If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors in their online map routing directions
On Jul 7, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ): On 07/07/2018 08:44 AM, Arlen Holder wrote: On 7 Jul 2018 02:49:05 GMT, Savageduck wrote: Taking a photo of the scenery While Savageduck is a well-known moronic troll who has never once added on-topic value to any technical thread in his entire life, here are the actual laws related to photography in NY State: https://everydayaperture.com/law/ You must be new here. He is a notorious nymshifting troll who appears in r.p.d. from time to time Savageduck is quite knowledgeable about photography and digital manipulation of images to get the best possible results. While his images and methods may not be my methods (I shoot film), if I were to start using digital, I would buy him a case of beer, just to get him to talk photography. You really should start shooting digital. I gave up the smell of my wet darkroom years ago. SD is also retired law enforcement, so he would have some knowledge of the law. Enough to survive 25 years with a badge. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors intheir online map routing directions
On 07/07/2018 12:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 7, 2018, Ken Hart wrote (in article ): On 07/07/2018 08:44 AM, Arlen Holder wrote: On 7 Jul 2018 02:49:05 GMT, Savageduck wrote: Taking a photo of the scenery While Savageduck is a well-known moronic troll who has never once added on-topic value to any technical thread in his entire life, here are the actual laws related to photography in NY State: https://everydayaperture.com/law/ You must be new here. He is a notorious nymshifting troll who appears in r.p.d. from time to time He also appears in one (or more) of the Linux groups, with posts that are similar to a Mark Twain short story in length, and similar to Income Tax instructions in complexity. Savageduck is quite knowledgeable about photography and digital manipulation of images to get the best possible results. While his images and methods may not be my methods (I shoot film), if I were to start using digital, I would buy him a case of beer, just to get him to talk photography. You really should start shooting digital. I gave up the smell of my wet darkroom years ago. You needed better ventilation! I enjoy the whole wet system process. The fact that the techniques available to modify the image are limited: density, color balance, and cropping; so I have to get the image right at the point of exposure. The ruggedness of the image: I've had too many hard drive/optical disk failures, and a modicum of care suffices for a film negative. Finally, I like to have the print in my hands and not on a screen. I've had people (not "real photographers") ask me why my photos look better than the stuff they see online. I tell them it's because they can "connect" with my photographs without a screen. That said, I respect your methods and results. In fact, if I were to start shooting digital; based on comments you have made about your cameras, I would request an inventory of your kit so I would have a starting point. Considering the investment (in time, learning, and money) that I have in my camera and darkroom, I think I'll stay with film for a bit longer. SD is also retired law enforcement, so he would have some knowledge of the law. Enough to survive 25 years with a badge. -- Ken Hart |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors in their online map routing directions
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: You really should start shooting digital. I gave up the smell of my wet darkroom years ago. You needed better ventilation! while that certainly helps, there's still an 'aroma'. I enjoy the whole wet system process. that's fine, except that your knowledge of digital is at best deeply flawed, and in most cases, downright wrong, thereby voiding any comparison and preventing any form of enjoyment of digital. The fact that the techniques available to modify the image are limited: density, color balance, and cropping; so I have to get the image right at the point of exposure. for film, that's true. for digital, that's very, very wrong. far more can be adjusted after the fact than with film, including white balance and in some cases, focus and depth of field. plus, if you make a mistake with digital, there's undo, making it very easy to experiment and learn new techniques. in a wet darkroom, there is no undo. you have to start over, which can quickly become very expensive and very time consuming. tl;dr - digital is *much* more capable. The ruggedness of the image: I've had too many hard drive/optical disk failures, and a modicum of care suffices for a film negative. buy better hardware and make better backups. unlike film, a duplicate of a digital image is 100% identical to the original, can be made instantly and as many times desired, then stored in multiple geographically diverse locations, all done entirely automatically, which basically guarantees that nothing will ever be lost short of the planet being destroyed, which if that were to happen, the loss of the images won't matter anymore. it's not possible to make a backup of film. a duplicate of a film image is always a second generation copy, which incurs some loss, plus it takes time and money to do, so it's rarely (if ever) done. film also requires special storage to prevent damage or loss due to mold, dirt, fire, flood, etc. Finally, I like to have the print in my hands and not on a screen. I've had people (not "real photographers") ask me why my photos look better than the stuff they see online. I tell them it's because they can "connect" with my photographs without a screen. there are these things called printers. there are also places called print shops for those who do not wish to purchase a printer, or want a something larger than what their own printer can do (which is usually 8x10). camera stores will even take a memory card and print every image on it, as if it was a roll of film. another reason why your friends might say that is because they don't have quality displays, or they're looking at low quality photos (which also exist with film too). compare a photo on a wide gamut hi-dpi display versus a print and they'll have a very different opinion because the image on the display will have much better colours and a much wider dynamic range than anything a print can do. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors intheir online map routing directions
