Darkroom classes

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:07:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was once a time where REAL photographers knew the techniques
necessary
to prevent "red-eye". Now, any moron can touch a button to clean up his
sloppy snapshots.

that's a good thing, since it empowers anyone to take good photos, not
just the 'experts'.

Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
photographs'?

not solely because there's no red eye.

OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
good photos that they couldn't take without it?

but you missed the point, which is technology empowers people to be
able to do things they otherwise would not have, and that's a *very*
good thing.

I'm about to use technology to wash the dishes and that's a very good
thing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:20:28 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:29:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

If people are willing to pay money to learn something then why not let them.

they can do whatever they want but they'll learn more with digital.

the problem is that the original article was about high schools and
colleges teaching obsolete skills to students who have no choice.

No it wasn't.

It was about high schools and colleges teaching classes for which
there was an enormous demand:

"Photography is actually the most popular class at Cambridge Rindge
& Latin, according to LaSalle. "There's a maximum of 15 students per
class, and classes are always full," he said, adding that the wait
list for classes is usually in the hundreds of students."

You snipped part of the text that is very significant:

"Cambridge Rindge & Latin has two black-and-white
photography labs, two digital labs, four levels of
classes, and two photo teachers. Photography is
actually the most popular class at Cambridge Rindge &
Latin, according to LaSalle. [...]"

The statement you quoted as if it were all about film
photography is actually at least equally about both
digital and film.

Actually I was addressing the question of whether or not the high
schools and colleges were teaching obsolete skills to students who
have no choice.

The article generally did not bias it in either
direction as is being done with discussion here. It is
true that some of the people quoted certainly had bias,
and at least one school used as an example was clearly
biased (requiring film photography classes before
digital classes).

Most of the schools, though not necessarily evident from
quotes of students, clearly realized that film is a
niche and digital is the mainstream (and yes it is
easier to learn virtually everything significant about
photographer when using digital tools).

The niche that film occupies today is still relatively
large, and while perhaps not necessary it is certainly a
fascinating, fun and productive approach to photography.
It's abjectly silly to claim film should not be offered
(and just a silly to say it should be required over
digital).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-06-21 08:55:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:07:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was once a time where REAL photographers knew the techniques
necessary
to prevent "red-eye". Now, any moron can touch a button to clean up his
sloppy snapshots.

that's a good thing, since it empowers anyone to take good photos, not
just the 'experts'.

Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
photographs'?

not solely because there's no red eye.

OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
good photos that they couldn't take without it?

Select "Take Great Photo" in the shooting menu.

but you missed the point, which is technology empowers people to be
able to do things they otherwise would not have, and that's a *very*
good thing.

I'm about to use technology to wash the dishes and that's a very good
thing.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:20:28 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:29:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

If people are willing to pay money to learn something then why not let them.

they can do whatever they want but they'll learn more with digital.

the problem is that the original article was about high schools and
colleges teaching obsolete skills to students who have no choice.

No it wasn't.

It was about high schools and colleges teaching classes for which
there was an enormous demand:

"Photography is actually the most popular class at Cambridge Rindge
& Latin, according to LaSalle. "There's a maximum of 15 students per
class, and classes are always full," he said, adding that the wait
list for classes is usually in the hundreds of students."

You snipped part of the text that is very significant:

"Cambridge Rindge & Latin has two black-and-white
photography labs, two digital labs, four levels of
classes, and two photo teachers. Photography is
actually the most popular class at Cambridge Rindge &
Latin, according to LaSalle. [...]"

The statement you quoted as if it were all about film
photography is actually at least equally about both
digital and film.

Actually I was addressing the question of whether or not the high
schools and colleges were teaching obsolete skills to students who
have no choice.

You seem to be arguing that "photography" no matter how
it is defined is "teaching obsolte skills to students
who have no choice."

That is really odd.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article 2014062102022999196-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-06-21 08:55:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:07:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was once a time where REAL photographers knew the techniques
necessary
to prevent "red-eye". Now, any moron can touch a button to clean up his
sloppy snapshots.

that's a good thing, since it empowers anyone to take good photos, not
just the 'experts'.

Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
photographs'?

not solely because there's no red eye.

OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
good photos that they couldn't take without it?

Select "Take Great Photo" in the shooting menu.

but you missed the point, which is technology empowers people to be
able to do things they otherwise would not have, and that's a *very*
good thing.

I'm about to use technology to wash the dishes and that's a very good
thing.

In the strictest sense one cannot wash dishes without technology because
dishes _are_ technology. People tend to forget that "technology"
encompasses more than electronic gadgets.

On 6/21/14 12:07 AM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , George Kerby
wrote:

...and yet the B&H catalog arrives in my mailbox regularly.

they're one of the few and it's a complete waste of trees and the
postage to mail them out.

mine goes straight to the landfill. i don't even look at it.

You know, there is something that you can do about it if it bothers you that
much?

UNSUBSCRIBE!

it gets sent to anyone who recently ordered anything.

i could probably call them and tell them to stop but it's easier to
just toss it.

Some tree-hugger you are...

On 6/21/14 12:07 AM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was once a time where REAL photographers knew the techniques
necessary
to prevent "red-eye". Now, any moron can touch a button to clean up his
sloppy snapshots.

that's a good thing, since it empowers anyone to take good photos, not
just the 'experts'.

Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
photographs'?

not solely because there's no red eye.

but you missed the point, which is technology empowers people to be
able to do things they otherwise would not have, and that's a *very*
good thing.

So, any idiot can become the next Annie Leibovitz, thanks to software that
corrects their sloppiness and unwillingness to do it right in the first
place?!? You bet, RIGHT!

On 6/20/14 7:41 PM, in article
2014062017413082720-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-06-21 00:35:54 +0000, George Kerby said:




On 6/20/14 6:24 PM, in article
2014062016242139911-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-06-20 21:59:24 +0000, George Kerby said:
On 6/20/14 4:42 PM, in article , "James
Silverton"
wrote:

Le Snip
Can I add a quotation from alt.quotations:

"Every old man complains of the growing depravity of the world, of the
petulance and insolence of the rising generation. He recounts the
decency and regularity of former times, and celebrates the discipline
and sobriety of the age in which his youth was passed; a happy age which
is now no more to be expected, since confusion has broken in upon the
world, and thrown down all the boundaries of civility and reverence.
-- Samuel Johnson: Rambler #50 (September 8, 1750)"

"I have become my father" is one of my favorites...

That wouldn't be too bad. My father is going to be 91 in three weeks,
he has a 76 year old lady friend. He is in good health, and he has just
updated his current OSX 10.6.8 to 10.9.3.

If I could emulate that if I reach 91.
https://db.tt/6Wjcrfz9


Handsome guy and his pretty lady. Must be the good living! :-)

I think that giving up smoking around 1962-63 had a lot to do with it.

Yep! It made a LOT of difference in my and my spouse's life as well.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:29:10 -0400, nospam had
a flock of green cheek conures squawk out:

In article , Stephen
wrote:

just what do these people who are taking the classes expect to do with
their new found skills? open up a custom darkroom lab?

Make beautiful prints that generations can enjoy.

prints can be made from digital.

With digital, the files would be lost once the person loses interest
in keeping the files up to date & accessible. Assuming the storage
medium even lasts. Digital needs a cpu, software, a display and
something to read the medium the digital file is on.

nonsense. film needs low humidity storage and there are no backups.
once they're damaged, they're *gone*.

The recommended storage conditions for digital media is the same. Once
digital files are damaged, they're gone also.

You can 'backup' film to another film.


digital will outlast any physical media, with unlimited numbers of
backups that can be anywhere in the world, so no risk of natural
disaster damaging anything.

Who has multiple backups all over the world? A few, maybe, but most
won't. Many people don't even copy or move them off their cell phone
or the first computer they put them on.

Hard drives don't survive not being used too well. Flash drives will
lose data after several years. Burnable CD/DVD/Blu-ray deteriorate in
a few years, the re-writable erase even faster. Then you have
corruption/damage caused by moving the digital images and in the
future converting them to a new file format since the original isn't
or won't be usable. How would you view an old PIC file? You'll need
to know what computer and OS it used to even begin to figure what
format it's in.

Only film has PROVEN longevity. A B&W silver print or negative
processed to archival standards will last over 100 years.


Film doesn't require special equipment to view, you can see the image
on the film with your eyeball.

only if you don't mind postage stamp sized images, and for negatives,
they'll be reversed.

120/200 and 4x5 aren't postage size.


plus it's trivial to pull up any digital image, especially since
everyone has a computer, tablet or smartphone.

there is no reason to teach film photography any more than there is
teaching how to work a printing press. they are skills that are no
longer needed.

So, the catalogs that companies like Grizzly, Mouser, Digi-key and B&H
Photo send out don't exist? Then there are books, magazines and
newspapers.

the bulk of their business is online sales, not from a paper catalog,
which most companies don't send out anymore anyway.

Those companies I listed send out catalogs about once a year.


plus, it's a *lot* easier to teach and learn digital photography than
it is film.

The only difference between the film and digital, is what's needed to
get the final output. Well, there is another, electricity isn't
needed to take a photo on film...

the days of mechanical cameras are *long* gone.

Holga cameras are still being made and sold. The same is true with
the large format cameras and their mechanical shuttered lenses.

--

Stephen

'Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense'

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was once a time where REAL photographers knew the techniques
necessary
to prevent "red-eye". Now, any moron can touch a button to clean up his
sloppy snapshots.

that's a good thing, since it empowers anyone to take good photos, not
just the 'experts'.

Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
photographs'?

not solely because there's no red eye.

OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
good photos that they couldn't take without it?

you're still missing the point. it's not about red-eye specifically.
that's just one element.

technology in cameras do all sorts of things, including, autofocus
tracking, face detection (which is linked to autofocus), matrix
metering, smile detection, blink detection and much more, which means
that more people can take good photos than without that.

can they still take a ****ty picture? sure, but it's harder. it doesn't
guarantee it, it just empowers people to be able to.

but you missed the point, which is technology empowers people to be
able to do things they otherwise would not have, and that's a *very*
good thing.

I'm about to use technology to wash the dishes and that's a very good
thing.

it is.