"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

In article ,
John wrote:

On 27 Mar 2005 18:27:16 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

But this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group

Why does this psycho-babble persist ? Perhaps you simply don't
understand the true definition of fear ?

Why: you ask? Maybe because he "really" wants to talk about
"Digital Darkroom" ;^)

,....My suggestion is he stand in a darkened
closet and talk about (To himself) the great pictures he might take
with his digital P&S. Then in effect it will be accurate terminology.

Sorry Scott I couldn't resist.

--
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

In article ,
John wrote:

On 27 Mar 2005 18:27:16 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

But this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group

Why does this psycho-babble persist ? Perhaps you simply don't
understand the true definition of fear ?

Why: you ask? Maybe because he "really" wants to talk about
"Digital Darkroom" ;^)

,....My suggestion is he stand in a darkened
closet and talk about (To himself) the great pictures he might take
with his digital P&S. Then in effect it will be accurate terminology.

Sorry Scott I couldn't resist.

--
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

Scott W wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The topic, of digital darkrooms, has come up before in this news group,
here is a link from 1999.

And in a thread with all of 7 posts...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...al+darkroom%22

At that time the people of the group did not pretend to not understand
the word or to act with hostility, but rather talked about the
potential of the then new technique.

New techniques -- in 1999? Is that when you were born,
or when you got your first camera?

It's not a darkroom "technique." Not even close. It's
software and data (i.e., digital imaging.) And it
certainly isn't anything new since many of us own and
use scanners and Photoshop and yes even digital cameras.
I have Photoshop v1.07 on a vintage Mac SE I've owned
since the late 1980's and no, they didn't call it
"digital darkroom." Even then it was called software and
image manipulation.

That "hostility" you seem to perceive isn't fear, but
our fed up responses regarding the continued deliberate
misappropriation, misinterpretation, and misapplication
of _accurate_ and factual photographic terminology by the
undereducated, who have about as much photographic knowledge
and depth as a pothole from last winter's snows...

But this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only
interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it
is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some
find threatening.

I agree; he should troll elsewhere...

Scott W wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The topic, of digital darkrooms, has come up before in this news group,
here is a link from 1999.

And in a thread with all of 7 posts...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...al+darkroom%22

At that time the people of the group did not pretend to not understand
the word or to act with hostility, but rather talked about the
potential of the then new technique.

New techniques -- in 1999? Is that when you were born,
or when you got your first camera?

It's not a darkroom "technique." Not even close. It's
software and data (i.e., digital imaging.) And it
certainly isn't anything new since many of us own and
use scanners and Photoshop and yes even digital cameras.
I have Photoshop v1.07 on a vintage Mac SE I've owned
since the late 1980's and no, they didn't call it
"digital darkroom." Even then it was called software and
image manipulation.

That "hostility" you seem to perceive isn't fear, but
our fed up responses regarding the continued deliberate
misappropriation, misinterpretation, and misapplication
of _accurate_ and factual photographic terminology by the
undereducated, who have about as much photographic knowledge
and depth as a pothole from last winter's snows...

But this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only
interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it
is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some
find threatening.

I agree; he should troll elsewhere...

Scott W wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The topic, of digital darkrooms, has come up before in this news group,
here is a link from 1999.

And in a thread with all of 7 posts...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...al+darkroom%22

At that time the people of the group did not pretend to not understand
the word or to act with hostility, but rather talked about the
potential of the then new technique.

New techniques -- in 1999? Is that when you were born,
or when you got your first camera?

It's not a darkroom "technique." Not even close. It's
software and data (i.e., digital imaging.) And it
certainly isn't anything new since many of us own and
use scanners and Photoshop and yes even digital cameras.
I have Photoshop v1.07 on a vintage Mac SE I've owned
since the late 1980's and no, they didn't call it
"digital darkroom." Even then it was called software and
image manipulation.

That "hostility" you seem to perceive isn't fear, but
our fed up responses regarding the continued deliberate
misappropriation, misinterpretation, and misapplication
of _accurate_ and factual photographic terminology by the
undereducated, who have about as much photographic knowledge
and depth as a pothole from last winter's snows...

But this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only
interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it
is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some
find threatening.

I agree; he should troll elsewhere...

On 27 Mar 2005 18:27:16 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

But this group seems to have changed in the last 6 years to a technology
fearing group

Could it be that there has been a resurgence of interest in wet darkroom
(and I add, larger formats) in the past six years? Perhaps the enthusiasts
would rather see the group follow it's original intention. Besides, there
are plenty of venues for digital stuff.

On 27 Mar 2005 18:27:16 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

But this group seems to have changed in the last 6 years to a technology
fearing group

Could it be that there has been a resurgence of interest in wet darkroom
(and I add, larger formats) in the past six years? Perhaps the enthusiasts
would rather see the group follow it's original intention. Besides, there
are plenty of venues for digital stuff.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:26:23 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:
.... In my version of
'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem
to exclude digital imaging from the group.
....

mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,

Thank you!

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote:

....

If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
....

mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,

The topic is not too hot for me; not even warm. I find
it uninteresting.

In r.p.d. I can discuss what I find interesting, with
people who also find it interesting.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote:

....

If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
....

mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,

The topic is not too hot for me; not even warm. I find
it uninteresting.

In r.p.d. I can discuss what I find interesting, with
people who also find it interesting.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--