I started a 35mm B&W darkroom forum

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I think scarpitti (alias uranium, alias me, alias...)
should change his troll handle to "ignoramus."

I think ignor anus is better and more appropriate :-D

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Each particle of silver records only the light rays that strike it, and
thos particles of silver have no relatiomn toa ny other ones that
happen to be their neighbors on that strip of film base.

Each particle of silver records only the light rays that strike it, and
thos particles of silver have no relatiomn toa ny other ones that
happen to be their neighbors on that strip of film base.

In article ,
"Fitpix" wrote:


Tom, are you saying I am no longer a photographer because I switched to
digital? I am not looking for a fight mind you, I am trying to understand
why a digital shooter wouldn't be considered a photographer. As far as the
"image is what counts" argument..... I believe in this line of thinking. I
can go out and shoot a stream in my film slr and my digital slr and get the
same quality 11x14 print to hang in a gallery. You can argue all you want
about the numbers etc, I know because I have seen the prints side by side. I
have always said that film or digital,a great photo is a great photo. Now I
do not count an image where someone has added in other elements, I count
them in a separate (but not necessarily lower class) of image, but dodging
and burning and exposure compensation aredone in both the wet darkroom and
the digital darkroom. Digital montages are in a class by themselves. As far
as large format is concerned, I am not saying my 20D can come even close to
comparing to 4x5 or larger photos, or medium format for that matter. It does
however rival the image quality of 35mm.

My wife just made a good point....is a wireless or cellphone still a phone?
Doesn't have the curling umblical yet works the same way.....

"Umbilical"

I am not Tom, but because I love these little controversies I must reply
I also like the way the post is crossed !!! LOL.


No using a digital camera, it does not make you not a photographer "you
are using light" I presume. But your not a film photographer and the
captured images as Tom has stated are nothing but a signal until made
manifest on paper.


Your a digital photographer. Just as there is a distinction between an
Oil Painter and a Watercolorist. Neither is more correct or valid,they
just are. There is no digital darkroom, its a catchy phrase though.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
"Fitpix" wrote:


Tom, are you saying I am no longer a photographer because I switched to
digital? I am not looking for a fight mind you, I am trying to understand
why a digital shooter wouldn't be considered a photographer. As far as the
"image is what counts" argument..... I believe in this line of thinking. I
can go out and shoot a stream in my film slr and my digital slr and get the
same quality 11x14 print to hang in a gallery. You can argue all you want
about the numbers etc, I know because I have seen the prints side by side. I
have always said that film or digital,a great photo is a great photo. Now I
do not count an image where someone has added in other elements, I count
them in a separate (but not necessarily lower class) of image, but dodging
and burning and exposure compensation aredone in both the wet darkroom and
the digital darkroom. Digital montages are in a class by themselves. As far
as large format is concerned, I am not saying my 20D can come even close to
comparing to 4x5 or larger photos, or medium format for that matter. It does
however rival the image quality of 35mm.

My wife just made a good point....is a wireless or cellphone still a phone?
Doesn't have the curling umblical yet works the same way.....

"Umbilical"

I am not Tom, but because I love these little controversies I must reply
I also like the way the post is crossed !!! LOL.


No using a digital camera, it does not make you not a photographer "you
are using light" I presume. But your not a film photographer and the
captured images as Tom has stated are nothing but a signal until made
manifest on paper.


Your a digital photographer. Just as there is a distinction between an
Oil Painter and a Watercolorist. Neither is more correct or valid,they
just are. There is no digital darkroom, its a catchy phrase though.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Tom Phillips wrote:

Fitpix wrote:

snip...

The definition of a work of art is one that is within the
limitation of it's medium: A painting is something painted,
a sculpture is something sculpted, a photograph is something
photochemical, a digital image is something photoelectric.

Correction: The definition of the _type_ of work.
I am not defining "art."

Tom Phillips wrote:

Fitpix wrote:

snip...

The definition of a work of art is one that is within the
limitation of it's medium: A painting is something painted,
a sculpture is something sculpted, a photograph is something
photochemical, a digital image is something photoelectric.

Correction: The definition of the _type_ of work.
I am not defining "art."

". But your not a film photographer and the captured images as Tom has
stated are nothing but a signal until made manifest on paper. "

So? With film, the captured images as are nothing but a chemical change
until made manifest on paper
The 'images' are invisible until the film is processed!

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:59:44 -0700, Tom Phillips
somehow managed to impart:


Try (1) reading the headers and (2) learn how to recognize a
troll. The OP is trolling and crossposting. Your observations
and knowledge of nsgs appears as limited as your knowledge of
enlarging and optics...

Clearly, you've never seen an Ansel Adams mural sized
enlargement.

[major snip]

OK, I'm sorry I overlooked the rec.photo.darkroom cross-posting. But
there's no need to get so defensive. And there's no need to get
sarcastic, either.

Looks like I touched a raw nerve there. Maybe you should watch your
caffeine intake.

In future I'll take more care in responding to cross-posted messages.
I still think the 'troll' had a valid point for the *average*
photographer. We can't all afford large format cameras.

Dave.


2180 hi-resolution photos especially Edinburgh &
Scotland. Also 3D rendered art & altered images.
* No advertisements * http://www.henniker.org.uk

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:59:44 -0700, Tom Phillips
somehow managed to impart:


Try (1) reading the headers and (2) learn how to recognize a
troll. The OP is trolling and crossposting. Your observations
and knowledge of nsgs appears as limited as your knowledge of
enlarging and optics...

Clearly, you've never seen an Ansel Adams mural sized
enlargement.

[major snip]

OK, I'm sorry I overlooked the rec.photo.darkroom cross-posting. But
there's no need to get so defensive. And there's no need to get
sarcastic, either.

Looks like I touched a raw nerve there. Maybe you should watch your
caffeine intake.

In future I'll take more care in responding to cross-posted messages.
I still think the 'troll' had a valid point for the *average*
photographer. We can't all afford large format cameras.

Dave.


2180 hi-resolution photos especially Edinburgh &
Scotland. Also 3D rendered art & altered images.
* No advertisements * http://www.henniker.org.uk