A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1091  
Old December 11th 04, 07:57 PM
me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 11th 04, 08:29 PM
Tetractys
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 11th 04, 08:29 PM
Tetractys
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 11th 04, 09:51 PM
Carl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 11th 04, 09:51 PM
Carl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 11th 04, 09:51 PM
Carl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 11th 04, 10:04 PM
me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 11th 04, 10:04 PM
me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 11th 04, 10:23 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'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  
Old December 11th 04, 10:23 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.