"rafe bustin" wrote

"digital darkroom in r.p.d.?" Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

In the interest civil discourse, I would keep digital out of r.p.d.
No two people seem to be able to agree on just what is 'digital' and
if it is photographic. Some can't even agree with themselves.

If that's the case, there ought to be a
group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom
or some such.

There are a slew of groups dedicated to the processing of
digital images at:

comp.graphics.apps.*

covering PhotoShop and a whole mess of others. The PhotoShop
group has a respectable amount of traffic.

This should give the 'digital is not photography' faction
of r.p.d. a pleasant feeling of schadenfruede: "See, the
digital imaging groups don't even have 'photo' in the
name. Nya, nya!"

That's why I asked. I don't see anything
in the name or charter that excludes digital
darkroom,

Nothing excluding space aliens either. In my version of
'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem
to exclude digital imaging from the group.

Where technologies are combined, as in silver negs with digital
contrast masks, I would keep it in rpd. And I would amend
the charter to prohibit discussions on the definition of
photography - if someone can't recognize photography
when he sees it then he shouldn't be here.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/