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 |
#1091
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl" wrote in message
... BillB wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:27:20 -0600, me favorite film fan-boi wrote: That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG. Film; do I have to say it? me Yes. It's very important to keep saying it as loud and as often as possible. Otherwise our collective memory of film will eventually recede to the distant land of the forgotten, where it will join company with brittle 78's and steel record needles, flammable film stock, daguerrotypes, muskets, bathtub gin and the Stanley Steamer. Vo dee oh doh! Of course the true purist - which he obviously is not or he would be promoting it, would be advocating the use of the pinhole camera and milk prints. In fact life has never been the same since the invention of the camera obscura and that damned upstart Galileo. The cheek of the man taking a child's toy and turning it a scientific tool. Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me better. (ditto for you jackass.) Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future! me |
#1092
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote: Jon Pike wrote: ... "proof" ... means quantified, measured results. Not necessarily. ... Even mathematical proofs often require years or even decades of discussion and peer review ... ... Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements based on his 'tests.' ... he used his claim to having been an editor for a scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually answer any of the questions I was asking. So, I have no qualms about holding someone using such tactics to such a standard, especially when they're making such wide-ranging claims about totally unsubjective, unartistic matters. You're making two claims here. First, that your insistence on a definition of "proof" stems from the use of argument from authority by your counterpart. If that is true, then your theoretical basis is wholly dependent upon how your opponent presents his ideas. In your own language, your "standard" depends upon Clark's "tactics." I would say this shows you have no standard at all, but simply an emotional reaction. Secondly, you are claiming that the discussion revolves around purely quantifiable "unartistic" matters. Isn't that the nature of the debate? You are assuming your conclusion. ... I asked earlier for an example of a "science" that doesn't use quantified and non-subjective results. The only suggestion so far has been clearly shown to -not- be science. Although methodical, and probably very useful, it's not science. If you've got another example for me, I'd be glad to hear it. Again, you either misunderstand or misstate the nature of the debate. Nobody is looking for a non-quantified science. We are exploring the nature of quantifiable data upon a visual perceptive art. But I will deal with that question in a moment. First, my comments regarding the nature of science did not negate the value of hard data. Conclusions and theory go beyond data into interpretation, the nature of what you glibly call "proof" and even political concerns. One might easily "prove" that A is greater than B. One might not so easily conclude that because of this fact, A has greater import to the topic than B. Very clear examples demonstrating this principle are available from daily newspapers involving causality in medicine. Does cigarette usage cause cancer? Does asbestos cause great harm? Do silicone implants cause autoimmune diseases? Did Agent Orange cause great harm? Does electricity cause birth defects? Do cell phones cause brain tumors? In many of these cases, what you would call clear "scientific" data exist on one side or the other. But the ultimate value of that data on decisions made concerning future medical, social and legal action might depend on considerations beyond the data. Now, if you want an example of a non-quantified science, these exist all around you. Early theories about nuclear fission were unquantified. Early quantum theories were not quantified. The state of cosmology now contains many areas that are unquantifiable. In these cases, theory always leads quantification. In biology, exploration and observation often precedes quantification, and in taxonomy, quantified "proof" is a non-sequitur. Anthropological descriptions of kinship relationships do not require proof at all, but simply delineation of existing conditions. There are sciences which require rigid proof, such as mathematics, and there are those which do not. What you call the "science" underlying the art of photography serves a higher esthetic purpose. ("Higher" is not used here in a judgmental manner, but in a hierarchical manner, much like astronomers call the outer planets "superior.") The "proofs" and data and observations made are meaningless in ipsum. Conclusions drawn at the level of raw data with no regard to the higher level of judgment required for esthetic comparison are suspect, as they show no regard for the ultimate purpose of the technique. This is comparable to a pathologist in a hospital examining tissue samples for a surgeon from a patient on the operating table two floors above, and on the basis of his count of the number of malignant cells in the sample deciding the course of treatment. No one can dispute the validity of his count, and his count does "prove" the presence of cancer. These are "true" facts. But if he stays in the path lab, but also insists on prescribing treatment there- from, he will soon find his services unneeded by those surgeons with access to the medical history and current condition of the entire patient. Thus it is with your definitions of "science" and "proof" that not only shift depending upon to whom you are talking, but are also limited to a very narrow and low level of relevance. |
#1093