On 07/07/2018 04:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart wrote: You really should start shooting digital. I gave up the smell of my wet darkroom years ago. You needed better ventilation! while that certainly helps, there's still an 'aroma'. I find the smell of RA-4 chemicals to be kind of a fruit smell. I don't notice a smell from C-41 except very faintly from the developer. I enjoy the whole wet system process. that's fine, except that your knowledge of digital is at best deeply flawed, and in most cases, downright wrong, thereby voiding any comparison and preventing any form of enjoyment of digital. You have no idea of my knowledge of digital photography, so your assumption is, once again, wrong. The fact that the techniques available to modify the image are limited: density, color balance, and cropping; so I have to get the image right at the point of exposure. for film, that's true. for digital, that's very, very wrong. far more can be adjusted after the fact than with film, including white balance and in some cases, focus and depth of field. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. plus, if you make a mistake with digital, there's undo, making it very easy to experiment and learn new techniques. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. in a wet darkroom, there is no undo. you have to start over, which can quickly become very expensive and very time consuming. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. As for the expense, I buy wholesale from a minilab supplier. I just got done printing my vacation photos as 10"x14" (I bought a 300'x10" roll of Kodak Edge paper) at a cost of about $0.40 each, including chemicals. How does that compare to an inkjet print? As for time, I'm retired now- turned 62 in March- so I've got plenty of time. tl;dr - digital is *much* more capable. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. The ruggedness of the image: I've had too many hard drive/optical disk failures, and a modicum of care suffices for a film negative. buy better hardware and make better backups. I don't care how good your hardware is. A lightning strike can take it out. Or a manufacturing flaw can cause it to have a shortened life. unlike film, a duplicate of a digital image is 100% identical to the original, can be made instantly and as many times desired, then stored in multiple geographically diverse locations, all done entirely automatically, which basically guarantees that nothing will ever be lost short of the planet being destroyed, which if that were to happen, the loss of the images won't matter anymore. That's very nice. How many diverse geographical locations do you personally automatically use? it's not possible to make a backup of film. a duplicate of a film image is always a second generation copy, which incurs some loss, plus it takes time and money to do, so it's rarely (if ever) done. film also requires special storage to prevent damage or loss due to mold, dirt, fire, flood, etc. Finally, I like to have the print in my hands and not on a screen. I've had people (not "real photographers") ask me why my photos look better than the stuff they see online. I tell them it's because they can "connect" with my photographs without a screen. there are these things called printers. there are also places called print shops for those who do not wish to purchase a printer, or want a something larger than what their own printer can do (which is usually 8x10). I have all I need to print my photographs. Currently, I only have stock for up to 10" wide photos, but I could be printing any size up to 20" wide in three days (shipping time for a roll of photo paper). camera stores will even take a memory card and print every image on it, as if it was a roll of film. Nearest place 'round these parts' for that is WalMart or CVS. Or my darkroom for film negatives. another reason why your friends might say that is because they don't have quality displays, or they're looking at low quality photos (which also exist with film too). compare a photo on a wide gamut hi-dpi display versus a print and they'll have a very different opinion because the image on the display will have much better colours and a much wider dynamic range than anything a print can do. And we could look at the photos on this "wide gamut hi-dpi" display while sitting at a table in a bar, or in someone's living room? Or how about if I visit some of my family's Amish friends, and want to show them my photos? Once again, you have failed to take into consideration that some people prefer Coke and other people prefer Pepsi. Both are available, and neither is inherently wrong. -- Ken Hart |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors in their online map routing directions
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: You really should start shooting digital. I gave up the smell of my wet darkroom years ago. You needed better ventilation! while that certainly helps, there's still an 'aroma'. I find the smell of RA-4 chemicals to be kind of a fruit smell. I don't notice a smell from C-41 except very faintly from the developer. very faintly means it's still there. did you ever do cibachrome? that stuff was nasty. I enjoy the whole wet system process. that's fine, except that your knowledge of digital is at best deeply flawed, and in most cases, downright wrong, thereby voiding any comparison and preventing any form of enjoyment of digital. You have no idea of my knowledge of digital photography, so your assumption is, once again, wrong. i'm only going by what you've posted. feel free to demonstrate your extensive knowledge of digital photography. so far, you haven't. The fact that the techniques available to modify the image are limited: density, color balance, and cropping; so I have to get the image right at the point of exposure. for film, that's true. for digital, that's very, very wrong. far more can be adjusted after the fact than with film, including white balance and in some cases, focus and depth of field. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. how is having more options a bug? your claim was that the techniques available for digital are more limited than film, forcing you to get it right in camera, which is flat out wrong. the *opposite* is true, that film is more limited, which means with film, you have to get it right in camera far more often than with digital. there is also no requirement to use all of the adjustment options, but it sure is nice to have them available. plus, if you make a mistake with digital, there's undo, making it very easy to experiment and learn new techniques. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. how is that a bug? learning photography, whether it's inside or outside a darkroom, is *much* easier and more effective with digital for many reasons, undo being just one. in a wet darkroom, there is no undo. you have to start over, which can quickly become very expensive and very time consuming. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. you must have unlimited time and money. As for the expense, I buy wholesale from a minilab supplier. I just got done printing my vacation photos as 10"x14" (I bought a 300'x10" roll of Kodak Edge paper) at a cost of about $0.40 each, including chemicals. How does that compare to an inkjet print? the part you're missing is that you will need to print the same photo multiple times to get exactly what you want, or if you make a mistake. that means the cost of one photo is a *lot* more than 40c, not to mention the time it takes to do it. how many prints would you need and how long would it take for you to come anywhere close to these? http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2010/03/...es-of-selectiv e-color-photography/ and that's just one example. with digital, adjustments can be made for no cost entirely on a computer until you get exactly what you want, with only *one* print needed. As for time, I'm retired now- turned 62 in March- so I've got plenty of time. then you have plenty of time to learn about digital. it's not too late to make the switch. tl;dr - digital is *much* more capable. To me, that's a bug, not a feature. how is more capable a bug? very odd. The ruggedness of the image: I've had too many hard drive/optical disk failures, and a modicum of care suffices for a film negative. buy better hardware and make better backups. I don't care how good your hardware is. A lightning strike can take it out. Or a manufacturing flaw can cause it to have a shortened life. so what? it doesn't matter if that or anything else unexpected happens because there are multiple copies in multiple locations. that's the whole point of having backups. meanwhile, a fire, perhaps one ignited by the lightning strike you fear, can destroy *all* of your negatives, slides and prints in a flash (no pun intended) and that's assuming mold hasn't done so already. do you keep your photos in a climate controlled environment? unlike film, a duplicate of a digital image is 100% identical to the original, can be made instantly and as many times desired, then stored in multiple geographically diverse locations, all done entirely automatically, which basically guarantees that nothing will ever be lost short of the planet being destroyed, which if that were to happen, the loss of the images won't matter anymore. That's very nice. yes, it is. How many diverse geographical locations do you personally automatically use? much more than you do for film and there's no need to travel to do so either. do you make *any* copies of film images? and if you do, how many copies and are they stored somewhere *other* than where the originals are? it's not possible to make a backup of film. a duplicate of a film image is always a second generation copy, which incurs some loss, plus it takes time and money to do, so it's rarely (if ever) done. film also requires special storage to prevent damage or loss due to mold, dirt, fire, flood, etc. Finally, I like to have the print in my hands and not on a screen. I've had people (not "real photographers") ask me why my photos look better than the stuff they see online. I tell them it's because they can "connect" with my photographs without a screen. there are these things called printers. there are also places called print shops for those who do not wish to purchase a printer, or want a something larger than what their own printer can do (which is usually 8x10). I have all I need to print my photographs. Currently, I only have stock for up to 10" wide photos, but I could be