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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
I've been using Photoshop for years but now my eyes are so f**ked that I
can't look at a a computer screen for more than 10 minutes at a time before I get agonising migraines. My eyesight is very important to me and I physically cannot spend prolonged periods in front of a computer screen anymore. Oh well. "The Wogster" wrote in message . .. Donald Qualls wrote: The Wogster wrote: Fact is, nobody knows how long it takes nature to break down the molecules in polyester or acetate. It may be 100 years it may be 100,000,000 the key is that it does start to break down at some point, and that point is so far an unknown. They thought plastic buttons from the 1900's would last forever too, until museums had to replace them because the buttons were deteriorating, and affecting the garments they were attached to. If the buttons were "plastic" from the 1900s, they're celluloid, the same unstable stuff that ate so many of the early Hollywood films as it decomposed in storage. Completely different from acetate and polyester. Yes, I agree, no one is certain of the breakdown time of polyester and acetate film bases (other than that polyester is likely longer); these materials are both so durable that other than a few bad batches and in cases of long-term solar UV exposure, they haven't broken down significantly in the 30-40 years they've been available. However, based on the earliest examples known, they look to be competitive with paper for longevity (and likely better in some environments, since they aren't food for bacteria or fungi as cellulose is). We have many-many examples of paper up to 5000 years old. Suppose they invented a new memory next week, that allowed you to store 500 exabytes (87 262 827 images from a Canon digital rebel in Raw format) would last as long as the planet does, and never become corrupted, even when at ground zero under a Hydrogen bomb. You probably still not be satisfied. I doubt anyone could prove the ground zero claim or the longevity (they said something similar about CDs when they came out, remember? "Won't skip like a record, and will last centuries!" and then they found out the aluminum coating oxidizes between the plastic layers and the things can become unreadable in a matter of 10-20 years in normal storage; I heard one skipping on radio within a few months of the stations starting to play them). The capacity would be wonderful, but it's still not human readable. I think the big resistance to digital in photography, is precisely that the analog format is, to some degree human readable. Other media, like audio, which always was encoded (either magnetically or as a long line of vibrations on a disk), hasn't had the same degree of issue. During this whole thread, I have been playing devils advocate, I still shoot film. Currently I shoot, then get the film processed and scanned, then process digitally from that point. I see no real reason to go completely digital other then you can see the results immediately. Heck a box of film chemistries and a film scanner, and I can see my results in an hour as well. IMO, and we might just have to agree to disagree, the box of old pictures is much better off, in the hands of someone cleaning the attic, than the box of old computer media. And if the pictures are B&W on silver gelatin, either prints or negatives, they're likely to still be in reasonably good shape even 200 or 300 years down the line (at least as long as they weren't on celluloid base). Actually I tend to agree with you, at least for now, where technology will go in 5, 10, 25, 100, 300, 500 years is anyones guess. For all we know in 20 years the digital photography thing will have run it's course, and we will all be shooting film again. Just it will be processed and scanned. W |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Michael A. Covington" wrote: One could say that all photographers are wimps -- if we were "willing to do the work" we would learn to draw and paint. Actually I decided around high school to do photo, prior I had always shown an artistic talent. I chaff sometimes at the "Art" I see. Though I have also, always been truly intrigued by illustrative artists and realistic painters (M.C.Escher). I still keep my hand in it. But I earn far more now at Photography (after 20+ years of establishing my self as a local business) than I perhaps could going back to the drawing board. Realistically photography serves me well, artistically,monetarily and spiritually. Here's a link to a modern illustrative artist I like, beware though somewhat adult in nature, if you have more Puritan sensibilities. www.garvgraphx.com -- 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 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"P." wrote: I've been using Photoshop for years but now my eyes are so f**ked that I can't look at a a computer screen for more than 10 minutes at a time before I get agonising migraines. My eyesight is very important to me and I physically cannot spend prolonged periods in front of a computer screen anymore. Oh well. Try an LCD screen, I had a lot of problems using an Apple Multiscan CRT doing retouching and PS work. When I went to an LCD the problems vanished. I would still keep the CRT for color management checks but ditch it for the majority of time. -- 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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:26:31 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote: One could say that all photographers are wimps -- if we were "willing to do the work" we would learn to draw and paint. Working on it but my guitar and my Linhof keep getting in the way ! Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Cheney, then? He certainly is a wogster if I ever saw one. Wrong country, I'm in Canada, more of a Brian Mulroney type, except never thought he was conservative enough..... W |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
... In article , "P." wrote: I've been using Photoshop for years but now my eyes are so f**ked that I can't look at a a computer screen for more than 10 minutes at a time before I get agonising migraines. My eyesight is very important to me and I physically cannot spend prolonged periods in front of a computer screen anymore. Oh well. Try an LCD screen, I had a lot of problems using an Apple Multiscan CRT doing retouching and PS work. When I went to an LCD the problems vanished. I would still keep the CRT for color management checks but ditch it for the majority of time. -- 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 I'll second that. I work in front of a PC for a living. Life is much easier in terms of eyestrain on an LCD. Six months ago I bought a Sony laptop (my second) with a 16" (1600x1200) screen - it's a 'black', 'ultra bright' one and its superb. Also consider your posture. A couple of years ago I had a road accident and went to see a chiropractor, he said a large portion of problems he sees are to do with computer posture. Remember when your parents told you to sit up straight? - Well they were right! Also using the touchpad on a laptop can centralise your posture, which is tons better than sitting with one arm sticking out to the side holding a mouse and making lots of tiny movements for hours on end. Cheers Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK ------------------------------------------- for email please delete the dash and take out the trash |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
In article , says...
Inkjet _are_ watercolors. The ink is sprayed in a very thin layer onto a paper surface (as thin as possible), as opposed to a silver-rich image which contains a layer of silver (or color dyes) in a gelatin binder. Inkjets have no binder, and combined with the incredibly thin layers of sprayed pigments is why they've tended to fade so quickly. I'm not an expert on inkjet technology, but some inkjets use pigments instead of dyes and many inkjet papers have porous coatings designed to pull the ink down into the coating. Some cross-section microphotographs of both types of papers would be interesting to see. I'm not sure that the emulsion layer is that much thicker that the receptor layer on inkjet paper. -- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Feinman wrote:
In article , says... Inkjet _are_ watercolors. The ink is sprayed in a very thin layer onto a paper surface (as thin as possible), as opposed to a silver-rich image which contains a layer of silver (or color dyes) in a gelatin binder. Inkjets have no binder, and combined with the incredibly thin layers of sprayed pigments is why they've tended to fade so quickly. I'm not an expert on inkjet technology, but some inkjets use pigments instead of dyes and many inkjet papers have porous coatings designed to pull the ink down into the coating. Some cross-section microphotographs of both types of papers would be interesting to see. I'm not sure that the emulsion layer is that much thicker that the receptor layer on inkjet paper. Depends very much on the paper. In the glossy, coated papers that look most like photo paper, the coating is similar in nature to the baryta layer underlying the emulsion in some photo papers, and exists for the same purpose, in part -- to give brightness and uniformity to the surface. However, that surface is effectively impermeable, and the inks simply dry on the surface; some inks, in fact, will bead on this surface almost as they do on transparency film not specifically made for ink jet printing. Ink jet specific papers are often sized with a layer of starch over whatever coating they might have, in order to give the ink a base into which it can absorb, but this coating is probably about a tenth the thickness of a commercial emulsion layer. Generally, one would expect pigment inks to outlast dye inks, but pigments are less able to wick into an uncoated or sized surface than dyes; the surface acts as a filter and actually draws the moisture away from the particulates (however fine they might be), leaving the pigments on the surfce but potentially removing their binder (which would otherwise harden by evaporation of the water carrier). It's best to match the paper to the application, of course; more absorbent papers for dye inks, more impervious surfaces (but still accepting of binder adhesion) for pigment inks. -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Qualls wrote:
Robert Feinman wrote: In article , says... Inkjet _are_ watercolors. The ink is sprayed in a very thin layer onto a paper surface (as thin as possible), as opposed to a silver-rich image which contains a layer of silver (or color dyes) in a gelatin binder. Inkjets have no binder, and combined with the incredibly thin layers of sprayed pigments is why they've tended to fade so quickly. I'm not an expert on inkjet technology, but some inkjets use pigments instead of dyes and many inkjet papers have porous coatings designed to pull the ink down into the coating. Some cross-section microphotographs of both types of papers would be interesting to see. I'm not sure that the emulsion layer is that much thicker that the receptor layer on inkjet paper. Depends very much on the paper. In the glossy, coated papers that look most like photo paper, the coating is similar in nature to the baryta layer underlying the emulsion in some photo papers, and exists for the same purpose, in part -- to give brightness and uniformity to the surface. However, that surface is effectively impermeable, and the inks simply dry on the surface; some inks, in fact, will bead on this surface almost as they do on transparency film not specifically made for ink jet printing. Ink jet specific papers are often sized with a layer of starch over whatever coating they might have, in order to give the ink a base into which it can absorb, but this coating is probably about a tenth the thickness of a commercial emulsion layer. Generally, one would expect pigment inks to outlast dye inks, but pigments are less able to wick into an uncoated or sized surface than dyes; the surface acts as a filter and actually draws the moisture away from the particulates (however fine they might be), leaving the pigments on the surfce but potentially removing their binder (which would otherwise harden by evaporation of the water carrier). It's best to match the paper to the application, of course; more absorbent papers for dye inks, more impervious surfaces (but still accepting of binder adhesion) for pigment inks. Given that there is a difference, between the needs of dye based inks and pigment based inks, why are papers not marked as to the ink-type they are designed for? Can anyone recommend a few good paper brands types for dye based inks? I have an HP printer with PhotoRET. W |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | Digital Photography | 86 | December 14th 04 04:45 AM |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | 35mm Photo Equipment | 31 | December 14th 04 04:45 AM |
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 09:51 PM |