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote: Jon Pike wrote: ... "proof" ... means quantified, measured results. Not necessarily. ... Even mathematical proofs often require years or even decades of discussion and peer review ... ... Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements based on his 'tests.' ... he used his claim to having been an editor for a scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually answer any of the questions I was asking. So, I have no qualms about holding someone using such tactics to such a standard, especially when they're making such wide-ranging claims about totally unsubjective, unartistic matters. You're making two claims here. First, that your insistence on a definition of "proof" stems from the use of argument from authority by your counterpart. If that is true, then your theoretical basis is wholly dependent upon how your opponent presents his ideas. In your own language, your "standard" depends upon Clark's "tactics." I would say this shows you have no standard at all, but simply an emotional reaction. Secondly, you are claiming that the discussion revolves around purely quantifiable "unartistic" matters. Isn't that the nature of the debate? You are assuming your conclusion. ... I asked earlier for an example of a "science" that doesn't use quantified and non-subjective results. The only suggestion so far has been clearly shown to -not- be science. Although methodical, and probably very useful, it's not science. If you've got another example for me, I'd be glad to hear it. Again, you either misunderstand or misstate the nature of the debate. Nobody is looking for a non-quantified science. We are exploring the nature of quantifiable data upon a visual perceptive art. But I will deal with that question in a moment. First, my comments regarding the nature of science did not negate the value of hard data. Conclusions and theory go beyond data into interpretation, the nature of what you glibly call "proof" and even political concerns. One might easily "prove" that A is greater than B. One might not so easily conclude that because of this fact, A has greater import to the topic than B. Very clear examples demonstrating this principle are available from daily newspapers involving causality in medicine. Does cigarette usage cause cancer? Does asbestos cause great harm? Do silicone implants cause autoimmune diseases? Did Agent Orange cause great harm? Does electricity cause birth defects? Do cell phones cause brain tumors? In many of these cases, what you would call clear "scientific" data exist on one side or the other. But the ultimate value of that data on decisions made concerning future medical, social and legal action might depend on considerations beyond the data. Now, if you want an example of a non-quantified science, these exist all around you. Early theories about nuclear fission were unquantified. Early quantum theories were not quantified. The state of cosmology now contains many areas that are unquantifiable. In these cases, theory always leads quantification. In biology, exploration and observation often precedes quantification, and in taxonomy, quantified "proof" is a non-sequitur. Anthropological descriptions of kinship relationships do not require proof at all, but simply delineation of existing conditions. There are sciences which require rigid proof, such as mathematics, and there are those which do not. What you call the "science" underlying the art of photography serves a higher esthetic purpose. ("Higher" is not used here in a judgmental manner, but in a hierarchical manner, much like astronomers call the outer planets "superior.") The "proofs" and data and observations made are meaningless in ipsum. Conclusions drawn at the level of raw data with no regard to the higher level of judgment required for esthetic comparison are suspect, as they show no regard for the ultimate purpose of the technique. This is comparable to a pathologist in a hospital examining tissue samples for a surgeon from a patient on the operating table two floors above, and on the basis of his count of the number of malignant cells in the sample deciding the course of treatment. No one can dispute the validity of his count, and his count does "prove" the presence of cancer. These are "true" facts. But if he stays in the path lab, but also insists on prescribing treatment there- from, he will soon find his services unneeded by those surgeons with access to the medical history and current condition of the entire patient. Thus it is with your definitions of "science" and "proof" that not only shift depending upon to whom you are talking, but are also limited to a very narrow and low level of relevance. |
#1094
|
|||
|
|||
me wrote:
"Carl" wrote in message Of course the true purist - which he obviously is not or he would be promoting it, would be advocating the use of the pinhole camera and milk prints. In fact life has never been the same since the invention of the camera obscura and that damned upstart Galileo. The cheek of the man taking a child's toy and turning it a scientific tool. Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me better. (ditto for you jackass.) Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future! me LOL! In a few years when you Graduate, you might start to learn something, but I very much doubt it. In the meantime, make yourself happy by sending a Christmas and early Valentine card to your right hand and stop trying to compete with the grown-ups. Your response, and previous posts, makes it quite obvious that you not only have never heard of, but you don't seem to possess the mental ability to comprehend irony. We hear your message - the record has been stuck there for a seeming eternity. Who cares whether or not film is the best - get off your acne spotted ass and try taking some photographs instead of pontificating about subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. Of course, I fully expect that your immature response to this will be another round of equally immature, and emotionally limited, bad language as you throw more of your toys out of your pram, but quite frankly, I don't regard you as important enough to give a toss about - come Monday morning you will return to being bullied by those big boys at school and in the evening you'll bolster your hurt little ego by trying to take it out on the faceless people on the Internet who can't physically respond to you - it will make you feel important while you avoid the real issues in your life. If it presses your button then fine, but if you go through life being a total tosser then don't expect anyone to ever treat you with any respect. |
#1095
|
|||
|
|||
me wrote:
