Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:26:55 -0700, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>
>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.*
Just the same as the light-altered grains in your emulsion.
The negative image on your film, especially before developing, is no
more substantial than the 1/0s.
>
>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.
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:26:55 -0700, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>
>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.*
Just the same as the light-altered grains in your emulsion.
The negative image on your film, especially before developing, is no
more substantial than the 1/0s.
>
>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