Darkroom classes

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

But for you google is a good photographer it takes high resolution pictres
so is therefor better.

google hosts photos. google the service does not take them.

So who takes the pictures for google maps ? Teh person flying the plane or
the person controling the satteleiite or teh person driving around the
street.

you're actually comparing automated photos from a satellite to what
people take with cameras?

anyway, try google maps photos with film. let us know how that works.

Goolge has 'just' been given permission from amaerica to use higher
resoultion images. (althgough obviously not everywhere)

good. a lot of google earth is too low res to be useful. higher
resolution is long overdue.

Which is why there are companies selling recovery utils.

those are for the idiots *without* backups.

No it's for peoole who haven;t done a backup form whatever reason.


then they are idiots.

yes those with cameras are idiots then aren't they, they should use an iphone
so they can back up their pictures within a few seconds because backups are
what makes a photograph a good photograph.

they don't need to use a phone to back up, however, that's a key
advantage with using one.

there will always be idiots.
The majority of those with DLSRs and meduim format cameras that aren;t wifi
cable it seems. Quite a lot of idiots out there. Also it mean that Aple fan
buios can;t be idiots because they have backups.
I wonder if MENSA know about this.

wifi will make its way to more cameras going forward.

This is where they are such utils of SD cards , as data corruption can
occur

before it even gets out of the camera.

that is exceptionally rare.
yes but with millions of photos taken every hour...

and not many failures.

film can be damaged too.

Yes I know, three;'s few things that can't be damaged.
I suppose yopu've not heard of a digital camera going wrong, well they do as
do mehanical cameras, but at least with then you can take a photo without a
battery.

not on any film camera since about the 1980s.

they all had electronic shutters with one manual fallback speed and the
exposure meter would not work, plus many of them had winders that could
not be removed (although that was more of a 90s thing though).

no battery = no photo.

and it's not hard to carry an extra battery anyway.

You think corruption never happens, you have to be really dump to nbelieve
such things
although perhapos you have little understanding of this technology.
http://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/vi...p?f=28&t=36533

i never said it doesn't happen.

At last and with millions more pictures being taken then it will happen.
Just like it did in the days of film. people will lose images.
Sometimes running classes on photography might help peole lose less than they
otherwise would do.

nobody said there won't be loss. nothing is perfect.

you're also assuming it never happens to film. it does.

It does but with fiolm the photographer usualy has a better understanding of
why or how it happened and can take steps to prevent it happening again.

nonsense.

in fact, it happened so much with film that photoprocessing companies

had a policy to replace damaged or lost film.

See they understood the problems, HDD manufactuers will replace your HDD
if it fails within the warrenty period or can be proved defective.
They do don;t gurentee you'll get your data back.

no need, since you can restore from a backup.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

the proper way to test this is with an objective double-blind test,
where you're given a stack of prints and must decide which ones are
film and which ones are digital.

you'll score no better than chance.

Forensics could do the job even if you can't.

if you have to resort to forensics to tell, then he will absolutely do
no better than chance, exactly as i said.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


by what mechanism could a file delete itself?

It's teh OS that deletes themn not teh file itself.

the os doesn't delete anything unless instructed by the user (and
nobody is talking about internal temp files that the system uses for
its own purposes)..

Film doesn't delete itself.

film degrades by itself.

digital doesn't.

You can;t get a film camera to delete a frame

yes you can. don't wind the film and take another photo of something
very bright, like the sun.

you can get a digital camera to
delete a single frame or in date order or by a range of dates.
You can;t do that with film.

that's because digital is much better.

It's more likely it vanished in one of the traumatic events associated

with Windows of those day.


are you saying that a bug in windows deleted it?

The OS of any fs deletes files on a regualar basis.

not user files it doesn't.

what it does internally does not matter.

The mains reasons backups are done it because of the unrelibility of hardare.

and the unreliability of the user.

a lot of times, the user wants a file back that *they* deleted.

Film can last 100s of times longer than a file on a DVD.

no it can't.

Which is why you NEED to make so many copies isn't it, and why to have to
repeat that process.

no.

People never thought Oh I have this photo I better back
it up in case it disapears.

oh yes they most certainly did, and they did make backups of film. the
problem is that film backups have a generational loss.

digital backups are 100% perfect and can be done instantly and as many
times as needed, automatically and without user intervention.

Throuht history people have passed down documents, we've yet to see that with
digital media.

nonsense. people do that every day.

