Where will B&W be in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 .... years

In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"John" wrote:

The only good thing about digital imaging is that we can just
simply hit the delete key and erase someone's entire archive ;))

On the other hand, the bad thing is that a digital image released to the
internet is likely to live forever, for better and worse.


you mean until the next big economic downturn? :P

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"John" wrote:

The only good thing about digital imaging is that we can just
simply hit the delete key and erase someone's entire archive ;))

On the other hand, the bad thing is that a digital image released to the
internet is likely to live forever, for better and worse.


you mean until the next big economic downturn? :P

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"rafeb" wrote in message
om...

Damn, I keep hearing "marketers" drug into these
discussions and it ****es me off.

The implication is that those of us who use digital
imaging are too stupid to think for ourselves.

And _that's_ why you film Luddites annoy me.

At first I was hurt by your objection, then I realized there's a way to
aggravate you even more. Next week I will begin shooting color on film
without color film, then I can declare a deeper, more genuine and, pure
photography than you or even tomfill-lips can endure.

B&W film and filters? Will you be using just the colour primaries
or some alternative set?


On a serious note, Rafe, don't you agree that mastering digital imaging is
at least as challenging as mastering convention film work? The keyword is
Mastering.

Best,
jjs


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs wrote:
"rafeb" wrote in message
om...

Damn, I keep hearing "marketers" drug into these
discussions and it ****es me off.

The implication is that those of us who use digital
imaging are too stupid to think for ourselves.

And _that's_ why you film Luddites annoy me.

At first I was hurt by your objection, then I realized there's a way to
aggravate you even more. Next week I will begin shooting color on film
without color film, then I can declare a deeper, more genuine and, pure
photography than you or even tomfill-lips can endure.

B&W film and filters? Will you be using just the colour primaries
or some alternative set?


On a serious note, Rafe, don't you agree that mastering digital imaging is
at least as challenging as mastering convention film work? The keyword is
Mastering.

Best,
jjs


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:45:22 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify
anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction.

"by the chemical action of light "

Did I miss something ? Does this state "electronic" in some
form that I'm not familiar with ?

You missed something because you snipped what you wanted to ignore. The
fact is, both the negatives and prints *are* made via the "chemical action
of light *or other radiant energy*".

I snipped irrelevant opinion. Perhaps you mean :

As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify
anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction.

Again, "by the chemical action of light ". This has nothing to
do with computers or electronics.

So,the
image of the object (in this case, a drawing that was created using a
computer) was produced upon a photosensitive surface (i.e. an 8x10 color
negative in the film recorder) and printed via traditional wet darkroom
techniques. Looking closely at the image, you would see every quality,
including grain, that any other photograph exhibits.

Ah ! So you contend that anything dreamed up in Photoshop,
written to film and subsequently printed is a photograph ? Ummmm, no.
It is a digital image that was translated to analog. It is still DI.

You have no valid point.

Perhaps you could give me a better explanation as to why you
believe this ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:45:22 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify
anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction.

"by the chemical action of light "

Did I miss something ? Does this state "electronic" in some
form that I'm not familiar with ?

You missed something because you snipped what you wanted to ignore. The
fact is, both the negatives and prints *are* made via the "chemical action
of light *or other radiant energy*".

I snipped irrelevant opinion. Perhaps you mean :

As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify
anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction.

Again, "by the chemical action of light ". This has nothing to
do with computers or electronics.

So,the
image of the object (in this case, a drawing that was created using a
computer) was produced upon a photosensitive surface (i.e. an 8x10 color
negative in the film recorder) and printed via traditional wet darkroom
techniques. Looking closely at the image, you would see every quality,
including grain, that any other photograph exhibits.

Ah ! So you contend that anything dreamed up in Photoshop,
written to film and subsequently printed is a photograph ? Ummmm, no.
It is a digital image that was translated to analog. It is still DI.

You have no valid point.

Perhaps you could give me a better explanation as to why you
believe this ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:45:22 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify
anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction.

"by the chemical action of light "

Did I miss something ? Does this state "electronic" in some
form that I'm not familiar with ?

You missed something because you snipped what you wanted to ignore. The
fact is, both the negatives and prints *are* made via the "chemical action
of light *or other radiant energy*".

I snipped irrelevant opinion. Perhaps you mean :

As you can see, this definition is fairly broad and does not specify
anything about the nature of the camera or method of reproduction.

Again, "by the chemical action of light ". This has nothing to
do with computers or electronics.

So,the
image of the object (in this case, a drawing that was created using a
computer) was produced upon a photosensitive surface (i.e. an 8x10 color
negative in the film recorder) and printed via traditional wet darkroom
techniques. Looking closely at the image, you would see every quality,
including grain, that any other photograph exhibits.

Ah ! So you contend that anything dreamed up in Photoshop,
written to film and subsequently printed is a photograph ? Ummmm, no.
It is a digital image that was translated to analog. It is still DI.

You have no valid point.

Perhaps you could give me a better explanation as to why you
believe this ?


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Who cares?

You should be shooting color anyway!

Jin


Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Forecast the future of B&W.

Where do you think it will be in:

5 years?

10 years?

20 years?

50 years?

If there is enough participation the average of the
predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate.

Who cares?

You should be shooting color anyway!

Jin


Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Forecast the future of B&W.

Where do you think it will be in:

5 years?

10 years?

20 years?

50 years?

If there is enough participation the average of the
predictions often turns out to be pretty accurate.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:32:21 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

In rec.photo.darkroom rafeb wrote:

I believe this had already been done in
the 19th century. Three aligned cameras
each capturing images onto plates through
three color filters.

Frederick E. Ives (Jean-David Beyer's great-grandfather)
was a pioneer in this in the 1890s.

Wish I had the link. IIRC the photographer
and subjects were Russian.

You are thinking of the Prokudin-Gorskii exhibit at
the Library of Congress.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

They are amazing pictures. Prokudin-Gorskii was fairly
early, but he was by no means the first to do this.
It is interesting to note that Prokudin-Gorskii began
his colour work just after Wratten and Wainwright made
the first commercially available panchromatic plates (1906).
Before that time, the photographer would have to treat
plates with dye sensitizers himself.

If he used Wratten plates and filters, colour balance
should have been pretty good. Wratten gave detailed information
about the relative exposures for tri-colour work with
various light sources.


That's the one. Particularly remember this one:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg


I'd like to ask Wayne or Puresilver or Tom Fill Lips
if they thought this latest generation of images could
_possibly_ have been done, to this quality, without
digital processing. (It clearly was not "DI.")


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