Difficult technical question on ISO & light

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Harvey wrote:
>
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4186E312.CF6CB08C@aol.com...
> >
> >
> > Harvey wrote:
> >>
> >> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4186D29F.1843CDC0@aol.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Harvey wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> > ***FILM*** doesn't produce data, photoelectrons, a
> >> >> > voltage, or digital signals. It actually creates a
> >> >> > real, tangible, physical photograph. Nothing
> >> >> > representational at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> Last time I checked ***FILM*** actually holds a latent image that
> >> >> needs
> >> >> to
> >> >> be developed chemically to produce **a representation** of the
> >> >> original
> >> >> image. Or are you suggesting that the silver halides actually hold
> >> >> some
> >> >> metaphysical part of the image?
> >> >
> >> > WHY do people say such things without thinking first?
> >> >
> >> > The image is created upon exposure to light, through
> >> > chemical decomposition. The chemical change to silver
> >> > is already there. A "latent" image is a chemical image.
> >>
> >> Last time I took a film out of a camera and looked at it I couldn't see
> >> any
> >> image......
> >
> > Not surprising, since you also lack an understanding of
> > the physics involved...
> >
> >> > It's not data representing an image.
> >>
> >> In the same sense that film contains a chemical change 'representing an
> >> image' ?
> >
> > Photolysis begins before development, upon exposure.
> > I.e., image formation....
> >
>
> But its not exactly in a useable form is it? It needs to be chemically
> enhanced / stabilized to become a 'real, tangible, physical photograph'...

"enhanced"? No. It's an image. Chemical processing completes
the chemical change that begins upon exposure. The image is
there.

> in a similar way to the image stored in a CCD need to be read out [and
> processed] to become usable..... spot any similarity here?

***CCD*** and CMOS sensors DO NOT STORE ANYTHING. Period. They
can't. Not physically possible. It's photoelectric. It produces
a voltage, then digital signals, then data. Any image you see
on your computer screen is a software representation of the data.
No image.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:EYGdndqZAbFifxvcRVn-1A@golden.net...
> No! I spent good money on a floppy drive controller years ago. Almost
> $1000
> and what is it worth today? I threw it out.
>
> I have spent 1000s on a 80386 computer too and it sickens me to see it
> rotting after all that monery I spent.

I started out with a 386 too....But I upgraded it over the years....I am
using an ancestor of that same machine even today, although I believe
everything that was in that original machine has been replaced by now, so
there is no part of it left......
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:42:16 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> I have spent 1000s on a 80386 computer too and it sickens me to see it
>> rotting after all that monery I spent.
>
>I started out with a 386 too....But I upgraded it over the years....I am
>using an ancestor of that same machine even today, although I believe
>everything that was in that original machine has been replaced by now, so
>there is no part of it left......

My 486 bit the dust when I did the wonderful static zap to the
motherboard. Just got the whole thing working and one little tiny
spark and it never booted again. *** sigh ***

So now I'm running AMD64 3K w/1024 MB PC2700 !! Shortly the
64bit versions of Linux are going to make another lunge ahead and I
just might finally migrate (I know Jean-David I know !) to SUSE Linux.
I've been trying the Fedora Core 3 Test 3 for AMD64 it really does run
better than XP Pro on my system.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:
: On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:42:16 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
: wrote:

: >> I have spent 1000s on a 80386 computer too and it sickens me to see it
: >> rotting after all that monery I spent.
: >
: >I started out with a 386 too....But I upgraded it over the years....I am
: >using an ancestor of that same machine even today, although I believe
: >everything that was in that original machine has been replaced by now, so
: >there is no part of it left......

: My 486 bit the dust when I did the wonderful static zap to the
: motherboard. Just got the whole thing working and one little tiny
: spark and it never booted again. *** sigh ***

: So now I'm running AMD64 3K w/1024 MB PC2700 !! Shortly the
: 64bit versions of Linux are going to make another lunge ahead and I
: just might finally migrate (I know Jean-David I know !) to SUSE Linux.
: I've been trying the Fedora Core 3 Test 3 for AMD64 it really does run
: better than XP Pro on my system.


I'm still trying to get all my PCs migrated to Fedora Core 2. I've got one machine
left and I'm afraid to even try. 🙂 I've got a lot running on it including my mail
server. I first loaded Caldera on it when Caldera was first released and I've been
adding software by downloading the source and compiling it. This includes the kernel.