If you write a play or take a photos and store it on digital media that
would NOT make it better than a shakespeare play or an Ansil adams photo

nobody said it would be.

all
it means is that you have an extra copy(ies) that's all it means.

which is a good thing.

why would it single out your files and not corrupt the system, not even
the fragile registry?

Registry used to be more of a problem, casue the whole system to crash
re-installing could lose you yuor data.
Not sure I've ever lost a film from a camera. Films just don't disapear,
you can;'t make them invisible by change one bit ofm data.

film can be lost or damaged.

Lose track 0 info and teh data it contains then your won;t be able to find the files.

use a recovery app.

lose a roll of film and it's gone. there is no recovery.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


Why would the OS delete files?

Part of the system process the system doesn't delete files in the way you are
thinking, in that they comnmit suicide i.e it's not a consious effort.
What happens is that the OS defragments on the fly erasing parts of files
that no longer have a data point refernce or node, which is actually what
happens when you delete a file, you do know that you don't delete files don't
you ?

people delete files all the time. what are you smoking?

on the fly defragmenting is not deleting either.

You can;t get a film camera to delete a frame you can get a digital
camera to delete a single frame or in date order or by a range of dates.
You can;t do that with film.



Which has nothing to do with anything said prior.
Everything as it's far more delicate than film.

digital is not more delicate than film.

Your digital still needs to be stored on a medium of some sort.

so does film and prints.

Paper is a longer lasting medium than DVD or HDDs.

definitely not.

The OS of any fs deletes files on a regualar basis.


No it doesn't. Where did you come up with that idea?

From knowing how computers work.

obviously not.

A wealth of researhcers here that know far more about this thn you ever will.
Do you know how a files sytems works, didn;t think so.

I hope you know that when you delete a file sit doesn;t get deleted, what
happens is teh link to the file is earased the file isn;t.
As time progress the space that that file occupied gets overwritten by new
data, that's how recovery utilities work.
That's how modern OS's work.

that doesn't make one bit of difference. the file is gone and the space
will be overwritten, possibly very quickly.

but it is still a matter of hardware
reliability?

You'ev never heard of a disc crash, it happens on Macs and PCs.
Bits can go weak too, with time.

so what?

If you write a play or take a photos and store it on digital media
that would NOT make it better than a shakespeare play or an Ansil
adams photo all it means is that you have an extra copy(ies) that's
all it means.

Who said anything about better?

NOSPAM has tried to forget the original point of why teach darkroom stuff,
when digital is better.

there's no reason to teach darkroom stuff anymore. it's like teaching
typewriter repair or steam engine repair.

And try to replace it by proving that digital storage medium is better than
film, because it lasts longer, well it doesn't, if you keep backing up it can
but that theory only works if you keep backing up, which cam also be done
with film.

it absolutely does.

If you take a photo with a film camera, it

doesn't become a better photo than a photo taken with a digital camera.

No it doesn;t and visa-versa.
What matters as far as the picture goes is what the photographer took.
And of course NOSPAM doesn;t thinlk a course or education in photography
maters as all that matters is the pixel count of the image.

For me photgraphy isn;t related to the pixel count, that's another variable.

i never said any such thing.

So, you have in your possession every single negative from every single
shot you ever took with an analog camera? Allow me to highly doubt that.

I haven;t and I doubt you have every digital image you've ever taken.
I delet far more digital images than I have film ones. I couldn;t afford that
with film.

it costs nothing to take a digital photo.

you can't afford to *take* photos with film.

Lose track 0 info and teh data it contains then your won;t be able
to find the files.

Sure you will.

That's how disc corruption works.
That's how recover utilities work,

even if you've delete it you havent; delete the actual file.

In some ways it's similar to a person wripping up a photo into pieces
in to teh waste paper basket. Someone with a clue can get those pieces of
paper and put them back together again. Putting something into your trash,
wastebasket or Recycle bin doesn;t dlete the items, even when you do empty or
erase, unless you do secure earase and that IS when the actual data is
overwritten.

Come to think of it if you and NOSPAM both belive data can't be deleted I
suggest you check the utilies that the govenrment use both for erasing data
and recovering it. even the relatively simple security erase by writing a 1
or a 0 a number of times around 35 last time I checked now why wriote
the same thing to teh same location 35 times ?

and film can be shredded or burned. so what?

if you want it to be unrecoverable, it can be.

You're not one of those that thinks you can see an image on a disc if you use
a strong enough magnifiying glass are you ? See my dad was like that he never
really understood what digital actual was.

you're smoking something very potent.