"Carl" wrote in message Of course the true purist - which he obviously is not or he would be promoting it, would be advocating the use of the pinhole camera and milk prints. In fact life has never been the same since the invention of the camera obscura and that damned upstart Galileo. The cheek of the man taking a child's toy and turning it a scientific tool. Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me better. (ditto for you jackass.) Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future! me LOL! In a few years when you Graduate, you might start to learn something, but I very much doubt it. In the meantime, make yourself happy by sending a Christmas and early Valentine card to your right hand and stop trying to compete with the grown-ups. Your response, and previous posts, makes it quite obvious that you not only have never heard of, but you don't seem to possess the mental ability to comprehend irony. We hear your message - the record has been stuck there for a seeming eternity. Who cares whether or not film is the best - get off your acne spotted ass and try taking some photographs instead of pontificating about subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. Of course, I fully expect that your immature response to this will be another round of equally immature, and emotionally limited, bad language as you throw more of your toys out of your pram, but quite frankly, I don't regard you as important enough to give a toss about - come Monday morning you will return to being bullied by those big boys at school and in the evening you'll bolster your hurt little ego by trying to take it out on the faceless people on the Internet who can't physically respond to you - it will make you feel important while you avoid the real issues in your life. If it presses your button then fine, but if you go through life being a total tosser then don't expect anyone to ever treat you with any respect. |
#1096
|
|||
|
|||
me wrote:
"Carl" wrote in message Of course the true purist - which he obviously is not or he would be promoting it, would be advocating the use of the pinhole camera and milk prints. In fact life has never been the same since the invention of the camera obscura and that damned upstart Galileo. The cheek of the man taking a child's toy and turning it a scientific tool. Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me better. (ditto for you jackass.) Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future! me LOL! In a few years when you Graduate, you might start to learn something, but I very much doubt it. In the meantime, make yourself happy by sending a Christmas and early Valentine card to your right hand and stop trying to compete with the grown-ups. Your response, and previous posts, makes it quite obvious that you not only have never heard of, but you don't seem to possess the mental ability to comprehend irony. We hear your message - the record has been stuck there for a seeming eternity. Who cares whether or not film is the best - get off your acne spotted ass and try taking some photographs instead of pontificating about subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. Of course, I fully expect that your immature response to this will be another round of equally immature, and emotionally limited, bad language as you throw more of your toys out of your pram, but quite frankly, I don't regard you as important enough to give a toss about - come Monday morning you will return to being bullied by those big boys at school and in the evening you'll bolster your hurt little ego by trying to take it out on the faceless people on the Internet who can't physically respond to you - it will make you feel important while you avoid the real issues in your life. If it presses your button then fine, but if you go through life being a total tosser then don't expect anyone to ever treat you with any respect. |
#1097
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl" wrote in message
... me wrote: "Carl" wrote in message Of course the true purist - which he obviously is not or he would be promoting it, would be advocating the use of the pinhole camera and milk prints. In fact life has never been the same since the invention of the camera obscura and that damned upstart Galileo. The cheek of the man taking a child's toy and turning it a scientific tool. Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me better. (ditto for you jackass.) Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future! me Your response, and previous posts, makes it quite obvious that you not only have never heard of, but you don't seem to possess the mental ability to comprehend irony. Sarcasm intended to belittle, not irony. I don't regard you as important enough to give a toss about You responded. If it presses your button then fine, but if you go through life being a total tosser Use a manly epithet that everyone can understand not that sissy git crap. then don't expect anyone to ever treat you with any respect. Your lack of respect for me is truly gratifying. Thank You, me |
#1098
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl" wrote in message
... me wrote: "Carl" wrote in message Of course the true purist - which he obviously is not or he would be promoting it, would be advocating the use of the pinhole camera and milk prints. In fact life has never been the same since the invention of the camera obscura and that damned upstart Galileo. The cheek of the man taking a child's toy and turning it a scientific tool. Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me better. (ditto for you jackass.) Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future! me Your response, and previous posts, makes it quite obvious that you not only have never heard of, but you don't seem to possess the mental ability to comprehend irony. Sarcasm intended to belittle, not irony. I don't regard you as important enough to give a toss about You responded. If it presses your button then fine, but if you go through life being a total tosser Use a manly epithet that everyone can understand not that sissy git crap. then don't expect anyone to ever treat you with any respect. Your lack of respect for me is truly gratifying. Thank You, me |
#1099
|
|||
|
|||
'me' - Point proven, thanks. Still waiting for any post from you that
adds anything useful to a thread, or shows you to be anything other than a sad person who gets thrills from pretending to be 'someone' on the Internet. (Which is of course the ONLY place you can get away with it, and then only when you are debating with other like disfunctionals). 'Frank ess' - it's meant to be a lame phonetic for Charles - my nickname was Charlie when I was a kid, even tho' my name is nothing like it... |
#1100
|
|||
|
|||
'me' - Point proven, thanks. Still waiting for any post from you that
adds anything useful to a thread, or shows you to be anything other than a sad person who gets thrills from pretending to be 'someone' on the Internet. (Which is of course the ONLY place you can get away with it, and then only when you are debating with other like disfunctionals). 'Frank ess' - it's meant to be a lame phonetic for Charles - my nickname was Charlie when I was a kid, even tho' my name is nothing like it... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |