Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[Guest]

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 E. Magnuson <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: > In rec.photo.darkroom E. Magnuson <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >: On 2004-11-03, Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >: > quality that digital can't match.

: > I've seen the "best" digital B&W and while it's good it's not as good as traditional
: > B&W.

: Like anything else, it has strengths and weaknesses. However, most
: digital B&W is either converted from color cameras or scanned. There
: is not a lot of experience with a 100% digital B&W toolchain -- which
: was the point of the link. Perhaps "can't match" is true - today. But
: how do you know that you've seen the best unless you've seen it all?
: It would be more openminded to say that "you've yet to see any as
: good." It's still evolving rapidly compared to silver-based printing.

In my never humble opinion the ink manufacturers have until very recently concentrated
on color inks and the making of color prints. As a result digital B&W printing is
lagging behind. I dod see that changing in the future.

Since only a few companies are specializing in B&W inks and RIPs it's not hard
to see the best. I do have to admit that this summer I saw some digital prints
made using the Lyson quadtone inks and their new (at the time) RIP. The quality
of the blacks they were getting was impressive. I do think that they're more then
a couple years out from getting the quality of traditional darkroom prints. The
salesperson running the demo is an old hand at B&W printing and when I got him
alone he agreed with me!!
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

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 <Fgsid.2490$6w6.843@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
"E. Magnuson" <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Like anything else, it has strengths and weaknesses. However, most
> digital B&W is either converted from color cameras or scanned. There
> is not a lot of experience with a 100% digital B&W toolchain -- which
> was the point of the link. Perhaps "can't match" is true - today. But
> how do you know that you've seen the best unless you've seen it all?
> It would be more openminded to say that "you've yet to see any as
> good." It's still evolving rapidly compared to silver-based printing.

I wouldn't say digital output can't match anything with two exceptions:
I have seen "great or at least VG Plastic based digital images.

a) That mirrory luminous silver "feel" resident in some fiber prints. (NOTE: I said some)

b) Longevity of the "paper" versus plastic print material
stored in optimal conditions.
--
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

 

[Guest]

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 <Fgsid.2490$6w6.843@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
: "E. Magnuson" <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:

: > Like anything else, it has strengths and weaknesses. However, most
: > digital B&W is either converted from color cameras or scanned. There
: > is not a lot of experience with a 100% digital B&W toolchain -- which
: > was the point of the link. Perhaps "can't match" is true - today. But
: > how do you know that you've seen the best unless you've seen it all?
: > It would be more openminded to say that "you've yet to see any as
: > good." It's still evolving rapidly compared to silver-based printing.

: I wouldn't say digital output can't match anything with two exceptions:
: I have seen "great or at least VG Plastic based digital images.

: a) That mirrory luminous silver "feel" resident in some fiber prints. (NOTE: I said some)

That "feel" as you describe it is most apparant in prints with metal and especially
reflections off of metallic items. My theory is that the lack of actual metal (silver)
in the ink is a large part of the reason.

: b) Longevity of the "paper" versus plastic print material
: stored in optimal conditions.

While that's an issue for a lot of people it's not something I'm terribly concerned
with. When I die my work negatives and prints will end up in a land fill. All my
work has to out last is me. 🙂
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

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

Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all, sold
the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
thing with all the CD fornats also.

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cmcvvi$gj8$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> >It wasn't the image that was superior. It had Hi-fi sound encoding into
the
> >FM instead of linear tracks.
>
> Both formats had low-fi linear sound to begin with. Then Betamax added
> a couple of FM carriers between the luminance carrier and the colour to
> get hifi sound - something that VHS could not duplicate because it
> didn't have the same recording bandwidth and used a lower luminance
> carrier. Then the VHS people figured out how to record audio *deeper*
> in the oxide. It took two extra heads to do it (the Beta Hifi method
> did not), but it worked.
>
> Dave

 

[Guest]

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:qeydne2CT4K_MBfcRVn-og@golden.net...
> Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all,
> sold
> the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
> thing with all the CD fornats also.

Sony also made the first pockt-sized 'floppy' disc under a contract from
Apple.

 

[Guest]

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

> Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all,
> sold
> the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
> thing with all the CD fornats also.

sony may have created the first consumer video casette recorder, but
they were not the first to have a casette system, nor did they sell
anything to jvc for vhs.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html#helical

1968 - CBS introduced EVR using film in a cassette; 20th Century Fox
agreed to sell movies in EVR; but the format faced growing
competition by 1972 from videocassette formats introduced by RCA,
Sony, Ampex and Avco, all seeking to develop a new consumer market
for home VCRs.

