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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Oct 2004 17:53:34 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote: big snip In the meantime, lots of us will be glad we were shooting on film in the first place ;-) Some good points, bob, but what in particular do they have to do with MF photography or the original topic of this thread? Agreed, lots of folks now shooting digicams will be in for a rude surprise somewhere down the line. They will either learn from that experience.. or not. By definition most of those who lose data will be casual users. In the meantime, I feel I'm pretty well covered - shooting mostly with film and printing digitally. On images captured digitally, I need to be super vigilant. Yes, I've already lost a few images. I'm not looking backwards -- just can't see any point in doing that. Yes, it's good to be reminded of the volatility of digital data. Even so, I'm sure the storage technologies will continue to improve rapidly. Four years ago a 100 MB Zip disk was the standard, at $10 a pop. In 2004 it's a DVD, with 47 times more storage at 1/10 the cost. Can you cite evidence that present CDs and DVDs are subject to magnetic "bit rot?" I believe you are mistaken on that point. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed, lots of folks now shooting digicams
will be in for a rude surprise somewhere down the line. True, just as so many families had a rude surprise when they saw their color photographs from the '70s and earlier fading and discoloring beyond recognition ("and why oh why didn't we keep all those negatives somewhere so that we could find them today?"). "rafe bustin" wrote in message ... On 17 Oct 2004 17:53:34 -0500, (Bob Monaghan) wrote: big snip In the meantime, lots of us will be glad we were shooting on film in the first place ;-) Some good points, bob, but what in particular do they have to do with MF photography or the original topic of this thread? Agreed, lots of folks now shooting digicams will be in for a rude surprise somewhere down the line. They will either learn from that experience.. or not. By definition most of those who lose data will be casual users. In the meantime, I feel I'm pretty well covered - shooting mostly with film and printing digitally. On images captured digitally, I need to be super vigilant. Yes, I've already lost a few images. I'm not looking backwards -- just can't see any point in doing that. Yes, it's good to be reminded of the volatility of digital data. Even so, I'm sure the storage technologies will continue to improve rapidly. Four years ago a 100 MB Zip disk was the standard, at $10 a pop. In 2004 it's a DVD, with 47 times more storage at 1/10 the cost. Can you cite evidence that present CDs and DVDs are subject to magnetic "bit rot?" I believe you are mistaken on that point. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed, lots of folks now shooting digicams
will be in for a rude surprise somewhere down the line. True, just as so many families had a rude surprise when they saw their color photographs from the '70s and earlier fading and discoloring beyond recognition ("and why oh why didn't we keep all those negatives somewhere so that we could find them today?"). "rafe bustin" wrote in message ... On 17 Oct 2004 17:53:34 -0500, (Bob Monaghan) wrote: big snip In the meantime, lots of us will be glad we were shooting on film in the first place ;-) Some good points, bob, but what in particular do they have to do with MF photography or the original topic of this thread? Agreed, lots of folks now shooting digicams will be in for a rude surprise somewhere down the line. They will either learn from that experience.. or not. By definition most of those who lose data will be casual users. In the meantime, I feel I'm pretty well covered - shooting mostly with film and printing digitally. On images captured digitally, I need to be super vigilant. Yes, I've already lost a few images. I'm not looking backwards -- just can't see any point in doing that. Yes, it's good to be reminded of the volatility of digital data. Even so, I'm sure the storage technologies will continue to improve rapidly. Four years ago a 100 MB Zip disk was the standard, at $10 a pop. In 2004 it's a DVD, with 47 times more storage at 1/10 the cost. Can you cite evidence that present CDs and DVDs are subject to magnetic "bit rot?" I believe you are mistaken on that point. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
... Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. [...] However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. It is pertinent to assert that it is _unlikely_ that the average person could afford to have the media rescued. Heck, if you have enough money today, you can reconstruct a crushed RP03 disc from 1977. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats ([...]) Affordability is the issue. I can read reel-to-reel computer tapes, too because I have a place to store the monster. I'd be happy to rescue tapes - at a monsterous expense to the buyer. Seen Wired lately? Nice article on archiving entitled "Point and Shoot and Kiss it Goodbye." Separate issue, but still interesting. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
... Leaving aside any of the philosophical and semantic aspects of his argument, there's one glaring error in his argument. He asserts that because digital formats change (true) that digital images made now will become unreadable in the future. [...] However, assuming that the *physical media* remains intact, it is very, very unlikely that any digitally-recorded image will ever become unreadable in the future. It is pertinent to assert that it is _unlikely_ that the average person could afford to have the media rescued. Heck, if you have enough money today, you can reconstruct a crushed RP03 disc from 1977. I do know something about this, having worked for a computer media conversion and duplication company for 13 years. In that one small company alone, there exists the ability to read many obsolete digital formats ([...]) Affordability is the issue. I can read reel-to-reel computer tapes, too because I have a place to store the monster. I'd be happy to rescue tapes - at a monsterous expense to the buyer. Seen Wired lately? Nice article on archiving entitled "Point and Shoot and Kiss it Goodbye." Separate issue, but still interesting. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Knoppow wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... Richard Knoppow wrote: recordings. Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the original premise that electonic images are not photography. They obviously are despite any argument about longevity. They obviously are not, Richard, since 1. the process are different and produce different results. 2. Digital silicon sensors do not and cannot produce a photograph. What they do produce is a voltage based on the photoelectric effect. This is then regenerated into digital signals that are then used to output reproductions of those signals. At no time during this process is there an optical image nor any photograph. A photograph is an image produce by the direct action of light. Digital does not do this nor can it. The physics don't allow it. 3. The ISO standard states definitively digital still cameras produce a signal that _represents_ still pictures, not actual pictures. As I've pointed out in my posts in rec.photo.darkroom (now being cross posted and the discussion deliberately taken out of context...), people need to look at the processes to determine what digital is vs. what photography is. Looking at the end result is misleading, since in our society the words photo and photographic have come to idiomatically mean any image we see. But as we all well know calendars, though we call them photos/photographs, are not. They are offset reproductions. Simialrly paintings are pictures, but they are not photographs. Digital produces pictures and reproductions, but there is no original photograph created by digital imaging. What is the definition of Photography? I think that fixing it as a method of producing pictures via a particular chemical process is not sufficiently broad. Is television photographic, it is completely electronic (I am excepting the use of motion pictures are original material, they are transmitted by electronic means). I think this argument confuses the method with the result. Digital photographs are "pictures" as much as chemical ones are once they get to the finished form. Pictures yes. Photographs no. Digital is a different medium, and if a different medium it cannot be the same medium, i.e., photographic. Painting is likewise an imaging medium and produces pictures. But it is not phototgraphic. The _process_ is what defines it, not the result. And if the result also defines it, then digital is still not photographic, since the results are very different. Pictures are not photographs, a silver images created by the direct action of light is a photograph. Digital simply doesn't do this. It creates data, which is then use to image a "picture" by any various methods of output. This is where most people are confused IMHO. If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a picture. The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of that data. This is what digital does. It is not what photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. This is why we call digital "digital imaging," rather than the term _phos graphos_ which was intentionally applied to a light actuated chemical process by the eminent scientists of the day Also, "electronic" is not interchangibe with "digital". ALL of the electronic signals used for digital imaging purposes represent analogue functions. But they don't represent photographic functions, since no image actually exists. The ISO states digital images are representational images until output. And they are correct. Even those which start out in life in the digital domain, such as the output of graphics generators, are meant to be translatable to analogue form in order to be meaningful to the human sensorium. Digital referes to a method of encoding analogue information in order to store or transmit it. In some ways digitally incoded information is superior to the original analogue information for transmission or storage (and in some ways is not). Well I'm not sure what original analogue info you refer to. As regards digital cameras, which image by the use of photodetectors, I disagree. All digital cameras are limited by Nyquist, and cannot be superior in any way to the original analogue (scene) information. Signal frequencies must be reduced due to nyquist and there is no way around this. This is why digital images for pictorial purposes can never equal the resolution abilities of silver halides, which for all practical purposes mirror the original analogue information. This has nothing to do with the process a user goes through. A person using an electronic camera to produce images which are to be reproduced on a computer screen or printed on a computer printer, can be a photgrapher just as much as someone using chemical methods. It is the production of the image that defines the process not the means. BUt there is no image in the digital process. When the data is output, there is an image, but it is not a photographically produced image. I made my original post to rec.photo.darkroom. This deliberately crossposted discussion is therefore out of context and is why I'm viewing David Nebenzahl as trolling. I'd refer you to that post but honestly I think the discussion there has about run it's course! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Knoppow wrote: "Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... Richard Knoppow wrote: recordings. Now, having said all this basically I disagree with the original premise that electonic images are not photography. They obviously are despite any argument about longevity. They obviously are not, Richard, since 1. the process are different and produce different results. 2. Digital silicon sensors do not and cannot produce a photograph. What they do produce is a voltage based on the photoelectric effect. This is then regenerated into digital signals that are then used to output reproductions of those signals. At no time during this process is there an optical image nor any photograph. A photograph is an image produce by the direct action of light. Digital does not do this nor can it. The physics don't allow it. 3. The ISO standard states definitively digital still cameras produce a signal that _represents_ still pictures, not actual pictures. As I've pointed out in my posts in rec.photo.darkroom (now being cross posted and the discussion deliberately taken out of context...), people need to look at the processes to determine what digital is vs. what photography is. Looking at the end result is misleading, since in our society the words photo and photographic have come to idiomatically mean any image we see. But as we all well know calendars, though we call them photos/photographs, are not. They are offset reproductions. Simialrly paintings are pictures, but they are not photographs. Digital produces pictures and reproductions, but there is no original photograph created by digital imaging. What is the definition of Photography? I think that fixing it as a method of producing pictures via a particular chemical process is not sufficiently broad. Is television photographic, it is completely electronic (I am excepting the use of motion pictures are original material, they are transmitted by electronic means). I think this argument confuses the method with the result. Digital photographs are "pictures" as much as chemical ones are once they get to the finished form. Pictures yes. Photographs no. Digital is a different medium, and if a different medium it cannot be the same medium, i.e., photographic. Painting is likewise an imaging medium and produces pictures. But it is not phototgraphic. The _process_ is what defines it, not the result. And if the result also defines it, then digital is still not photographic, since the results are very different. Pictures are not photographs, a silver images created by the direct action of light is a photograph. Digital simply doesn't do this. It creates data, which is then use to image a "picture" by any various methods of output. This is where most people are confused IMHO. If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a picture. The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of that data. This is what digital does. It is not what photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. This is why we call digital "digital imaging," rather than the term _phos graphos_ which was intentionally applied to a light actuated chemical process by the eminent scientists of the day Also, "electronic" is not interchangibe with "digital". ALL of the electronic signals used for digital imaging purposes represent analogue functions. But they don't represent photographic functions, since no image actually exists. The ISO states digital images are representational images until output. And they are correct. Even those which start out in life in the digital domain, such as the output of graphics generators, are meant to be translatable to analogue form in order to be meaningful to the human sensorium. Digital referes to a method of encoding analogue information in order to store or transmit it. In some ways digitally incoded information is superior to the original analogue information for transmission or storage (and in some ways is not). Well I'm not sure what original analogue info you refer to. As regards digital cameras, which image by the use of photodetectors, I disagree. All digital cameras are limited by Nyquist, and cannot be superior in any way to the original analogue (scene) information. Signal frequencies must be reduced due to nyquist and there is no way around this. This is why digital images for pictorial purposes can never equal the resolution abilities of silver halides, which for all practical purposes mirror the original analogue information. This has nothing to do with the process a user goes through. A person using an electronic camera to produce images which are to be reproduced on a computer screen or printed on a computer printer, can be a photgrapher just as much as someone using chemical methods. It is the production of the image that defines the process not the means. BUt there is no image in the digital process. When the data is output, there is an image, but it is not a photographically produced image. I made my original post to rec.photo.darkroom. This deliberately crossposted discussion is therefore out of context and is why I'm viewing David Nebenzahl as trolling. I'd refer you to that post but honestly I think the discussion there has about run it's course! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote: Richard Knoppow wrote: snip.. If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a picture. The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of that data. This is what digital does. It is not what photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. This is why we call digital "digital imaging," rather than the term _phos graphos_ which was intentionally applied to a light actuated chemical process by the eminent scientists of the day I should add was applied intentionally to describe the photochemical process, i.e., the direct action of light in a chemically actuated process. The idiomatic use of the words "photo" and "photography" in our society do not negate this intentional, original application. Television cameramen are called "photographers" rather than videographers. Movie makers are called photographers rather than the more proper cinematographers. The term photography and photographer is so diluted as to have become meaninless in our society. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Phillips wrote: Richard Knoppow wrote: snip.. If silicon or any other elecronic sensors (they are not digital) do not produce pictures what do they produce? If you say an electronic signal you are partially right, that _is_ what comes out of the sensor, but it is not the _result_ of what comes from the sensor. The _result_ IS a picture. The result is a signal that is regenerated into data. That's what they produce. The "picture" part is a reproduction of that data. This is what digital does. It is not what photography does. It is not a photographic process, it is digital imaging process. If you wanted, you could output that data in other analytical forms, or as 1's and 0's. This is why we call digital "digital imaging," rather than the term _phos graphos_ which was intentionally applied to a light actuated chemical process by the eminent scientists of the day I should add was applied intentionally to describe the photochemical process, i.e., the direct action of light in a chemically actuated process. The idiomatic use of the words "photo" and "photography" in our society do not negate this intentional, original application. Television cameramen are called "photographers" rather than videographers. Movie makers are called photographers rather than the more proper cinematographers. The term photography and photographer is so diluted as to have become meaninless in our society. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RANT- Reality Check-"The Early Days of Digital Photography" | Drifter | Digital Photography | 40 | October 9th 04 12:02 AM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | Digital Photography | 466 | September 8th 04 07:33 PM |
2nd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr (was: rec.photo.dslr) | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 3rd 04 04:03 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |