The disappearance of darkness

PeterN wrote:
On 5/11/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
How much teaching experience do you have?

Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.

snip

When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
the tools that are different.

Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.

It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the
effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the
effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information
needed is already contained in the digital image.

Similarly for fau infra-red.

Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
exist in the image.

--
Chris Malcolm

PeterN wrote:
On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
How much teaching experience do you have?

digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.

When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
the tools that are different.

Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

nothing faux about it.

solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.

You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
digitized image to the rays of the sun?

That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
if it wasn't.

Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

There are important differences between good large expensive
dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
is.

Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 5/15/2013 7:42 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
How much teaching experience do you have?

digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.

When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
the tools that are different.

Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

nothing faux about it.

solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.

You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
digitized image to the rays of the sun?

That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
if it wasn't.

Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.





There are important differences between good large expensive
dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
is.

You are right, in general, however in this case AFAIK the OED has a
similar definition.
I would not rely on any dictionary for technical applications, but might
use one as a starting point.


Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.


Yes the results may be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye, but
the process is not the same. The context of the discussion, was process.


--
PeterN

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

if the distortion is within the audio range (20-20k), then it is
probably audible. if the distortion is outside that range, it's not
audible.

But tehre;s more ir it than that due to harmonics and even if yuo can;t hear
25KHz that if it exists in teh signal will alter the dynamics of teh speaker
due to power disapation, this is one of the things that used to blow up
tweeters as it doesn;t take much at high frequancy, hopefully those
frequancies are filered out before amplification.

you can't hear what's outside the range of human hearing.

plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they
once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end.

Yes but it can still matter to the overall sound.

not if you can't hear it, it won't.

If you're only interest is in what the human ear can hear.

for speaker cables, that's all that matters.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It was a long time ago and my memory is coming back to me. I am using
a low-oxygen cable but not the fancy stuff that the audiophiles pay
heaps for. I can't the conductor cross section but it is generous.

in other words, standard wire.

'Good' standard wire. The bulk of the advantage is mechanical.

what matters is the electrical characteristics of the wire, not its
mechanical characteristics, which has *no* effect on sound quality.

What I was testing against was a fancy cable where the in and out
conductors each employed three sets of wires which were interwoven. I
think that this may have been the conductor which achieved fame by
blowing up a Naim amplifier as soon as it was connected. Fortunately
the Quad 606 is "Unconditionally stable with any load and any signal".
In any case, I could hear the difference and dumped the fancy cable.

woven wire looks nice. electrically it's meaningless.

Not this lot. Three cores in, three cores out, the whole interwoven to
form a six ply tube. As I said, the reactance was such that in the old
days Naim amplifiers could not tolerate them even for milliseconds.

that's done for looks. you don't need twisted pairs for audio and
certainly not triplets. it's still a tiny fraction of an ohm.

Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know.

the impedance of wire is for all intents, zero. as noted before, 25' of
14ga wire is 0.063 ohms and any reactive component is many orders of
magnitude lower than that.

Note that I did not say 'resistance'. I said 'impedance' of which
reactance is a factor.

note that i said reactive component. also note that i said that it's
negligible.

Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the
speaker.

it's close enough to zero that it can be considered zero.

Quad puts it as "For optimum performance it is necessary to
ensure that the impedance of the cable is small relative to the
impedance of the load". This makes sense as the amplifier is able to
poke out more than 10 amps under the right conditions.

the impedance of the wire *is* small relative to the load.

the wire is 0.063 ohms and the load is nominally 8 ohms. even if the
load drops to 1-2 ohms at certain frequencies, the wire is still
insignificant.

In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the
unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable.

definitely not. what you were hearing was what you wanted to hear.

Double blind, remember.

what assurances do you have that all other variables were normalized,
such as same volume level?

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
How much teaching experience do you have?

Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.

so what? that's not important anymore. what's important is digital
workflow.

When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
the tools that are different.

Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.

It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the
effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the
effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information
needed is already contained in the digital image.

exactly correct.

Similarly for fau infra-red.

Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
exist in the image.

however, it is possible to shoot infrared with digital, and a whole lot
easier than with infrared film.

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
the tools that are different.

Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

nothing faux about it.

solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.

You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
digitized image to the rays of the sun?

That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
if it wasn't.

Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

There are important differences between good large expensive
dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
is.

Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.

correct.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.

Yes the results may be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye,

not almost.

they *are* indistinguishable because they are exactly the same.

but
the process is not the same. The context of the discussion, was process.

no it wasn't. it was about teaching concepts.

the steps to get there may be different, but that doesn't make any
difference.

On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It was a long time ago and my memory is coming back to me. I am using
a low-oxygen cable but not the fancy stuff that the audiophiles pay
heaps for. I can't the conductor cross section but it is generous.

in other words, standard wire.

'Good' standard wire. The bulk of the advantage is mechanical.

what matters is the electrical characteristics of the wire, not its
mechanical characteristics, which has *no* effect on sound quality.

What I was testing against was a fancy cable where the in and out
conductors each employed three sets of wires which were interwoven. I
think that this may have been the conductor which achieved fame by
blowing up a Naim amplifier as soon as it was connected. Fortunately
the Quad 606 is "Unconditionally stable with any load and any signal".
In any case, I could hear the difference and dumped the fancy cable.

woven wire looks nice. electrically it's meaningless.

Not this lot. Three cores in, three cores out, the whole interwoven to
form a six ply tube. As I said, the reactance was such that in the old
days Naim amplifiers could not tolerate them even for milliseconds.

that's done for looks. you don't need twisted pairs for audio and
certainly not triplets. it's still a tiny fraction of an ohm.

Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know.

the impedance of wire is for all intents, zero. as noted before, 25' of
14ga wire is 0.063 ohms and any reactive component is many orders of
magnitude lower than that.

Note that I did not say 'resistance'. I said 'impedance' of which
reactance is a factor.

note that i said reactive component. also note that i said that it's
negligible.

Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the
speaker.

it's close enough to zero that it can be considered zero.

Quad puts it as "For optimum performance it is necessary to
ensure that the impedance of the cable is small relative to the
impedance of the load". This makes sense as the amplifier is able to
poke out more than 10 amps under the right conditions.

the impedance of the wire *is* small relative to the load.

the wire is 0.063 ohms and the load is nominally 8 ohms. even if the
load drops to 1-2 ohms at certain frequencies, the wire is still
insignificant.

In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the
unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable.

definitely not. what you were hearing was what you wanted to hear.

Double blind, remember.

what assurances do you have that all other variables were normalized,
such as same volume level?


And this from the individual who alleges facts based upon unverifiable
observations

--
PeterN

On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
How much teaching experience do you have?

Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.

so what? that's not important anymore. what's important is digital
workflow.

Who the hell are you to decide what's important.
Learning how to cook is not important in Japan, because they eat raw
fish. In the US cooking is not important because in addition to eating
raw fish, we eat steak tartar and pre-cooked TV dinners. \\end sarcastic tag



When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
the tools that are different.

Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.

It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the
effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the
effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information
needed is already contained in the digital image.

exactly correct.

Similarly for fau infra-red.

Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
exist in the image.

however, it is possible to shoot infrared with digital, and a whole lot
easier than with infrared film.



--
PeterN