> Sony also made the first pockt-sized 'floppy' disc under a contract from
> Apple.

the 3.5" floppy predates the macintosh, and in fact, there were a few
different sizes of small floppies back then. hewlett packard had a
desktop computer using the sony well before the mac came out. apple was
originally planning on using a 5 1/4" floppy for the mac, but when some
team members saw the sony floppy, they went with that, and over steve
jobs' objections.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In another thread, far far away, John wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:26:42 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" wrote:
>
>> Ok so you have to wind it between shots. I thought we were talking
>> about good features. Mine has never run out of batteries. I carry an
>> extra and hardly ever use it.
>
> Yeah, you and Machine Gun Annie are always prepared. Funny but
> all Cartier-Bresson needed was a Leica and his results are certainly
> better than anything being produced by digi-cams.

Somehow, probably because of CB's recent death, John's comment came to mind
as I was browsing through a large book containing glossy repros of some of
his well-known images, and I was struck by the consistent low technical
quality of Bresson's images. Most, if not all, of his images are very
grainy. About one in four have obvious camera movement. Many were printed
as tiny wallet-sized images, lonesome in the center of the A2-glossy pages
of the book I was browsing.

To be sure, the timing and composition in each case are striking, due in
large measure to his great talent for "capturing the moment". The images
have life, and I look to his work as an inspration, but not one in ten is
optically sharp, or one in a hundred sharp enough to be enlarged to A3 size
without simply falling apart due to grain.

In his habits, CB was a news photogrpaher who roamed the field and did no
darkroom work whatsoever. He was sparing, as John suggests, in his use of
his film "ammunition". It was all in the moment of the hunt for him, and in
fact he was a professional game hunter in his very early years. He would
send his undeveloped film back to the lab for printing, and seldom looked at
his images after they had been printed.

I light of all this, my guess is that CB, in his prime, would have greatly
preferred digital photography. In light of the lack of technical quality of
his work, as well as his methods, holding him up as an icon for ultra-sharp
film photography is certainly questionable.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

 

[Guest]

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 <G_OdndAyOKD25BfcRVn-rg@giganews.com>,
Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:

> In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank <gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
> : In article <Fgsid.2490$6w6.843@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> : "E. Magnuson" <edjpgcom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : > Like anything else, it has strengths and weaknesses. However, most
> : > digital B&W is either converted from color cameras or scanned. There
> : > is not a lot of experience with a 100% digital B&W toolchain -- which
> : > was the point of the link. Perhaps "can't match" is true - today. But
> : > how do you know that you've seen the best unless you've seen it all?
> : > It would be more openminded to say that "you've yet to see any as
> : > good." It's still evolving rapidly compared to silver-based printing.
>
> : I wouldn't say digital output can't match anything with two exceptions:
> : I have seen "great or at least VG Plastic based digital images.
>
> : a) That mirrory luminous silver "feel" resident in some fiber prints. (NOTE: I said some)
>
> That "feel" as you describe it is most apparant in prints with metal and especially
> reflections off of metallic items. My theory is that the lack of actual metal (silver)
> in the ink is a large part of the reason.

Nah I get it in skin tones, on fabric etc, its about matching appropriate
contrast with the density range of the negative. Its a midtine through high value
thing so metallic things would show it readilly.


> : b) Longevity of the "paper" versus plastic print material
> : stored in optimal conditions.
>
> While that's an issue for a lot of people it's not something I'm terribly concerned
> with. When I die my work negatives and prints will end up in a land fill. All my
> work has to out last is me. 🙂

Sure that's one way to look at it, The Goerge Bush way ;-) However me with my humble
career of 20+ photo years,. I have images in some permanent collections so I do have a stake in making
my B&W stuff at least able to last.
--
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

 

[Guest]

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:
> "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4187678d$0$10480$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>William Graham wrote:
>>
>>>"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:41861de6$0$31912$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>William Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:41858189$0$31906$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>><snippage>
>>
>>>>I'm not so sure that the electronic rangefinder from a cheap p&s would be
>>>>of any use in helping to focus a Nikon lens attached in place of it's
>>>>own.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, you are quite correct on this point. I would be better off putting a
>>>nikkor adapter on some other rangefinder camera. This is probably why I
>>>never really pursued my idea any further than the original
>>>concept........
>>
>>I just had another thought on the subject.
>>Perhaps if a p&s uses the same method for AF that a SLR does, perhaps it
>>could tell if your mount-hacked lens is in focus.
>
>
> It probably could, but it wouldn't be able to do anything about it if it
> wasn't. I would have just had to use it in complete manual mode, which is
> what one usually has to do when using another manufacturer's lens on any
> camera.....What someone should do, is design a camera that moves the whole
> mount forward and backward when it focuses. That way, one could mount any
> lens on the camera and still be able to auto focus it. Or use the reflex
> mechanism to focus it if it was an SLR.

Before doing this, look at the original Contax rangefinders.
They have a focusing mount for the 50mm lens built into the body.
The mount won't focus focal lengths other than 50mm/5cm.
The simple reason is that different focal length lens have to move in or
out either more (for longer focal lengths) or less (for wider
angle/shorter focal length lenses) to focus at the same distance.
Alternatively, look at the Leica II, III or M models (which are
rangfinder coupled).
The Leica RF 50mm/5cm lenses are the simplest, basicaly the lens is on a
screwthread and as the lens is focussed in and out, and directly moves
the rangefinder arm insider the camera.
Other focal lengths need a more complex cam or other arrangement to move
the rangefinder properly.

 

[Guest]

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> writes:
>Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all, sold
>the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
>thing with all the CD fornats also.

No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.

Dave

 

[Guest]

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

I guess it was just the mini CD, 8mm, Hi-8, VHS, Beta and a few others
then....LOL

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cmgcun$aca$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> >Fuuny thing about al of these technologies was Sony invented them all,
sold
> >the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
> >thing with all the CD fornats also.
>
> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.
>
> Dave

 

[Guest]

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

"me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:

>My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has it,
>digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
>veracity:
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040214094635/http://christopherburkett.com/info/nodigital.html

You know, I could respect someone who believes in reproducing images
that are as close as possible to the original scene, with no deliberate
"enhancement" at all. Now *that's* veracity (but you can produce it
with either chemical or digital photographic methods).

On the other hand, there's just something hypocritical about someone who
one one hand says he spends hours on masking and printing techniques
that make the image "better", but on the other hand eschews digital
imaging because it's too good at these things. Somehow chemical
manipulation is good because it's hard, but electronic manipulation is
bad because it's easy.

>Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040226003720/christopherburkett.com/info/NGnodigital.html

That article is critical of fakes. It points out that digital imaging
makes fakes easier, but it neither says that all the fakes were digital,
nor that the digital images are all fakes. So what's your point?

>Fighting ignorance in support of film!

Fighting ignorance in support of film is good; encouraging ignorance
about digital is not.

Dave

 

[Guest]

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

"me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
>
> My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has it,
> digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
> veracity: [... snip admission of masking and other 'traditional' enhancing
> techniques ....]

If you really want veracity you will shoot nothing but transparencies,
undoctored, with a color chart in the picture for sampling proof.

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cmhrvf$lus$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
>
> > My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has
it,
> > digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
> > veracity:
> >
http://web.archive.org/web/20040214094635/http://christopherburkett.com/info/nodigital.html
>
> You know, I could respect someone who believes in reproducing images
> that are as close as possible to the original scene, with no deliberate
> "enhancement" at all. Now *that's* veracity (but you can produce it
> with either chemical or digital photographic methods).
>
> On the other hand, there's just something hypocritical about someone who
> one one hand says he spends hours on masking and printing techniques
> that make the image "better", but on the other hand eschews digital
> imaging because it's too good at these things. Somehow chemical
> manipulation is good because it's hard, but electronic manipulation is
> bad because it's easy.
>
> > Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:
> >
http://web.archive.org/web/20040226003720/christopherburkett.com/info/NGnodigital.html
>
> That article is critical of fakes. It points out that digital imaging
> makes fakes easier, but it neither says that all the fakes were digital,
> nor that the digital images are all fakes. So what's your point?

Quote from article: "This kind of visual trickery aided by the mushrooming
use of digital cameras is becomming increasingly commonplace" My point is
who would take the effort to do this with film when it can be done in
Photoshop with just a few mouse clicks? Now tell me again that it wasn't
done digitally.

> >Fighting ignorance in support of film!
>
> Fighting ignorance in support of film is good; encouraging ignorance
> about digital is not.
> Dave

Why not? I've read countless posts from digital dullards touting
(incorrectly) the superiority of DI and advising film users to throw away
their cameras. Your motives are less honorable than mine. You imply respect
for my views only as a vehicle to spread disinformation about film.