I just know that most of it isn't going to work when I scrub the drives and install
Fedora. To make matters worse it's my main fileserver and as a result it does my
backups. I can't be without this machine. I'm thinking of buying another pc and
migrating all the services over to it and when I get everything off of it then I
can reload the OS.

If you ever read me tell someone that they shouldn't load all their network services
onto a single machine it's because I've learned the hard way. 🙂

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:IrGdnbUTm4jQfhvcRVn-sQ@golden.net...
> Your computer is only materials, steel and plastic but no real computer
> exists.

I don't understand this statement....Aren't, "materials, steel and plastic"
real?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:IrGdnbUTm4jQfhvcRVn-sQ@golden.net...
> > Your computer is only materials, steel and plastic but no real computer
> > exists.
>
> I don't understand this statement....Aren't, "materials, steel and plastic"
> real?


He's _trolling_
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:34pdo0hhma0plfd7i5nt704i68gggvflhr@4ax.com...
> In fact during the late 60's Kodak had more PhD's on staff
> than NASA.

No wonder they are in such deep trouble....:^)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:48:46 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
>news:34pdo0hhma0plfd7i5nt704i68gggvflhr@4ax.com...
>> In fact during the late 60's Kodak had more PhD's on staff
>> than NASA.
>
>No wonder they are in such deep trouble....:^)

Which one ? ;>))


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Frank Pittel" <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:9eqdnTRxYKXLcRvcRVn-3w@giganews.com...
> In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
> : In article <QqSdnexVxq7IThvcRVn-oA@golden.net>,
> : "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> :
> : > My pictures have no grain and I don't have to pollute the environment
> with
> : > chemicals to print them.
>
> : Beep wrong answer!!! Digital photography is way way more costly
> : to the environment than film will ever be. Most chemicals for film
> : processing are biologically sound or can readily be made so with proper
> : care. Producers of Printed circuit boards are some of
> : the worst enviromental offenders in existance & coupled with the lbs of
> lead in that
> : key board your sharing your "knowledge" with 🙂 , you haven't a leg to
> stand on.
>
> The chemicals involved in making the semiconductors make the ferric
> chloride used for
> the PC boards look enviro friendly.
> --
Don't forget the wash water in a film darkroom.....When I was doing it, I
used hellacious amounts of water....I know that they use a lot of water to
make chips too, but at least it's a one time usage. Once the chip is
installed in the camera, the water usage stops. With film processing, every
print you make is going to use a lot of wash water...
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:54:38 GMT, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Don't forget the wash water in a film darkroom.....When I was doing it, I
>used hellacious amounts of water....I know that they use a lot of water to
>make chips too, but at least it's a one time usage. Once the chip is
>installed in the camera, the water usage stops. With film processing, every
>print you make is going to use a lot of wash water...

All photo processing really needs water though there are a few
exceptions for stabilization printing. But the amount of water needed
is significantly less than most people think. There is no need to
persistently fill and empty a 20 gallon print washer just to get a
archival stabile print.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <9eqdnTFxYKXRchvcRVn-3w@giganews.com>,
Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

> In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
> : In article <W9-dnXinJ7NYShvcRVn-iQ@giganews.com>,
> : Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> : > an aggressive inbreeding policy.
>
> : Hey ;
>
> : That's what Arkansas insurance agents sell 🙂
>
> My father retired to northern Arkansas and I've met some Arkansas natives that
> would be able to cash in on that policy. 🙂


What's the best road in Arkansas,.........the one leading out.

What do, tornados, hurricanes and divorce proceedings in Arkansas have in
common,....no matter how ya'll look at it someone's going lose a trailer 🙂
--
LF 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
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gregory W Blank wrote:
>
> In article <9eqdnTFxYKXRchvcRVn-3w@giganews.com>,
> Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>
> > In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
> > : In article <W9-dnXinJ7NYShvcRVn-iQ@giganews.com>,
> > : Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> >
> > : > an aggressive inbreeding policy.
> >
> > : Hey ;
> >
> > : That's what Arkansas insurance agents sell 🙂
> >
> > My father retired to northern Arkansas and I've met some Arkansas natives that
> > would be able to cash in on that policy. 🙂
>
> What's the best road in Arkansas,.........the one leading out.
>
> What do, tornados, hurricanes and divorce proceedings in Arkansas have in
> common,....no matter how ya'll look at it someone's going lose a trailer 🙂

