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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote: On 27 Mar 2005 09:09:20 -0800, "Scott W" wrote: rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this getting out of hand pretty quick. ya think? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with why he posted it, now could it? That's why I asked. I don't see anything in the name or charter that excludes digital darkroom, so if the natives want "analog only" I don't know whether to laugh or engage the killfile. Digital "darkroom" is a bigger misnomer than digital "photography." Only a troll (or a supercilious zealot, which ever comes first...) would intentionally attempt to misread and misinterpret the clear intent and purpose of rec.photo.darkroom. Picture as synonym George Dubya Bush the 1st, misinterpreting the Constitution by flashing that infamously silly smirk of his and foisting: "It only says Congress shall make no religious laws, nothing about Executive Orders..." I've no need to annoy them. too late... If that's the case, there ought to be a group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom or some such. One can only chuckle someone actually thinks there's a darkroom compiled somewhere in all that Photoshop code. Must have been quite a plumbing job. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
rafe bustin wrote: On 27 Mar 2005 09:09:20 -0800, "Scott W" wrote: rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this getting out of hand pretty quick. ya think? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with why he posted it, now could it? That's why I asked. I don't see anything in the name or charter that excludes digital darkroom, so if the natives want "analog only" I don't know whether to laugh or engage the killfile. Digital "darkroom" is a bigger misnomer than digital "photography." Only a troll (or a supercilious zealot, which ever comes first...) would intentionally attempt to misread and misinterpret the clear intent and purpose of rec.photo.darkroom. Picture as synonym George Dubya Bush the 1st, misinterpreting the Constitution by flashing that infamously silly smirk of his and foisting: "It only says Congress shall make no religious laws, nothing about Executive Orders..." I've no need to annoy them. too late... If that's the case, there ought to be a group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom or some such. One can only chuckle someone actually thinks there's a darkroom compiled somewhere in all that Photoshop code. Must have been quite a plumbing job. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
FROM: Rec.Photo Charters & FAQ rec.photo.darkroom Developing, printing and other darkroom issues This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects of photographic darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing from negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative chemistry. rec.photo.digital This group is for the discussion of all aspects of digital photography, including digital cameras, scanners, image manipulation software, printers, and CD-ROM technology. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote: In the interest civil discourse,... Must also be why you crossposted a thread inviting opines predicting the future of b&w, knowing it would surely take on the present form of a never ending debate? (i.e., a meaningless and pointless topic in and of itself if not for the implied "digital-supplanting-traditional" subtopic...) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote: In the interest civil discourse,... Must also be why you crossposted a thread inviting opines predicting the future of b&w, knowing it would surely take on the present form of a never ending debate? (i.e., a meaningless and pointless topic in and of itself if not for the implied "digital-supplanting-traditional" subtopic...) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Mar 2005 13:25:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have no idea what the question means. Do you want to know? I suspect not. To me it means digital image processing and printing. But it allows for image capture on either film or direct digital. It's concerned with the processing/ printing rather than image acquisition. Laser or LightJet printing would tecnically fit this group's charter, I think. Inkjet and dye-sub, maybe not. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Mar 2005 13:25:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:
rafe bustin wrote: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have no idea what the question means. Do you want to know? I suspect not. To me it means digital image processing and printing. But it allows for image capture on either film or direct digital. It's concerned with the processing/ printing rather than image acquisition. Laser or LightJet printing would tecnically fit this group's charter, I think. Inkjet and dye-sub, maybe not. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom". But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say! LightJet printing would certainly qualify. Laser printing would qualify if you didn't require "silver based paper." But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or dye-sub output devices. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom". But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say! LightJet printing would certainly qualify. Laser printing would qualify if you didn't require "silver based paper." But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or dye-sub output devices. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus: Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal. Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom". But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say! LightJet printing would certainly qualify. Laser printing would qualify if you didn't require "silver based paper." But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or dye-sub output devices. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital darkroom | Paul Friday | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 84 | July 9th 04 05:26 AM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
"Darkroom vs. digital" | Mike | In The Darkroom | 0 | June 17th 04 09:30 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? | eProvided.com | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 5th 03 06:47 PM |