Your arguments are not representative of how people typically use the
technology. I have never manipulated a slide or negative and in this respect
I believe I am typical of 99.99% of most film users.
On the other hand I believe that 99.99% of DI users do modify images. It is
this compulsion to modify that destroys the veracity of DI. I'll sight just
one example. A DI user trades a gray sky for a blue sky in Photoshop. This
is just one example out of thousands (tens of thousands, millions) of
possible fake photos that DI users feel compelled to make. Maybe there are a
few DI users who don't modify their images. But even those few have
absolutely no way of proving that they don't. And there will never be a way
to prove it that can not be hacked or cracked even if DI users felt any need
to prove that their images are real which they do not.
Have a Nice Day!
me

 

[Guest]

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:U5ydnf7o0YhE0BHcRVn-jg@golden.net...
>I guess it was just the mini CD, 8mm, Hi-8, VHS, Beta and a few others
> then....LOL
>
>> >the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
>> >thing with all the CD fornats also.
>>
>> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.
>>

nope they had "digital" CD's (mainly TV if I remember correctly) as early as
the early 70ies (maybe earlier) .. and it was the size of a 33cm LP ..

 

[Guest]

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 <418caf67$0$32280$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, imbsysop
<imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:U5ydnf7o0YhE0BHcRVn-jg@golden.net...
> >I guess it was just the mini CD, 8mm, Hi-8, VHS, Beta and a few others
> > then....LOL
> >
> >> >the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the same
> >> >thing with all the CD fornats also.
> >>
> >> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.
>
> nope they had "digital" CD's (mainly TV if I remember correctly) as early as
> the early 70ies (maybe earlier) .. and it was the size of a 33cm LP ..

laserdiscs? that was phillips/mca, demonstrated in the early 70s,
brought to market in the late 70s, never really caught on and remained
a niche product in the 80s & 90s until dvd pretty much killed it.

 

[Guest]

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

Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden furniture
and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s also. Why..
behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient and
doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a hacker, the
challenge is there, and they have to beat it.

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cmhrvf$lus$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
>
> >My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has it,
> >digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
> >veracity:
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040214094635/http://christopherburkett.com/inf
o/nodigital.html
>
> You know, I could respect someone who believes in reproducing images
> that are as close as possible to the original scene, with no deliberate
> "enhancement" at all. Now *that's* veracity (but you can produce it
> with either chemical or digital photographic methods).
>
> On the other hand, there's just something hypocritical about someone who
> one one hand says he spends hours on masking and printing techniques
> that make the image "better", but on the other hand eschews digital
> imaging because it's too good at these things. Somehow chemical
> manipulation is good because it's hard, but electronic manipulation is
> bad because it's easy.
>
> >Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital imaging:
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040226003720/christopherburkett.com/info/NGnod
igital.html
>
> That article is critical of fakes. It points out that digital imaging
> makes fakes easier, but it neither says that all the fakes were digital,
> nor that the digital images are all fakes. So what's your point?
>
> >Fighting ignorance in support of film!
>
> Fighting ignorance in support of film is good; encouraging ignorance
> about digital is not.
>
> Dave

 

[Guest]

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

Many kareoke (sp?) machines stil have laser discs.

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:061120040416255213%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <418caf67$0$32280$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, imbsysop
> <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> > news:U5ydnf7o0YhE0BHcRVn-jg@golden.net...
> > >I guess it was just the mini CD, 8mm, Hi-8, VHS, Beta and a few others
> > > then....LOL
> > >
> > >> >the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the
same
> > >> >thing with all the CD fornats also.
> > >>
> > >> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.
> >
> > nope they had "digital" CD's (mainly TV if I remember correctly) as
early as
> > the early 70ies (maybe earlier) .. and it was the size of a 33cm LP ..
>
> laserdiscs? that was phillips/mca, demonstrated in the early 70s,
> brought to market in the late 70s, never really caught on and remained
> a niche product in the 80s & 90s until dvd pretty much killed it.

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gymmy Bob,
I'm shocked, you can write in complete sentences, congratulations!
Fighting ignoramuses (that's still you Gymmy Bob) in support of film.
me

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:q9GdnWPb98OfmBDcRVn-jg@golden.net...
> Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden furniture
> and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s also.
Why..
> behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient and
> doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a hacker,
the
> challenge is there, and they have to beat it.
>
> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:cmhrvf$lus$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> > "me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
> >
> > >My support of film can be summed up in one word. *VERACITY*. Film has
it,
> > >digital imaging doesn't, never did, never will. Look here for more on
> > >veracity:
> >
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040214094635/http://christopherburkett.com/inf
> o/nodigital.html
> >
> > You know, I could respect someone who believes in reproducing images
> > that are as close as possible to the original scene, with no deliberate
> > "enhancement" at all. Now *that's* veracity (but you can produce it
> > with either chemical or digital photographic methods).
> >
> > On the other hand, there's just something hypocritical about someone who
> > one one hand says he spends hours on masking and printing techniques
> > that make the image "better", but on the other hand eschews digital
> > imaging because it's too good at these things. Somehow chemical
> > manipulation is good because it's hard, but electronic manipulation is
> > bad because it's easy.
> >
> > >Look here for what National Geographic has to say about digital
imaging:
> >
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040226003720/christopherburkett.com/info/NGnod
> igital.html
> >
> > That article is critical of fakes. It points out that digital imaging
> > makes fakes easier, but it neither says that all the fakes were digital,
> > nor that the digital images are all fakes. So what's your point?
> >
> > >Fighting ignorance in support of film!
> >
> > Fighting ignorance in support of film is good; encouraging ignorance
> > about digital is not.
> >
> > Dave
>
>

 

[Guest]

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> writes:
>Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden furniture
>and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s also. Why..
>behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient and
>doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a hacker, the
>challenge is there, and they have to beat it.

Sure. I'd have no comment if he said he used purely chemical
photography because he enjoyed the challenge, or because he particularly
liked the results of a certain film and paper, or any personal
preference. I collect slide rules, and I enjoy using them from time to
time, and for certain problems they're actually faster than a calculator,
but I don't claim that they are better for everything, or that they
produce more accurate answers than a calculator.

But his argument was self-contradictory. He doesn't do straight prints;
he spends hours manipulating them to improve the images. Yet he
implicitly criticizes anyone who would do the *same* manipulations
digitally to the same images, because it's too easy to do so. He might
as well say "you should treasure my prints because they took a long time
to make". That's legitimate too, if the buyer understands it and cares,
but his argument is that his prints are somehow objectively better
because he uses a method that always takes a long time.

He may be justifiably proud of his chemical prints, but "veracity" is
not what they show. A well-done digital print could have more veracity
(truth compared to the original scene) than his carefully-manipulated
prints. He needs a different word to describe whey they are good.

Dave

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cmj2j2$sr2$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> >Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden
furniture
> >and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s also.
Why..
> >behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient and
> >doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a hacker,
the
> >challenge is there, and they have to beat it.
>
> Sure. I'd have no comment if he said he used purely chemical
> photography because he enjoyed the challenge, or because he particularly
> liked the results of a certain film and paper, or any personal
> preference. I collect slide rules, and I enjoy using them from time to
> time, and for certain problems they're actually faster than a calculator,
> but I don't claim that they are better for everything, or that they
> produce more accurate answers than a calculator.
>
> But his argument was self-contradictory. He doesn't do straight prints;
> he spends hours manipulating them to improve the images. Yet he
> implicitly criticizes anyone who would do the *same* manipulations
> digitally to the same images, because it's too easy to do so. He might
> as well say "you should treasure my prints because they took a long time
> to make". That's legitimate too, if the buyer understands it and cares,
> but his argument is that his prints are somehow objectively better
> because he uses a method that always takes a long time.
>
> He may be justifiably proud of his chemical prints, but "veracity" is
> not what they show. A well-done digital print could have more veracity
> (truth compared to the original scene) than his carefully-manipulated
> prints. He needs a different word to describe whey they are good.
>
> Dave

Dave,
That's not my web site.
Still fighting ignorance (heroically) in support of film.
me

 

[Guest]

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

I guess I only take each post at it's own face value. I can't keep track of
each personality becuae I can't be bothered to most of the times. Only
people that make a mark in my mind get semi-"kept track of"...LOL

How is the west coast treating you?

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cmj2j2$sr2$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> >Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden
furniture
> >and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s also.
Why..
> >behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient and
> >doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a hacker,
the
> >challenge is there, and they have to beat it.
>
> Sure. I'd have no comment if he said he used purely chemical
> photography because he enjoyed the challenge, or because he particularly
> liked the results of a certain film and paper, or any personal
> preference. I collect slide rules, and I enjoy using them from time to
> time, and for certain problems they're actually faster than a calculator,
> but I don't claim that they are better for everything, or that they
> produce more accurate answers than a calculator.
>
> But his argument was self-contradictory. He doesn't do straight prints;
> he spends hours manipulating them to improve the images. Yet he
> implicitly criticizes anyone who would do the *same* manipulations
> digitally to the same images, because it's too easy to do so. He might
> as well say "you should treasure my prints because they took a long time
> to make". That's legitimate too, if the buyer understands it and cares,
> but his argument is that his prints are somehow objectively better
> because he uses a method that always takes a long time.
>
> He may be justifiably proud of his chemical prints, but "veracity" is
> not what they show. A well-done digital print could have more veracity
> (truth compared to the original scene) than his carefully-manipulated
> prints. He needs a different word to describe whey they are good.
>
> Dave

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes Gymmy and you can't spell either. Does your mother know you're using the
computer by yourself?

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:WPidnZHtr5gyvhDcRVn-qg@golden.net...
> I guess I only take each post at it's own face value. I can't keep track
of
> each personality becuae I can't be bothered to most of the times. Only
> people that make a mark in my mind get semi-"kept track of"...LOL
>
> How is the west coast treating you?
>
> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:cmj2j2$sr2$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> > "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> writes:
> > >Well said but there, on the other hand, people that build wooden
> furniture
> > >and other crafts with nothing but hand tools forged in the 1800s also.
> Why..
> > >behooves me but good for them. It is not practical, not efficient and
> > >doesn't do that good of a job IMHO but I give them credit like a
hacker,
> the
> > >challenge is there, and they have to beat it.
> >
> > Sure. I'd have no comment if he said he used purely chemical
> > photography because he enjoyed the challenge, or because he particularly
> > liked the results of a certain film and paper, or any personal
> > preference. I collect slide rules, and I enjoy using them from time to
> > time, and for certain problems they're actually faster than a
calculator,
> > but I don't claim that they are better for everything, or that they
> > produce more accurate answers than a calculator.
> >
> > But his argument was self-contradictory. He doesn't do straight prints;
> > he spends hours manipulating them to improve the images. Yet he
> > implicitly criticizes anyone who would do the *same* manipulations
> > digitally to the same images, because it's too easy to do so. He might
> > as well say "you should treasure my prints because they took a long time
> > to make". That's legitimate too, if the buyer understands it and cares,
> > but his argument is that his prints are somehow objectively better
> > because he uses a method that always takes a long time.
> >
> > He may be justifiably proud of his chemical prints, but "veracity" is
> > not what they show. A well-done digital print could have more veracity
> > (truth compared to the original scene) than his carefully-manipulated
> > prints. He needs a different word to describe whey they are good.
> >
> > Dave
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:061120040416255213%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <418caf67$0$32280$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, imbsysop
> <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
>> news:U5ydnf7o0YhE0BHcRVn-jg@golden.net...
>> >I guess it was just the mini CD, 8mm, Hi-8, VHS, Beta and a few others
>> > then....LOL
>> >
>> >> >the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the
>> >> >same
>> >> >thing with all the CD fornats also.
>> >>
>> >> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with Sony.
>>
>> nope they had "digital" CD's (mainly TV if I remember correctly) as early
>> as
>> the early 70ies (maybe earlier) .. and it was the size of a 33cm LP ..
>
> laserdiscs? that was phillips/mca, demonstrated in the early 70s,
> brought to market in the late 70s, never really caught on and remained
> a niche product in the 80s & 90s until dvd pretty much killed it.

correct .. I think they just gathered dust on the shelves at Philips .. 🙂

 

[Guest]

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

....and many movies had to be turned over in the middle to get enough time
length.

"imbsysop" <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:418d0a74$0$2967$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:061120040416255213%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> > In article <418caf67$0$32280$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, imbsysop
> > <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> >> news:U5ydnf7o0YhE0BHcRVn-jg@golden.net...
> >> >I guess it was just the mini CD, 8mm, Hi-8, VHS, Beta and a few others
> >> > then....LOL
> >> >
> >> >> >the VHS rights and then competed against it. I believe they did the
> >> >> >same
> >> >> >thing with all the CD fornats also.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, Philips of Holland developed the CD first, then joined with
Sony.
> >>
> >> nope they had "digital" CD's (mainly TV if I remember correctly) as
early
> >> as
> >> the early 70ies (maybe earlier) .. and it was the size of a 33cm LP ..
> >
> > laserdiscs? that was phillips/mca, demonstrated in the early 70s,
> > brought to market in the late 70s, never really caught on and remained
> > a niche product in the 80s & 90s until dvd pretty much killed it.
>
> correct .. I think they just gathered dust on the shelves at Philips ..
🙂
>
>