Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (
More info?)
David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2004 1:10 AM Colin D spake thus:
>
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> >
> >> John wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:37:06 +1300, Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Where does he store his negatives, I wonder? What if the place burns down? Of
> >> > >course digital backups cost - but dupe negs cost more, and they lose quality,
> >> > >which digital doesn't.
> >>
> >> Frankly and even realistically, I could store my negatives
> >> in a cave (cold dark storage with stable relative humidity)
> >> and they would last a thousands years longer than any
> >> electronic storage medium.
> >
> > Jeez, you don't know when you are beaten, do you? You *might* store your negs as
> > above, but the question is do you? No, I thought not. So your statement is worth
> > nothing. Further, a cave might have a stable humidity, but is it optimum? Don't
> > know? Thought not. Your negs will last more than a thousand years (digital storage
> > lifetime plus 1,000 years)? On acetate? no chance. On glass, maybe. You'll at least
> > have the glass, even if the emulsion has long gone.
> >
> >> A bird in the hand is worth any bunch of 1's and 0's
> >> that don;t really exist...
> >
> > What?
What? What? What? ????
Is that all you can incredulously say? Pay attention and use
your gray matter and _think_:
1's and 0's are binary code, i.e., an abstraction used
to represent something else. What they represent doesn't
really exist, as in actual photographs and images on your
hard drive. Not there, representational, virtual, it's *data.*
Your _hard drive_ isn't a photograph. NOw, what's so hard
to understand about that, what? (as the british say.)
> cause you can't see or feel them, they don't exist? A 1 or a 0, as you put
> > it, is really the state, or polarisation, of a tiny magnetic field in a magnetic
> > material that exhibits high coercivity and hence remanence, which to the uninitiated
> > means simply that the magnetic polarisation is very stable. New materials are being
> > developed that promise to have much geater life than current, and may well have a
> > stable life measured in hundreds if not thousands of years. Your statement is based
> > on ignorance and, I suspect, a degree of desperation that you might be forced to
> > reckon with digital imaging against your will.
>
> I've been watching this debate unfold for a while now, and I have to say that
> you (Colin) are right. Your opposition seems to come from folks who just don't
> *like* digital and don't like the idea that it is about to supplant
> traditional wet photography.
1's and 0's are not images. They are binary code
that software reads and uses to represent an
image. The ISO says so...
Now, no one could accuse the ISO of not liking
digital. They write the standards for all digital
cameras. Course David just doesn't understand
abstract matters very well, even one as simple
as "there's no photograph because silicon doesn't
record images, it produces photoelectric data..."
***FILM*** doesn't produce data, photoelectrons, a
voltage, or digital signals. It actually creates a
real, tangible, physical photograph. Nothing
representational at all.
>
> I should state my own prejudices up front: I don't particularly care for
> digital myself, which should make my arguments (as a devil's advocate, as it
> were) more believable. However, I'm sane enough to read the handwriting on the
> wall. Don't know if it'll be a decade or sooner, but it's inevitable that
> digital is going to swamp everything else. Just like the fact that practically
> nobody prints from lead type anymore (outside of a few boutique printers).
>
> By the way, it's interesting to note how this discussion has become distorted
The only thing distorted here is your understanding
and ability to understand the simple concepts about
what these two very different processes produce and
don;t produce.
> and people are no longer arguing the original premise. Pointing out the
> problems of digital image storage and retrieval in no way proves that digital
> photography is not "photography", nor does it prove either one superior to the
> other. And the anti-digital crowd never admits the point you made, that one
> can make infinite copies of a digital image with no degradation in quality,
> unlike optical images.
>
> I'm sure I'll regret posting this soon enough.
Well hey, at least you don't have to crosspost to get
attention, since it's already crossposted.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram