see it in Kodak's startling-looking V570 camera, which has two built-in lenses, each with its own sensor (a nonzooming wide-angle lens and a 3X zoom lens). You also see it in Sony's sleek hinged M2 slab, which has so little resemblance to a camera, you have to explain it to people. Canon has displayed prototypes with clear acrylic bodies, giving you a transparent look into the guts." > An interesting thing is the article acknowledges > some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since > digital cameras are and never have been cameras > at all. They're imaging scanners that have been > marketed as cameras and "photography." LOL!! Thats the craziest thing I've heard in awhile. From Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: cam·era Pronunciation: 'kam-r&, 'ka-m&r-& Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin, room -- more at CHAMBER 1 : the treasury department of the papal curia 2 a : CAMERA OBSCURA b : a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto a surface for recording (as on film) or for translation into electrical impulses (as for television broadcast) - on camera : before a live television camera > > An interesting thing is the article acknowledges > > some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since > > digital cameras are and never have been cameras > > at all. Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph and can be considered ART. Nicholas O. Lindan spake thus: >>> An interesting thing is the article acknowledges some of the b.s. >>> behind digital marketing, since digital cameras are and never >>> have been cameras at all. > > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph > and can be considered ART. <newyawkcabbie>[1] Hey--you tryin' to do an end run around my (and UC's) "photography ain't art" argument? Huh? </newyawkcabbie> [1] Old-school, pre-Asian-immigrant takeover. SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ > > > An interesting thing is the article acknowledges > > > some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph > and can be considered ART. The real objection Some People have is that words must be taken to mean what they mean, in an original-intent sort of way. The etymology of "camera" is that it means "room." This is rec.photo.dark_room_ after all. From the camera obscura descends the present day camera. To be true to the spirit, the only real cameras are room-size. As light-recording devices become smaller than rooms, they become less truly cameras. A Real Manly Photographer, therefore, must use at least an 8x10" camera, which if not actually big enough to sleep in, can at least be used to store one's lunch, and assorted knicknacks. Real Womanly Photographers are allowed to use 5x7, not because women can't muscle around an 8x10 (that would be sexist) but because they tend to have more modest appetites, hence more compact lunchboxes. The inadequacy of digital "cameras" in this department is quite clear. Respecfully Submitted, Ben > The real objection Some People have is that words must be taken to > mean what they mean, in an original-intent sort of way. The etymology [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The inadequacy of digital "cameras" in this department > is quite clear. With a digital camera you could at least have a byte to eat? Scott > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph > and can be considered ART. Even Adams wrote that the next step in photography would be purely electronic. If he were around today, he would be a "Photochopper" > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote > > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph > > and can be considered ART. > Even Adams wrote that the next step in photography would be purely > electronic. If he were around today, he would be a "Photochopper" Half the electrical engineers are trying to turn electronic processes into molecular processes. The other half are trying to turn molecular processes into electronic ones. Silver-Halide Photography: The _original_ imaging nano-technology. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote >> > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Silver-Halide Photography: The _original_ imaging nano-technology. There's room in my toolbox for more than just one screwdriver. I didn't mean to imply that Adams would have abandoned film, he would have explored everything. As should we all. >Half the electrical engineers are trying to turn electronic >processes into molecular processes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Silver-Halide Photography: The _original_ imaging nano-technology. Perfect ! Isn't it amazing how much tail-chasing we do ? == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph > > and can be considered ART. > > > Even Adams wrote that the next step in photography would be purely > electronic. You're misquoting Adams... >> > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph >> > and can be considered ART. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're misquoting Adams... I don't remember the exact phrasing, you might know the correct quote. I think it was in "The Negative" I'm pretty sure it was along those lines. I don't think Adams was repulsed by electronic imaging though. I guess it's a moot point as he is dead now and there's no way to guess what he might have done with digital imaging. My point is that what takes place in the brain is what counts, the rest is translation. Digital imaging is a different animal, it's not photography it's more just documentation...if that conveys my thought. I think digital has "Art" potential but the creative process takes place in the brain then in Photoshop, if at all. The end product image is not a photograph but something else that I don't really know how to define. > >> > Therefore if made with a digital camera it is not a photograph > >> > and can be considered ART. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > image is not a photograph but something else that I don't really know how to > define. I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on photographic paper, then it can be art. UC spake thus: [...] > I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about > recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other > 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography > is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, > which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on > photographic paper, then it can be art. Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making a photogram. That's art. SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ > UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Or even just place objects on photosensitive paper and expose it, making > a photogram. That's art. Yup. But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... > -- > If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ >> UC spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... Bullshit. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > > But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... > > Bullshit. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. Give up on the twit,...... finger painting is the only true "Art" according to the little a-hole. Signature"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 greg_____photo(dot)com > finger painting is the only true "Art" How about finger painting a B-&-W print ? == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net Matt Clara spake thus: >>> UC spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bullshit. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. But even accepting this axiom doesn't make a photograph "art", because the mind doesn't make the photograph. It assists with setting up the camera and other parts of the process used to make it, but the *camera* makes (or more accurately takes) the photograph. The mind doesn't capture photons on film; it just aims the camera, focuses, composes, etc. The scene paints itself, unlike painting, sculpture, etc., where the mind really does make the art. Unfortunately, it's become a shibboleth, this widely-accepted conceit that because there's something vaguely "creative" going on under the dark cloth, it must be "art" when hung on a gallery wall. ("Shhhhhh, Johnny! Don't disturb the artiste. He's *composing*!") SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ > Matt Clara spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > dark cloth, it must be "art" when hung on a gallery wall. ("Shhhhhh, > Johnny! Don't disturb the artiste. He's *composing*!") And the process of composition and then executing that composition, along with the peculiarities of your medium and just dumb luck, whether good or bad--that's what creates art, and yes, this can be done with a camera, though it doesn't mean that everyone under the dark cloth is an artist... SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >The mind doesn't >capture photons on film; it just aims the camera, focuses, composes, >etc. The scene paints itself, unlike painting, sculpture, etc., where >the mind really does make the art. But the mind envisions the final image prior to the actual recording of the image on film. This alone is the instant where preparation, perspiration and inspiration combine just as they do in painting, sculpture and other arts. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net John spake thus: >> The mind doesn't capture photons on film; it just aims the camera, >> focuses, composes, etc. The scene paints itself, unlike painting, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > perspiration and inspiration combine just as they do in painting, > sculpture and other arts. To continue with your metaphor, no it isn't; in painting, sculpture, etc., the mind envisioning the final image or object is only the *beginning* of the process, which involves a lot of tactile work, decision making, chiseling, layering of paint, etc. In photography, it's the *end* of that process, more or less (apart from whatever manipulations might be done post-exposure), with the camera and film doing the work. Anyhow; as I said before, I never expect to win this one. This shibboleth is just too deeply embedded to ever pry it loose. SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ >John spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >manipulations might be done post-exposure), with the camera and film >doing the work. So a lot is done both prior to the exposure such as the selection of lens, camera, film, filtration, peripheral equipment such as strobes and possibly even the all of the circumstances around the shoot (studio v. location).. Then to compose the photograph, select an exposure based upon a desired image density/contrast, expose the film and then take it to the darkroom for development. Once in the darkroom you can choose a normal developer like D76, a speed enhancing formula like Microphen ot a fine grained formula like D23. The processing can be normal or +/- time to effect the CI. Of course you could reversal process the film or print it onto a lith and then reverse that to get a solarized negative to print onto regular FB or RC. >Anyhow; as I said before, I never expect to win this one. This >shibboleth is just too deeply embedded to ever pry it loose. LOL ! OK, you withdraw ! ;>) == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net John spake thus: >> John spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > reverse that to get a solarized negative to print onto regular FB or > RC. You know, all this reminds me of when you hear people talk about how they remodeled their house: "Yes, we moved that wall and put another window in it, took out the old linoleum floor and refinished the doug fir, ...". You know what I mean? except that they didn't do sh.t: their general contractor and his hired hands did all that. All they did was decide what they wanted done and write checks. >> Anyhow; as I said before, I never expect to win this one. This >> shibboleth is just too deeply embedded to ever pry it loose. > > LOL ! OK, you withdraw ! ;>) Hey, I didn't say I withdraw; what I meant was ... nevermind. And hey, could you bring that wall back here? I was having a good time beating my head against it. SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ >> So a lot is done both prior to the exposure such as the selection of >> lens, camera, film, filtration, peripheral equipment such as strobes [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >general contractor and his hired hands did all that. All they did was >decide what they wanted done and write checks. LOL ! That what customers pay photographers like you, me and several others on this group for. They have no idea how to perform ANY of those functions. This is exactly why digital imaging will take over where photography has left off. Polaroid was too expensive and getting enlargements too time consuming. Mini-labs weren't profitable anymore. So now all one needs is a 6MP digi-cam, a PC and a printer and "Viola ! Look out world. Another Pulitzer Prize Winner is comin' atcha !" Oh well, in the end I guess this will save some trees or at least get rid of the photo departments in the drug stores !! >>> Anyhow; as I said before, I never expect to win this one. This >>> shibboleth is just too deeply embedded to ever pry it loose. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >And hey, could you bring that wall back here? I was having a good time >beating my head against it. Sorry. I don't do walls ;>) == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >> So a lot is done both prior to the exposure such as the selection of > >> lens, camera, film, filtration, peripheral equipment such as strobes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > LOL ! That what customers pay photographers like you, me and several > others on this group for. snip... I doubt anyone pays you for anything photographic... > > >> So a lot is done both prior to the exposure such as the selection of > > >> lens, camera, film, filtration, peripheral equipment such as strobes [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I doubt anyone pays you for anything photographic... oops... sorry john...I honestly thought I was responding to chickens...still, no one pays Nebenzahl for anything... > >John spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > process the film or print it onto a lith and then reverse that to get > a solarized negative to print onto regular FB or RC. Right. None of this, however, makes uit 'art'. It males it 'craft'. > >Anyhow; as I said before, I never expect to win this one. This > >shibboleth is just too deeply embedded to ever pry it loose. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > John - Photographer & Webmaster > www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > > Yup. > > > > But if a LENS does the work, it ain't art: no way Jose... > > Bullshit. It's the human mind that makes art, not any particular process. But the CAMERA LENS makes the photograph. You merely POINT the camera. > I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about > recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other > 'documentation'. Neither chemical photography nor didgital photography > is 'art'. Both are 'documentation', because you start with photons, > which begin a causal chain. If you draw freehand using photoshop or on > photographic paper, then it can be art. I knew I wasn't saying what I was trying to. Let me say more. Neither silver or digital are inherently "Art" and neither are exclusively non-art. Silver based photography is a different craft than digital and has different potential. Personally, I use different mediums for different purposes. I think I have a good understanding of your thoughts and have seen some of your images and I agree and understand your point. I think your stuff has more interpretation (Art) than you admit to because you just follow the "Muscle Memory" that you have developed over the years...it's just ingrained in your work and is instinctual now...you don't think it, you just do it. Only if by 'art' you mean something different from painting and sculture, the true fine arts.It's possibly 'pseudo-art', if you will. > > I cannot agree at all. There is nothing inherently different about > > recording on film or on disc, that makes one 'art' and the other [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "Muscle Memory" that you have developed over the years...it's just ingrained > in your work and is instinctual now...you don't think it, you just do it. >I don't remember the exact phrasing, you might know the correct quote. I >think it was in "The Negative" I'm pretty sure it was along those lines. I >don't think Adams was repulsed by electronic imaging though. Quite the contrary, he knew well that it was the next step in the evolution of imaging and he specifically expressed this in the movie "Ansel Adams Photographer". He stated that all of his archives (negatives) are being donated to the University of Arizona, Center of Creative Photography with a request that the negatives be accessible to advanced students for interpreting (printing) and he stated that they would possibly even be used in video as he felt that the next step in the art is to be electronic. That "many negatives created in the past can be not only printed in a refreshing manner and on new materials but transferred to the video image". He compares this to a musician playing a work of Handle's or Bach's and that segment of the commentary ends with a landscape of his being altered through contrast and image color manipulation that was done in the video camera. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > > An interesting thing is the article acknowledges > > some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 2 a : CAMERA OBSCURA b : a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto a surface for recording (as on film) or for translation into electrical impulses (as for television broadcast) > - on camera : before a live television camera And you're among the most benighted, I'd guess. You may want to improve your reading and thinking skills and also improve your technical knowledge rather than trying to get it from a dictionary. How convenient you snipped the defining part of the article: Quote: "[digital] camera companies no longer feel compelled to mimic the size, shape and features of film cameras." They key operative word there is "mimic." That's what digital does. That's what my cell phone does, and it ain't no real camera either. (And I don't care what type of imaging you put on a cell phone, doesn't need a lens or f-stops and doesn't need a shutter. So much for your "dictionary" definition.) O.K., maybe I should have been more specific but "film camera" seemed plain enough to me. Television cameras are not film cameras (uh...that's why it's called BROADCAST, not "photography.") Nor are modern still cameras "camera obscuras" (a camera obscura projected an image to an opposite surface which was then used for drawings. In fact, camera obscuras were often rooms, not "cameras.") Modern film cameras were based on the concept of a camera obscura, but in fact were developed separately and specifically for recording projected images on film or plates rather than walls and thus is WHY they're called film cameras and not camera obscuras. Likewise pinhole cameras aren't called camera obscuras or film cameras, either, because they differ significantly enough to be neither. Is your dictionary getting any of this? FACT: A digital camera is a scanning device. That's why Scan Backs are called "scan backs." Anyone who knows anything about how CCDs operate knows this and other significant differences (present company excepted due to ignorance.) So, while digital liars have always marketed their products as if they were cameras (excuse me, "film" cameras...), they're not. Not even close, since as the article clearly notes they have been mimicking non-functional features found on real SLR "film" camera in order to sell them. If you still want to LOL laugh at this (then toss the dictionary definitions): Digital "cameras" don't need shutters since they rather respond to light when a pulse is sent to the sensor opening the photodetectors to collect energy. Shutters are useless on a digital and the "click" you hear when pressing a digital camera "shutter" is a .WAV sound file. And since silicon sensors are photoelectric devices, the result is a voltage, not an "image." OR is a solar cell a camera, too? Neither does a digital camera need to be a camera. Anyone who believes a digital camera is a camera (oops, sorry...FILM camera) also likely believes in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Time to grow up... > Anyone who believes a digital camera is a camera (oops, > sorry...FILM camera) also likely believes in Santa Claus > and the tooth fairy. Time to grow up... You are arguing about the meanings of words. The "meaning" of a word is typically determined by what the majority of people interpret it as. Take a poll and > 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a "camera". It creates still-pictures. I can show you an 8x10 print and you would not be able to determine if it was captured with film or with an analog->digital converter (CCD). And yes, film is also quantized. You are a prime example of a luddite. And this is coming from someone who only uses film and spends hours in his traditional wet darkroom (and I have an M.S. in Computer Science hence I do understand technology somewhat). > > Anyone who believes a digital camera is a camera (oops, > > sorry...FILM camera) also likely believes in Santa Claus > > and the tooth fairy. Time to grow up... > > You are arguing about the meanings of words. The "meaning" of a word is > typically determined by what the majority of people interpret it as. no, I'm not. I'm stating the differences in the processes. Digital is not a photographic process. Anyone who thinks so doesn't even understand the photographic process as a matter of science... digital cameras are scanners... > Take a poll and > 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a > "camera". Which proves what? That 99% of all people also think the crappy repros they see in the newspaper are actual "photographs"? Sorry, they're not photographs, they're reproductions of photographs. snip remaining ignorat b.s.... Tom Phillips wrote (in part): >>> Anyone who believes a digital camera is a camera (oops, >>> sorry...FILM camera) also likely believes in Santa Claus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > understand the photographic process as a > matter of science... Reminds me of the late 19th and early 20th century discussions where the claim was that Photography is not an artistic process. Anyone who thinks it is does not understand the artistic process. Photography is mechanical and there is no place for the creativity of the artist. (I do not hold this view myself.) Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 06:40:00 up 17 days, 22:08, 4 users, load average: 4.23, 4.21, 4.14 > Tom Phillips wrote (in part): > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > there is no place for the creativity of the artist. (I do not hold this view > myself.) The difference is anything can be art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Digital art is certainly art, but it's not a photograph. The difference is in the processes. Art has many processes -- painting, sculpture, basket weaving. Photography is first a scientific process and photochemical phenomenon. Photography as art is whatever some artist makes it. Digital is an entirely different imaging process, so again I'll say anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand the fundamental science underlying photography or the fundamental technology underlying digital. Two different processes... Whetehr film is involved or sensors, it's still photography, but neither is or can be 'art'. Art is made by hand, entirely by hand, or by tools held in the hand. A camera is not a tool, which is merely the extension of the hand's functions. A hammer is a tool, a Summicron is not (unless you're pounding nails with it.) A saw or chisel or chainsaw are tools, becaus ethese merely amplify what the hand can do, but none of them can make a sculpture or painting. > > Tom Phillips wrote (in part): > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > photography or the fundamental technology underlying > digital. Two different processes... >The difference is anything can be art. Nope. If it doesn't inspire others, it's not art. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >The difference is anything can be art. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > John - Photographer & Webmaster > www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net But how many to qualify??? ;) Signature"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 greg_____photo(dot)com > >The difference is anything can be art. > > Nope. If it doesn't inspire others, it's not art. tell that to the guy who spreads feces or urine on a canvas and is "inspired" :) > > >The difference is anything can be art. > > > > Nope. If it doesn't inspire others, it's not art. > > tell that to the guy who spreads feces or urine > on a canvas and is "inspired" :) "Inspires Others" Signature"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 greg_____photo(dot)com >> >The difference is anything can be art. >> >> Nope. If it doesn't inspire others, it's not art. > >tell that to the guy who spreads feces or urine >on a canvas and is "inspired" :) Gladly ! And I'd like to introduce him to something else known as the Tennessee Waltz and I'm not talking about a dance. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net >Photography is mechanical and >there is no place for the creativity of the artist. (I do not hold this view >myself.) LOL ! I would certainly hope not ! One could no more deny photography as an art as Dubya as an idiot ;>) == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >Photography is mechanical and > >there is no place for the creativity of the artist. (I do not hold this view > >myself.) > > LOL ! I would certainly hope not ! One could no more deny photography > as an art as Dubya as an idiot ;>) Wrong on both counts. > == > John - Photographer & Webmaster > www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >Photography is mechanical and > >there is no place for the creativity of the artist. (I do not hold this view > >myself.) > > LOL ! I would certainly hope not ! One could no more deny photography > as an art as Dubya as an idiot ;>) Well, if photography were mechanical every print would identifiably be exactly the same. Mine aren't, and neither are anyone else's. And I don't know if W is an idiot but certainly he's a brain dead moron in the truest sense of Mencken, given the middle class idiots who voted for the liar for purely partisan reasons... > Digital is not a photographic process. Exactly. Unfortunately the 21st century seems to be heading more to a "virtual reality" than anything objective. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > > Digital is not a photographic process. > > Exactly. Unfortunately the 21st century seems to be heading more to a > "virtual reality" than anything objective. Of course digital capture is photography. It is merely recorded differently, that's all. Is a CD or minidisc not a sound recording? Of course it is! > == > John - Photographer & Webmaster > www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > > Digital is not a photographic process. > > Exactly. Unfortunately the 21st century seems to be heading more to a > "virtual reality" than anything objective. You mean like the guy who thinks human beings can actually be transported into cyberspace and live there? The Wachosky bros.(spelling?) made a lot of $$$ on that hollywood fiction. Wish I'd though of it ! >Take a poll and > 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a >"camera". It creates still-pictures. I always loved that word "pictchas" ! Or perhaps "pitchers" if you're from Kentucky. FYI, I use film. I create photographs. I use digital. I crete images. On the walls of my home I have photographs. On my monitor of my computer, I have images. I can't imagine why people get the two confused. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net >>Take a poll and > 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a >>"camera". It creates still-pictures. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > computer, I have images. I can't imagine why people get the two > confused. Just curious: on the walls of my home I have some photographs created by my local professional lab. They were printed on a LightJet. Are these images or photographs? Does it matter whether the digital file (the input to the LightJet) is from a digital "camera" or a digital scan of film? >> FYI, I use film. I create photographs. I use digital. I crete images. >> On the walls of my home I have photographs. On my monitor of my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >images or photographs? Does it matter whether the digital file (the input >to the LightJet) is from a digital "camera" or a digital scan of film? Images. Doesn't matter where they came from. They are printed digitally. And the do make really nice business cards though. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >>Take a poll and > 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a > >>"camera". It creates still-pictures. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > images or photographs? Does it matter whether the digital file (the input > to the LightJet) is from a digital "camera" or a digital scan of film? What do you want to call them? Signature"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 greg_____photo(dot)com Prints. > > >>Take a poll and > 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a > > >>"camera". It creates still-pictures. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > greg_____photo(dot)com > What do you want to call them? Why should I care what anybody else wants to call them and why should someone else care what I call them? > > What do you want to call them? > Why should I care what anybody else wants to call them and why should > someone else care what I call them? Prints! > Prints! If you want to call them prints that's fine with me. If someone else calls them photographs I am not going to complain about that either. If someone else wants to call them images then I won't complain but they are going to sound pretty silly doing so. Scott >> Prints! >If you want to call them prints that's fine with me. > >If someone else calls them photographs I am not going to complain about >that either. If someone else wants to call them images then I won't >complain but they are going to sound pretty silly doing so. Silly ? Well that's OK. I'd rather sound a little silly than to be deliberately using the wrong term to describe something. Prints is actually better as this aslo includes inkjet, dye-sub and all other kinds of non-photographic materials and processes. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >> Prints! > >If you want to call them prints that's fine with me. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Prints is actually better as this aslo includes inkjet, dye-sub and > all other kinds of non-photographic materials and processes. As long as it's "inkjet print." I mean we call silk screens "silk screen" and so on. But none are a photograph... >If someone else wants to call them images then I won't > complain but they are going to sound pretty silly doing so. How so? If you don't care you don't care. Signature"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 greg_____photo(dot)com > >If someone else wants to call them images then I won't > > complain but they are going to sound pretty silly doing so. > > How so? If you don't care you don't care. It does not upset me in the least if someone wants to call them images but at the same time it does seem more then a little silly. FWIW I call them prints when they are printed and I call them photos when they are on my hard disk. This may bother some people, but very few, and it is a lot easier to say then image files. This BTW matches Costco's terminology, I upload photos and then I make prints from the uploaded photos. Scott Scott W spake thus: >>> If someone else wants to call them images then I won't complain >>> but they are going to sound pretty silly doing so. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > matches Costco's terminology, I upload photos and then I make prints > from the uploaded photos. I hope you never run into Tom Phillips in a dark alley. SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ > I hope you never run into Tom Phillips in a dark alley. I don't feel any great need to meet Mr. Phillips. Scott > Scott W spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I hope you never run into Tom Phillips in a dark alley. Yeah, cause you're afraid to run into me in the light of day... > > What do you want to call them? > Why should I care what anybody else wants to call them and why should > someone else care what I call them? That was the point Scott. Signature"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 greg_____photo(dot)com > > > What do you want to call them? > > Why should I care what anybody else wants to call them and why should > > someone else care what I call them? > > That was the point Scott. Sorry, I missed your point. Scott > > >>Take a poll and > 99% of people will think that a digital camera is a > > >>"camera". It creates still-pictures. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What do you want to call them? Mikey's pics... ;-) Tom is right. # #> An interesting thing is the article acknowledges #> some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since #> digital cameras are and never have been cameras #> at all. They're imaging scanners that have been #> marketed as cameras and "photography." #> # #LOL!! Thats the craziest thing I've heard in awhile. From #Merriam-Webster: # #Main Entry: cam·era #Pronunciation: 'kam-r&, 'ka-m&r-& #Function: noun #Etymology: Late Latin, room -- more at CHAMBER #1 : the treasury department of the papal curia #2 a : CAMERA OBSCURA b : a device that consists of a lightproof chamber with an aperture fitted with a lens and a shutter through which the image of an object is projected onto a surface for recording (as on film) or for translation into electrical impulses (as for television broadcast) #- on camera : before a live television camera # > An interesting thing is the article acknowledges > some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since > digital cameras are and never have been cameras > at all. They're imaging scanners that have been > marketed as cameras and "photography." Any device that gathers & stores light whose end product is a photograph is a camera in my book. I was being somewhat factious about the freezer since you are right, there are countless film cameras whose function in life is to consume film but the time when a few Keepers of the Flame will be huddled around a flickering enlarger lamp on a cliff overlooking the coast of Portugal (obscure reference to Neanderthals) is not that far off. Maybe a decade; maybe not. Bankruptcies can happen awfully quickly. I for one do not intend to be the last one clinging by his fingernails but for now the wet sloppy stuff gives me the best bucks to results ratio. When the only thing left is Xiaopan 400 from China that's the time to jump. The eternal holy grail of camera mfgs. is to make consumer cameras more & more idiot proof since the supply of idiots is infinite and that's what digital does a lot better than film. How soon before there's auto composition? Natural Light Black and White Photography http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/ -George- seog spake thus: >> An interesting thing is the article acknowledges some of the b.s. >> behind digital marketing, since digital cameras are and never have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Any device that gathers & stores light whose end product is a photograph is > a camera in my book. Oh, but you don't understand how them's fighting words where T. Phillips is concerned. Watch out! Just for some more data points: dictionary.com, which is pretty representative of English-language dictionary definitions in general, has this to say about "camera": 1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate. 2. The part of a television transmitting apparatus that receives the primary image on a light-sensitive cathode-ray tube and transforms it into electrical impulses. Now, it's a fair bit of hair-splitting to make the case that a CCD (or other photoelectronic sensor) is *not* covered by "photosensitive plate". Plus, what do purists like T.P. have to say about TV cameras? That they're not cameras either? But *everyone* calls them that. Which makes the case for calling their digital still counterparts "cameras" even more airtight: the definition practically specifies what they do--transform an image into electrical impulses. (Never mind that whoever wrote that definition was probably thinking of analog impulses as opposed to digital.) But--yawn--who cares? All this will be moot in a couple short years, and TP's baying at the moon will just be a sound heard in the distance that will make a very few people cock their heads and wonder what it is. SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ snip... > How soon before there's auto composition? Actually I'm thinking the PJ wedding photographers are just loving that little Kodak with the multiple sensors and lenses. Just add a 200GB hard drive and they'll capture 2000~3000 images of poorly lit subject (remember, can't use a flash !) that are poorly exposed and composed. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > > An interesting thing is the article acknowledges > > some of the b.s. behind digital marketing, since [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Any device that gathers & stores light whose end product is a photograph is > a camera in my book. Beg to differ: Digital camera do not produce photographs. They do not capture and store light. In fact, they cannot store light energy as film does. They generate a voltage, as in solar power. What they collect data that is then stored as data until output in some pictorial reproduction form (also generally not a photograph but usually an ink reproduction, i.e., inkjet.) >I was being somewhat factious about the freezer since yes, I got the humor :) > you are right, there are countless film cameras whose function in life is to > consume film but the time when a few Keepers of the Flame will be huddled > around a flickering enlarger lamp on a cliff overlooking the coast of > Portugal (obscure reference to Neanderthals) is not that far off. Doubt it. But if we have another dark ages digital will die a much more rapid death. I mean, what happens when we run out of oil to fuel all the industrial manufacturing that produces all the semiconductors, electronics, and batteries digital needs? Real photography needs only silver salts and a few basic chemicals... In case of industrial meltdown (or maybe just a good economic depression due to massive hurricanss and earthquakes) tis always a good idea to have a Neanderthals abilities to rise above mere technology... Maybe a > decade; maybe not. Bankruptcies can happen awfully quickly. I for one do not > intend to be the last one clinging by his fingernails but for now the wet [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > digital does a lot better than film. How soon before there's auto > composition? Well I'd agree digital is a boon for idiot imaging. The term point and shoot is having it's finest hour ;) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.