Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument

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

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

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

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

"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.

"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.

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!

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!

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.

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.