On 7/2/2014 3:10 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

in fact, it happened so much with film that photoprocessing companies
had a policy to replace damaged or lost film.

That was not why photoprocessing companies had that policy. It was a
limited warranty of liability in case the film got lost or damaged.

the problem is the film zealots are trying to claim that digital is
fragile, when it's the opposite. it's *film* that is fragile, and much
more so, and worse, no way to back it up without a generational loss
(plus it's a pain).

Nope the problem is you trying to claim that learning film is a waste of
time and money.

and it is.

unless you've been in a cave, digital has obsoleted film and learning
photography with digital cameras is easier, cheaper, and more likely to
result in getting an actual job in the industry.

And using a bogus statement about film processors
frequently screwing up.

nothing bogus about it. it happened.

Of course they do, but not frequently


the real fun one is getting someone *elses* photos back, which means
they got yours (or a rotation of multiple people).

But what are the real damages.

photofinishers lost or damaged plenty of film and all they did was give
people a free roll of film which cost them almost nothing and could not
replace the photos. it was a joke.

So that's the deal.

it's an insulting deal. they're offering a $5 roll of film for ****ing
up your photos.


Then process your own. If you go on a trip, take hundreds of photos and
the lab loses you film. Do your damages include the cost of the trip,
unless you are a professional on assignment?

when i shot film, i used a pro lab that not only did a *much* better
job with the processing, but they had a $100 cash guarantee if they
****ed up. that still won't replace photos, but it's a *huge* vote of
confidence and much better than a roll of film.

A pro lab is a different animal.

not really. although they cater to a different class of customers, they
use similar, if not the same equipment that are run by people who can
amd do make mistakes.

There is also a different standard of liability for them. I used to have
one as a client. Yes, they made mistakes, and their carrier paid
damages, including model fees. Fortunately for them, the errors were few
and far between. More or less one every couple of years. They did not
employ pimply faced teens to do their work. And they changed the
chemicals frequently.



Some
idiot would open the back of his camera before rewinding the film, and
then wold try to get the processor to pay for another trip, so he could
reshoot all those "valuable images," taken with his Brownie.

they don't cover that.

Because of a limited liability clause.

then why did you bring up that scenario? it's not covered.

Uhm???????? You made the compliant. I stated why your complaint is not
valid.


and if the idiot opened the back of the camera, why would he pay for
processing knowing there's nothing on the film?

So he could make a claim that the lab ruined his film. Things like that
happen a lot.

no he can't, because the film was not ruined.

he can try but they'll laugh at him.


Unless he claimed that the lab made the mistake. I actually saw that
happen, where the guy didn't know how to open his camera, and a
drugstore clerk, not realizing there was film in the camera, showed him.

the cost of processing would be *more* than the cost of the roll of
film you say he's trying to scam. it doesn't even make sense.

See above.

likewise.

anyway, it's for loss or damage. if they don't lose or damage the film,
there is no issue. they'll process his film and it will be blank.

Not necessarily the whole roll.

that doesn't matter.

either the film is lost/damaged or it isn't. exposing to daylight is
not damage.

however, he does save money since he will only be out the cost of the
processing since there won't be any need to print anything.


See above.

If the processing didn't specifically limit their liability, and they
screwed up, in a lot of cases they would have substantial liability.

the limit is loss or damage.

Absent a limitation of liability clause. the concept is to limit
exposure to consequential liability claims. Yes I feel very strongly
about bogus claims. Several years ago I was hit in the rear by a car
driven by an unlicensed driver, who was driving at night, in the rain,
without lights. My insurance company paid out a substantial sum to
settle the case, but did not charge me with causing the accident.
Athough at the time nobody seemed to be injured, they paid simply
because it would have cost them money to defend.



anyone opening the back of the camera and then trying to claim loss or
damage is an idiot.

there are plenty of idiots but there's no need for lawyers to identify
them. they out themselves very well.


Lots of people make bogus claims. there is no shortage of idiots in this
world. Sometimes they even collect money from the bogus claim. Think of
the A-hole who opened the lid of a cup of hot coffee, while driving.

--
PeterN

In article , nospam wrote:

In article ,

nospam:
the proper way to test this is with an objective double-blind
test, where you're given a stack of prints and must decide which
ones are film and which ones are digital.

you'll score no better than chance.

Whisky-dave:
Forensics could do the job even if you can't.

if you have to resort to forensics to tell, then he will absolutely
do no better than chance, exactly as i said.

Also, it's not true. If you remove the printer from the equation (i.e. use
the same printer for both analog and digital originals) there would be no
way for forensics to tell if the original was a film negative or a digital
file.

--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:10:51 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The file that I said had gone missing had been copied to Archive and
happily sat there for several years. Then one day it was no more. I
haven't the faintest idea of how long it had been missing. I can't
remember now when this happened but I think I was running
Windows 2000.

you or someone with access to the computer deleted it.

files do not disappear on their own.

You keep saying that but I don't believe it.

by what mechanism could a file delete itself?

You misinterpret what I said. I believe the folder disappeared without
direct human intervention.

explain how.

so far all you've said is it can happen. *how* can it happen?

it can't.

Of course it can. The Internet is loaded with applications from
Microsoft and others for dealing with problems arising from missing
and corrupt files. See for example
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319011

that's a bug in windows, and wouldn't delete a user file.

Well then, how about
http://totalsystemcare.org/fix-error...issing%20Files

or http://www.pandorarecovery.com/features/
"Recovery of files from discs with damaged or missing file
allocation table"

I don't have to know how these things happen. Knowing that they do
happen is sufficient.

It's more likely it vanished in one of the traumatic events associated
with Windows of those day.

are you saying that a bug in windows deleted it?

I haven't the faintest idea.

exactly.

But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I can't know which if any
event led to the loss of the folder as it could have happened any time
in a period of several years.

why would it single out your files and not corrupt the system, not even
the fragile registry?

All you need is an error in rewriting the Master File Table during a
disk operation. The error/fault does not need to target just the
registry or system files.

by stroke of bad luck it just happens to delete one of *your* files and
nothing else.

uh huh.

Only one of my files that I happen to know of. There could well be
others.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:11:08 -0400, nospam
wrote:

by what mechanism could a file delete itself?

It's teh OS that deletes themn not teh file itself.

the os doesn't delete anything unless instructed by the user (and
nobody is talking about internal temp files that the system uses for
its own purposes)..

That's not strictly correct. System files of one kind or another get
rewritten all the time, and that includes the Master File Table.
Rewriting entails writing a new file and unlinking the old -
effectively deleting it. I know that all kinds of precautions are
taken when rewriting the MFT in particular, but it's anyone's guess as
to what happens if there is a system crash at a critical moment.

Then there are those helpful utilities which unfragment drives by
physically relocating files. Their operation entails the continuous
writing and deleting of files and rewriting the MFT. Quite a potential
for disaster if things go wrong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Sandman
wrote:

the proper way to test this is with an objective double-blind
test, where you're given a stack of prints and must decide which
ones are film and which ones are digital.

you'll score no better than chance.

Whisky-dave:
Forensics could do the job even if you can't.

if you have to resort to forensics to tell, then he will absolutely
do no better than chance, exactly as i said.

Also, it's not true. If you remove the printer from the equation (i.e. use
the same printer for both analog and digital originals) there would be no
way for forensics to tell if the original was a film negative or a digital
file.

yes there most certainly can, and it can even potentially identify
which camera took the digital photo, if it was taken by a digital
camera. i don't know if it can identify which film type but that would
not be surprising.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You misinterpret what I said. I believe the folder disappeared without
direct human intervention.

explain how.

so far all you've said is it can happen. *how* can it happen?

it can't.

Of course it can. The Internet is loaded with applications from
Microsoft and others for dealing with problems arising from missing
and corrupt files. See for example
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319011

that's a bug in windows, and wouldn't delete a user file.

Well then, how about
http://totalsystemcare.org/fix-error...issing%20Files

or http://www.pandorarecovery.com/features/
"Recovery of files from discs with damaged or missing file
allocation table"

I don't have to know how these things happen. Knowing that they do
happen is sufficient.

that's disk corruption, which can and does happen, and affects the
entire hard drive.

it does not single out specific files.

It's more likely it vanished in one of the traumatic events associated
with Windows of those day.

are you saying that a bug in windows deleted it?

I haven't the faintest idea.

exactly.

But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I can't know which if any
event led to the loss of the folder as it could have happened any time
in a period of several years.

that may be true, but it was the result of a user action.

why would it single out your files and not corrupt the system, not even
the fragile registry?

All you need is an error in rewriting the Master File Table during a
disk operation. The error/fault does not need to target just the
registry or system files.

by stroke of bad luck it just happens to delete one of *your* files and
nothing else.

uh huh.

Only one of my files that I happen to know of. There could well be
others.

then your file management system needs revisiting, so that you can
detect any unwanted changes immediately.