uh oh, hate mail to greg...
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
: In article <9eqdnTFxYKXRchvcRVn-3w@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: > In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
: > : In article <W9-dnXinJ7NYShvcRVn-iQ@giganews.com>,
: > : Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >
: > : > an aggressive inbreeding policy.
: >
: > : Hey ;
: >
: > : That's what Arkansas insurance agents sell 🙂
: >
: > My father retired to northern Arkansas and I've met some Arkansas natives that
: > would be able to cash in on that policy. 🙂


: What's the best road in Arkansas,.........the one leading out.

LOL!!!
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <8xChd.44764$R05.4934@attbi_s53>,
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

> I don't understand this statement....Aren't, "materials, steel and plastic"
> real?

Not to trailer trash their not,....aluminum is all they know
as in Budweiser & Miller lite cans.
--
LOL!!!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <OFChd.343756$MQ5.232671@attbi_s52>,
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
> > --
> Don't forget the wash water in a film darkroom.....When I was doing it, I
> used hellacious amounts of water....I know that they use a lot of water to
> make chips too, but at least it's a one time usage. Once the chip is
> installed in the camera, the water usage stops. With film processing, every
> print you make is going to use a lot of wash water...

Water for the most part is the most renewable resource despite what some people lead
you to beleive. Water is the one truely transmutable substance (To borrow from Alchemic
nominclature).
--
LF 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
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gregory W Blank wrote:
>
> In article <OFChd.343756$MQ5.232671@attbi_s52>,
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > --
> > Don't forget the wash water in a film darkroom.....When I was doing it, I
> > used hellacious amounts of water....I know that they use a lot of water to
> > make chips too, but at least it's a one time usage. Once the chip is
> > installed in the camera, the water usage stops. With film processing, every
> > print you make is going to use a lot of wash water...
>
> Water for the most part is the most renewable resource despite what some people lead
> you to beleive. Water is the one truely transmutable substance (To borrow from Alchemic
> nominclature).

I actually (gasp) bath in it and don't watch the meter ;-)

Silver likewise is fairly "renewable," since while the
earth has a finite supply it always remains silver and
can be recycled endlessly.

Now the oil that runs all those semiconductor plants...
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4186DC62.DEF969EA@aol.com...

> Only a completely _uniformed_ idiot wouldn't know the highly
> advanced technical state of silve halide engineering.
>
> Digital can't even come close...

Tom,
I have listed you in my NG names list as one of the *HEROES OF PHOTOGRAPHY*.
The only problem I can see with your post is that the digital dullards
reading it don't know what silver halide is! OOPS!
Fighting against ignorance in support of film,
me
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

<kashe@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >: Digital copying certainly presents a very viscous ball of wax in terms
of art
> >: in general- that is regarding worth and copyright, if your vision is
the selling point
> >: unlimited copies sort of cheapens your value doncha think.
> >
> >I've always looked at my prints as being individual works art. No two are
the
> >same.
>
> Poor quality control?

<G> Nice cheap shot.

Reminds me of my darkroom days. I'd work for hours to get the print perfect,
and people would say "that's nice, could you make me one the next time
you're darkroom". I suppose I should be flattered, but they just didn't have
a clue how much work was involved.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:09:08 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>Reminds me of my darkroom days. I'd work for hours to get the print perfect,
>and people would say "that's nice, could you make me one the next time
>you're darkroom". I suppose I should be flattered, but they just didn't have
>a clue how much work was involved.

Agreed. I had two people close to me , my brother and my best
friend, ask me to make them enlargements. I managed to get them to
assist me in making the prints "their way" ;>)) . It took about two
hours to make each one the prints they wanted. After the first hour
the novelty wore off on both of them.

BTW, this is one other area where I'll give digital good
marks. Reproduction. Once a photographer creates a good print the
image can be scanned, optimized and printed to a digital negative for
contact printing. I doubt even Tom will find much fault with that
process.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom John <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:09:08 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
: <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

: >
: >Reminds me of my darkroom days. I'd work for hours to get the print perfect,
: >and people would say "that's nice, could you make me one the next time
: >you're darkroom". I suppose I should be flattered, but they just didn't have
: >a clue how much work was involved.

: Agreed. I had two people close to me , my brother and my best
: friend, ask me to make them enlargements. I managed to get them to
: assist me in making the prints "their way" ;>)) . It took about two
: hours to make each one the prints they wanted. After the first hour
: the novelty wore off on both of them.

: BTW, this is one other area where I'll give digital good
: marks. Reproduction. Once a photographer creates a good print the
: image can be scanned, optimized and printed to a digital negative for
: contact printing. I doubt even Tom will find much fault with that
: process.


I understand that WeeGee would work to get a print just the way wanted it and then
photographed the print. He then used that negative to make identical copies without
any dodging or burning.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <W9-dnXunJ7NeRRvcRVn-iQ@giganews.com>,
Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

> I understand that WeeGee would work to get a print just the way wanted it and then
> photographed the print. He then used that negative to make identical copies without
> any dodging or burning.

Maybe he made the first print slightly less contrasty, so the subsequent prints were
perfect? Usually coping adds more contrast.
--
LF 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
 
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 18:45:55 -0600, Frank Pittel
<fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

>: BTW, this is one other area where I'll give digital good
>: marks. Reproduction. Once a photographer creates a good print the
>: image can be scanned, optimized and printed to a digital negative for
>: contact printing. I doubt even Tom will find much fault with that
>: process.
>
>I understand that WeeGee would work to get a print just the way wanted it and then
>photographed the print. He then used that negative to make identical copies without
>any dodging or burning.

Weston and Adams both did this as well. With the advent of
digital I doubt if the film (4125 ?) is available anymore.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
: In article <W9-dnXunJ7NeRRvcRVn-iQ@giganews.com>,
: Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

: > I understand that WeeGee would work to get a print just the way wanted it and then
: > photographed the print. He then used that negative to make identical copies without
: > any dodging or burning.

: Maybe he made the first print slightly less contrasty, so the subsequent prints were
: perfect? Usually coping adds more contrast.

Again the story I heard was that he did the needed dodging and burning, etc to get
a print that looked like what he wanted. With WeeGee it's very difficult to seperate
reality from his own hype.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:

>Misunderstood. It takes three bytes of binary data to fully represent the
>information in one pixel, (picture element), one byte for each of the primary
>colors.

Yes, in conventional RGB image files. In CMYK, it takes 4 bytes per
pixel. There are other multi-spectral representations that take even
more samples per pixel.

>In the case of a Bayer sensor, the pixel is the combination of four
>separate 'sensels' under the bayer array. Nowhere did I say or imply anything
>about 'separate pixels'.

This is wrong. Four "sensels" in a Bayer sensor produce 4 separate
individual pixels in the output image, not one. If your statement were
true, a 4 MP Bayer sensor would have no better resolution than a 1 MP
3-colour sensor, but in theory and practice a 4 MP Bayer sensor has the
same (luminance) resolution as a 4 MP 3-colour sensor.

Dave
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On 11/1/2004 10:29 AM me spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:4185A69C.1050407@but.us.chickens...
>
>> 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.
>
> In your not so humble opinion! What a hot steamy load of unmittigated shyte
> (IMO)!
>
>> 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.
>
> No it does not.
>
>> Don't know if it'll be a decade or sooner, but it's inevitable that
>> digital is going to swamp everything else.
>
> If you chose to abandon quality and integrity in favor of cheap and fast you
> may do so but I do not!

I have done no such thing.

Like almost everyone else participating in this "discussion", you miss the point.

Let me say that I admire your tenacity in the face of evil, to use a phrase I
heard years ago and seldom get to use.

I am *not* advocating digital over wet photography. Understand? (Quite the
opposite, actually.)

I'm simply pointing out the reality: that digital is going to take over.
Doesn't matter that there are a very few (statistically speaking) folks like
you and me who prefer other means of making pictures. Doesn't matter that you
and others here don't like it.

(And no, not a Republican. Far from it.)


--
.... voting for John Kerry now is like voting for LBJ in 1964 with full
precognition of what he was going to do in Vietnam for the next four years.

- Alexander Cockburn in _Counterpunch_
(http://counterpunch.org/cockburn10282004.html)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom