"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

On 27 Mar 2005 18:27:16 -0800, "Scott W"
wrote:

.... this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only
interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it
is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some
find threatening.

Scott


mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,

This is attribution of motivation. It is an uncivil
post.

Please, let's not have this thread descend into name
calling and mockery as several others have recently.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On 27 Mar 2005 18:27:16 -0800, "Scott W"
wrote:

.... this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only
interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it
is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some
find threatening.

Scott


mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,

This is attribution of motivation. It is an uncivil
post.

Please, let's not have this thread descend into name
calling and mockery as several others have recently.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On 27 Mar 2005 18:27:16 -0800, "Scott W"
wrote:

.... this group seems to have
changed in the last 6 years to a technology fearing group only
interesting in the past, that is fine, I would suggest to Rafe that it
is not worth the effort to mention anything in this group that some
find threatening.

Scott


mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,

This is attribution of motivation. It is an uncivil
post.

Please, let's not have this thread descend into name
calling and mockery as several others have recently.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

In article , rafe bustin
wrote:

Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

Nah. Take it somewhere else. Most of what you'll see here are
technologies and methods; digital stuff has very little in common with
either of them.

In article , rafe bustin
wrote:

Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

Nah. Take it somewhere else. Most of what you'll see here are
technologies and methods; digital stuff has very little in common with
either of them.

In article , rafe bustin
wrote:

Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

Nah. Take it somewhere else. Most of what you'll see here are
technologies and methods; digital stuff has very little in common with
either of them.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote:
...
Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom,
but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf,
and that is that both these groups (and I
suspect yours as well) are essentially
moribund. And I suspect we all know why.

You suspect wrong (oh my, what a SURPRISE!!). The reason rpelf is slow
is that there are other excellent, extremely active (and almost
troll-free) LF forums available.

On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus:

Honest question. If this is too hot a topic, no big deal.

I'm coming down on the side of the naysayers here, if anyone's keeping count.

To me, "digital darkroom" is marketroid-speak, akin to "Internet cafe" and
"enterprise connectivity leveraging virtual assets" or some such crap. There's
no darkroom involved (unless one counts the tiny dark chamber inside a
laser-printer cartridge), so it's a stretch at best.

Plus, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of other places arond to
discuss what is essentially the fine points of producing prints digitally.
Doing so here would be redundant.

And I agree with another poster: the topic is not so much too "hot" as it is
potentially boring to those interested in "real" darkroom work.

On the other hand, I think it's good to bring up topics digital here from time
to time, if for no other reason than to blow away some of the incredible
cobwebs that seem to form here.


--
"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."

- Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by
the late Hunter S. Thompson

This looks to me like a newsgroup unmistakably dedicated to
chemical photography. My guess is that a little digitalk would
be considered on-topic if it explains how to do certain digital effects in
a chemical darkroom. After all there are some of us who started digital and
now do (or try to do) some chemical.

In article t,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"rafe bustin" wrote

"digital darkroom in r.p.d.?" Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.

In the interest civil discourse, I would keep digital out of r.p.d.
No two people seem to be able to agree on just what is 'digital' and
if it is photographic. Some can't even agree with themselves.

If that's the case, there ought to be a
group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom
or some such.

There are a slew of groups dedicated to the processing of
digital images at:

comp.graphics.apps.*

covering PhotoShop and a whole mess of others. The PhotoShop
group has a respectable amount of traffic.

This should give the 'digital is not photography' faction
of r.p.d. a pleasant feeling of schadenfruede: "See, the
digital imaging groups don't even have 'photo' in the
name. Nya, nya!"

That's why I asked. I don't see anything
in the name or charter that excludes digital
darkroom,

Nothing excluding space aliens either. In my version of
'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem
to exclude digital imaging from the group.

Where technologies are combined, as in silver negs with digital
contrast masks, I would keep it in rpd. And I would amend
the charter to prohibit discussions on the definition of
photography - if someone can't recognize photography
when he sees it then he shouldn't be here.

In article .com,
Wayne wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote:
...
Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom,
but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf,
and that is that both these groups (and I
suspect yours as well) are essentially
moribund. And I suspect we all know why.

You suspect wrong (oh my, what a SURPRISE!!). The reason rpelf is slow
is that there are other excellent, extremely active (and almost
troll-free) LF forums available.

I'd love to know where. I've had a 4x5 for months and i'm itching to learn
more about it!