Sad news for film-based photography

Yeah it is, yeah you are Ignorant and stupid. You are Ignorantly
crossposting political viewpoints to multiple unrelated newsgroups.

Goodbye Ignoramus.
PLONK!

In article ,
Mojtaba wrote:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

Mojtaba
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

Yeah it is, yeah you are Ignorant and stupid. You are Ignorantly
crossposting political viewpoints to multiple unrelated newsgroups.

Goodbye Ignoramus.
PLONK!

In article ,
Mojtaba wrote:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

Mojtaba
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:42:50 GMT, Udie Lafing
wrote:

Yeah it is, yeah you are Ignorant and stupid. You are Ignorantly
crossposting political viewpoints to multiple unrelated newsgroups.

Shut up your dirty racist. Where the F... where you when your racist
pal crossposted?

You are worse than ignorant and more stupid than stupid.

Mojtaba



Goodbye Ignoramus.
PLONK!

In article ,
Mojtaba wrote:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

Mojtaba

Recently, Mojtaba posted:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

I disagree. Stupidity is deliberate, while we're all ignorant in some area
or other.

Neil

Recently, Mojtaba posted:

Ignorance is worse than stupidity.

I disagree. Stupidity is deliberate, while we're all ignorant in some area
or other.

Neil

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there was a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound) information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability of old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can say based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily used by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have their own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation features, and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no better, with
proprietary annotation database formats.

The solution that would improve digital's archivability and future usability
is not the issue of storage medium, it's the lack of globally standardized
embedded image annotation capabilities. Think of a microfilm: Without the ID
strip along the side identifying it, it would be next to impossible to
retrieve its information with any speed. Digital photo needs a standard for
picture annotations.

Just my $0.02 addition to a very interesting thread

// Nils

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there was a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound) information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability of old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can say based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily used by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have their own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation features, and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no better, with
proprietary annotation database formats.

The solution that would improve digital's archivability and future usability
is not the issue of storage medium, it's the lack of globally standardized
embedded image annotation capabilities. Think of a microfilm: Without the ID
strip along the side identifying it, it would be next to impossible to
retrieve its information with any speed. Digital photo needs a standard for
picture annotations.

Just my $0.02 addition to a very interesting thread

// Nils

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there was a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound)
information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability of old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can say
based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily used by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and
software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have their own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation features,
and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no better,
with
proprietary annotation database formats.

Actually that's not true of ACDSee.
It creates a separate wave file with the same name as the image file...which
is not proprietary at all. This is a standard audio format, which can be
played on any computer.
As long as you copy the .wav file with the images, they can always be
played.

"Nils Rostedt" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........

Please google away as this debate has raged here before. In summary,
while not
every image you've taken has value, familly-tree historians love any old
photo
with people in it, esp. if there is some accompanying narrative;
anthropologists
also glean great information from photographs... etc.

Cheers,
Alan

Excellent point to bring up, and I'm surprised that the digital photo
industry has so far mistreated this aspect so fully. What if there was a
globally standardized way to embed narrative (text and or sound)
information
into picture files, and a corresponding capability in all image browsing
programs to display/replay this information?

A huge step forward in terms of archivability and future usability of old
images, that would be. And before you say IPTC (which is an existing
standard for pros to embed picture metadata in image files) I can say
based
on personal experience that IPTC is not mature enough to be easily used by
the average photo hobbyist. Not only is my camera's user manual and
software
totally unaware of IPTC, different IPTC-aware software all have their own
specific nonstandard data annotation fields.

The sad situation today seems to be that each digital camera vendor have
their own photo-album software with nonstandardized annotation features,
and
third party archival programs like ACDSee or FotoStation are no better,
with
proprietary annotation database formats.

Actually that's not true of ACDSee.
It creates a separate wave file with the same name as the image file...which
is not proprietary at all. This is a standard audio format, which can be
played on any computer.
As long as you copy the .wav file with the images, they can always be
played.

"Alan Browne" wrote ...........
while not every image you've taken has value, familly-tree
historians love any old photo

Vis:

http://www.moderna.org/lookatme/pages/index/01-30.html

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/