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

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I am not saying its required mind you ;-)

But people like to think (be fooled) that they're
using a real camera instead of a scanner and doing
real photography. A pretty effective strategy too,
those .wav file sound effects. It must be a real
camera if you have an authentic shutter sound effect

As P.T Barnum once drooled, "There's a sucker born
every minute."

He he, I have always equated that sound similar to the sound
of a cash register.... ka ching, ka ching.

--
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 ,
bob wrote:

Is it this year's edition? Word meanings change. Words mean what people
want them to mean.


Yeah but then no one else understands what the heck that someone
is saying.

When I said "people" I meant plural, not individuals.

Ok the individuals that do darkroom work would have trouble
understanding them other people too ;-)

I think you have it backwords, Tom,Wayne and the majority of people
doing and that have done Darkroom photography (stated here as such to
placate you)

That's a major qualification. I was talking about the population at
large (the millions of people who use the words "photography" and
"photograph", and now you're restricting the conversation to darkroom
workers.

Uh this is rec. photo.darkroom or did you forget
when has the population at large really understood
much of any one given specialized process....you only
ever have a small group that formally understands a
relative issue,.. not the population at large.

understand photography at its core meaning that is
generated onto film and made manifest onto silver based papers. That is
the way its been phrased for two hundred + years.

Maybe most darkroom workers do think that film is necessary for
photography to occur. Film is not necessary for prints on silver based
papers though.

Maybe not but it is a very cost effective way for those of us with
darkrooms and little desire to make bw prints at the price point
places are charging for those specialized prints.

I wonder what Ansel would think.

I don't know either, he's dead.

--
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 ,
bob wrote:

I see you never did address the issue of digital images printed on
silver halide paper. Too hard to reconcile that with your world view I
suppose.

How about cost effectiveness, I guess you don't mind spending
$50.00 for an 8x10 fiber based print.

--
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 ,
bob wrote:

Wrong. It is physically impossible for a digital
sensor to record anything. It doesn't record, it
converts photoelectrons into digital signals.
Nothing is ever recorded.

That last bit is pretty interesting. So if "nothing is ever recorded",
then how is the image conjured up at a later point in time.

Its a algorithmic calculation that writes the instruction to the chip
that then is read as an instruction on the computer to assemble the
image according to that algorithm. Obviously there exist algorithms
within the light itself if one is given to belief that mathematically all
things are explainable. But mathematically and verbally there are always
differing formula and some do produce similar yet different results.
Even subsets that allow for boobs or bobs in this case ;-)

--
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

Tom Phillips wrote:


Clearly, the ability to adequately differentiate
in the abstract is lacking around here...


As Dave Littleboy pointed out just a day
or two ago, the technology needed to make
today's color films is anything but mundane.
IOW, it's high tech and apparently in Fuji's
opinion, no longer worth the trouble to make.

Monochrome/silver photography is a better
fit for your argument, but so what.

But hey, if you'd like to volunteer as
Luddite-in-residence, welcome. Stacey's
resigned the position and gone to the dark
side, and bobm hasn't been heard from in
months.



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

Gregory Blank wrote:

Uh this is rec. photo.darkroom or did you forget
when has the population at large really understood
much of any one given specialized process....you only
ever have a small group that formally understands a
relative issue,.. not the population at large.

Well, OK, but the population at large uses things they call cameras to
make what they call photographs. "They" don't seem to distinguish
between digital based and film based images. If you wasnt to argue that
a small subset of the population use the word photograph more
restrictively I would not argue against that, but to claim that all
those other people aren't allowed their usage of the word seems rather
pompous.


understand photography at its core meaning that is
generated onto film and made manifest onto silver based papers. That is
the way its been phrased for two hundred + years.

Maybe most darkroom workers do think that film is necessary for
photography to occur. Film is not necessary for prints on silver based
papers though.


Maybe not but it is a very cost effective way for those of us with
darkrooms and little desire to make bw prints at the price point
places are charging for those specialized prints.

You must be confused about what I'm talking about. Wal-Mart will print a
digital file on an 8x10 piece of silver halide paper for under $3.
Ilford MG IV runs $41/100. To my way of thinking there's not that much
difference in cost, at least not in the quantities I'm involved in.

Fuji's newest Frontier will print up to 12x19. I'm looking forward to that.

My reason for a darkroom is for enlarging 4x5 negatives.

Bob

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote

Shades of 1984 but 70 years late: Total immersion TV on 4-walls,
ceiling and floor.

... it wasn't '1984'; your reference was
to 'Fahrenheit 451' (Bradbury).

That's right. Though I have some recollection of Big Brother
speaking from all four walls .... 451F was in color, my
recollections of reading 1984 are in B&W: East Berlin
before they colorized it.

By the way, if it (whatever it is ...) stops being
photography if it's digital, does TV stop being TV if
it's, um, digital??

Must be. And this can't be a written conversation --
writing is on paper.

--
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/

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
bob wrote:


I see you never did address the issue of digital images printed on
silver halide paper. Too hard to reconcile that with your world view I
suppose.


How about cost effectiveness, I guess you don't mind spending
$50.00 for an 8x10 fiber based print.


I didn't say FB. I said silver halide. $2.26 at Wal-Mart. $4 at Walgreens.

Besides, the question wasn't "how much does it cost?" the question was,
"is it a photograph?" ("it" being a silver halide print from a digital
file.)

Bob

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
bob wrote:


Wrong. It is physically impossible for a digital
sensor to record anything. It doesn't record, it
converts photoelectrons into digital signals.
Nothing is ever recorded.

That last bit is pretty interesting. So if "nothing is ever recorded",
then how is the image conjured up at a later point in time.


Its a algorithmic calculation that writes

If it "writes" then a recording is made.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:


Must be. And this can't be a written conversation --
writing is on paper.


What about sky writing?

;-)

Bob