printing any size up to 20" wide in three days (shipping time for a roll of photo paper). apparently you don't have all you need, otherwise you would be able to make prints of digital images so that your friends can 'connect' to those too, which is an meaningless metric to judge image quality. camera stores will even take a memory card and print every image on it, as if it was a roll of film. Nearest place 'round these parts' for that is WalMart or CVS. Or my darkroom for film negatives. upload them and have them mailed. the point is that it's *very* easy to make prints from digital photos, even easier than with film. claiming that film is better because it can be printed is bull****. nothing prevents making a print from a digital image. one option is to create a book, which makes for a very nice gift. maybe your friends can 'connect' with one. http://asseenbyjanineblog.com/wp-con...Create-PDF-Tes t-Copy-of-Book-Within-Lightroom-Book-Module.png https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Rk_mdzBcPp8/maxresdefault.jpg or move to civilization, where there's more than just a walmart and cvs. another reason why your friends might say that is because they don't have quality displays, or they're looking at low quality photos (which also exist with film too). compare a photo on a wide gamut hi-dpi display versus a print and they'll have a very different opinion because the image on the display will have much better colours and a much wider dynamic range than anything a print can do. And we could look at the photos on this "wide gamut hi-dpi" display while sitting at a table in a bar, or in someone's living room? Or how about if I visit some of my family's Amish friends, and want to show them my photos? that's no problem whatsoever. a dci-p3 wide gamut retina display is standard on recent macs, iphones and ipads, so all you need to do is bring one with you or make sure someone else did. some pcs and android devices have similar displays, but it's not as common and not as well integrated. an ipad would be better suited at a table in a bar, while a 27" imac would be preferable in a living room (or any other room). even better if there's a 4k tv in said living room. connect the iphone (various ways to do that) and display the images at full quality. meanwhile, how many people have the equipment to print using 300' rolls of photo paper, especially in a bar, or at an amish home? Once again, you have failed to take into consideration that some people prefer Coke and other people prefer Pepsi. Both are available, and neither is inherently wrong. i never said either was wrong nor do i give a **** what someone prefers. what i said was your claims about digital are wrong, which means your preferences are based on very incorrect information. today, digital photography exceeds film in every metric, although it can be downgraded to duplicate 'the film look' if that's what someone prefers. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors in their online map routing directions
On Sat, 7 Jul 2018 12:44:43 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote: On 7 Jul 2018 02:49:05 GMT, Savageduck wrote: Taking a photo of the scenery While Savageduck is a well-known moronic troll who has never once added on-topic value to any technical thread in his entire life, here are the actual laws related to photography in NY State: https://everydayaperture.com/law/ I can only wish you good luck if you want to argue the legalities of the matter with a judge. You will need more than good luck if you intend to cite that document to a cop on the NY Freeway who wants to give you a ticket for stopping to take a photograph. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
FYI ... it takes google only about 1.5 months to fix errors in their online map routing directions
On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 09:23:42 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, Ken Hart wrote (in article ): On 07/07/2018 08:44 AM, Arlen Holder wrote: On 7 Jul 2018 02:49:05 GMT, Savageduck wrote: Taking a photo of the scenery While Savageduck is a well-known moronic troll who has never once added on-topic value to any technical thread in his entire life, here are the actual laws related to photography in NY State: https://everydayaperture.com/law/ You must be new here. He is a notorious nymshifting troll who appears in r.p.d. from time to time Savageduck is quite knowledgeable about photography and digital manipulation of images to get the best possible results. While his images and methods may not be my methods (I shoot film), if I were to start using digital, I would buy him a case of beer, just to get him to talk photography. You really should start shooting digital. I gave up the smell of my wet darkroom years ago. What about beer? SD is also retired law enforcement, so he would have some knowledge of the law. Enough to survive 25 years with a badge. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
With Cameras Optional, New Directions in Photography | Eric Stevens | Digital Photography | 0 | February 18th 14 09:22 PM |
THE AMAZING GOOGLE NETWORK INVITES YOU TO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BYDOING A SIMPLE ONLINE WORK. | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 17th 08 10:43 AM |
Social Marketing Tip that Kills Google...... takes less than 24hours for #1 Listing no B.S | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 8th 08 10:00 AM |
New Google Owner agrees to use google for spelling purposes | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 19th 07 04:16 AM |
Why AF Errors are Lens Dependent? | RiceHigh | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 17th 07 02:30 AM |