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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:38:18 -0500, bob wrote:
Gregory Blank wrote: Uh this is rec. photo.darkroom or did you forget when has the population at large really understood much of any one given specialized process....you only ever have a small group that formally understands a relative issue,.. not the population at large. Well, OK, but the population at large uses things they call cameras to make what they call photographs. "They" don't seem to distinguish between digital based and film based images. If you wasnt to argue that a small subset of the population use the word photograph more restrictively I would not argue against that, but to claim that all those other people aren't allowed their usage of the word seems rather pompous. Just because ignorance is rampant, don't condemn the educated. "Photography is a method for producing lasting images by means of a chemical reaction that occurs when light hits a specially prepared surface. It was invented during the first three decades of the 19th century as a direct consequence of advances in chemistry and optics (the science of the behavior of light). The word photography comes from two Greek words that mean “writing with light.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. == Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy Pronunciation: f&-'tä-gr&-fE Function: noun the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light Webster.com == Photography A process by which chemically sensitized surfaces are exposed to light (photo) and retain an image (graph) of what is exposed. Methods may be very simple to highly complex. Camera are usually used with adjustable lenses (apertures) and controlled light levels on light sensitive film. The film is then processed (developed) and the image is "fixed" (made permanent). The image (a negative) is transferred onto treated papers, enlarged and processed with chemicals in a "dark room" to make the photographs (also called prints). http://www.80four.co.uk/articles/photographyterms.html You must be confused about what I'm talking about. Wal-Mart will print a digital file on an 8x10 piece of silver halide paper for under $3. Ilford MG IV runs $41/100. To my way of thinking there's not that much difference in cost, at least not in the quantities I'm involved in. Wal-Mart ? Yes, I buy my childreens diapers there. I'm sure the clerk can also operate a digital printer with equal skill. Wal-Mart - #1 exporter of jobs and money in the US today. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:25:34 -0500, Rafe Bustin
wrote: But hey, if you'd like to volunteer as Luddite-in-residence, welcome. Can we start a club ? If understanding and using the legitimate definition of a word properly makes me a Luddite then I'm all for it ! "You've got to stand for something Or you're gonna fall for anything" John Mellencamp Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:17:05 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote: There's a huge vast quality issue between Walmart prints and handmade prints I do,...vastly mine are better. I wonder if of the billions of prints made at *,-Mart's, if a one of them has ever had a good black other than when someone opened the processor with the paper shutter open ? Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
bob wrote: Gregory Blank wrote: Uh this is rec. photo.darkroom or did you forget when has the population at large really understood much of any one given specialized process....you only ever have a small group that formally understands a relative issue,.. not the population at large. Well, OK, but the population at large uses things they call cameras to make what they call photographs. "They" don't seem to distinguish between digital based and film based images. If you wasnt to argue that a small subset of the population use the word photograph more restrictively I would not argue against that, but to claim that all those other people aren't allowed their usage of the word seems rather pompous. If asked, 95 % of the general public couldnt tell you what species they belong to either. They have been sold on DI as photography, and they have been dumbed down in the process. The salemen dont give a crap, and its not the publics fault. They just buy what they are fed, they dont care about specifics. Its up to people who know better, photographers, to take the term photography back before its meaning is diluted beyond repair. And the general public wont care about that either. Only salesmen and a few serious DI'ers who will resist it. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
John wrote: Wal-Mart ? Yes, I buy my childreens diapers there. I'm sure the clerk can also operate a digital printer with equal skill. LOL ) |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:56:19 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote: Me thinks you have stayed very far from the topic listed above. BTW-"Yeah who cares about quality" as long we get them super cheap and as long as the general populous recognizes it as a photo,...lets just call it that and leave the "graph" out of it. We can also make BLOW UP's from them when ever we wants. Most people just call them "pitchas" or "pitchers" depending on whether you're from north or south of the Mason-Dixon line ;) Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:53:29 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote: year 2525 mar1605 from Lloyd Erlick, The only problem I have with those predictions is that they seem to give us way more time than it looks like we have. I thought it was Barry McGuire who sang it? (No doubt I've got the spelling wrong). Wasn't one of the lines "ain't gonna be no one left alive" ?? regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
In article , jjs wrote:
"Chris Brown" wrote" And I have my email archives from 1992. I have mine from 1977, and until just recently could read the tapes. I decided to let the whole lot go to the ether and erased 'em. Impressive. Earliest stuff I have kicking around is probably from the mid 80s on floppies, but I have no idea if they're still readable - everything I really wanted from them has long since been transfered to more modern media. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote: Heck, even I agreeg. Except that it should be _some of the photographic artists working in B&W_. Hey, it's true now: the bimonthly B&W art rag here (Natural Glow) has lots of digital shot B&W and even B&W originally shot on color slide film. I have a Velvia 6*6 from last year which got some really nice sunset colours on an old-style phone box. Thing is, I've been playing around with the scan, and it actually looks really good as B&W, probably better than the colour version, which is actually let down slightly by a distracting bright sky patch. Thing is, making a B&W print from Velvia, being known for its outrageous saturation, just seems so *wrong* somehow... |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Peter Irwin wrote:
The word "photograph" has long had a technical meaning within the field of photography. In R. Child Bailey's The Complete Photographer (10th ed. 1932) he writes: "In the strictly literal sense of the word 'photograph' a carbro print is not a photograph at all, since light plays no part in its production" (p.212). I think that the motivation for this insistence on the strict meaning of the term may not be purely based on a desire for accuracy in communication, but that doesn't change the fact that communication can be improved by insisting on technical meanings of terms within the field even though those terms have acquired looser meanings in popular use. In my mind it is strange to have different names for otherwise identical objects depending on the process used to produce them. With a little bit of effort it is possible to produce three prints that look more or less identical but are produced in different ways: one using a film negative and traditional (color) enlargement, one by scanning the negative and printing it digitally, and one by taking a digital picture and printing that. I don't know what people in 1932 called images that were the result of some physical process that involves light (instead of a chemical process) but my guess is that they didn't have a word for it, because it didn't exist (except for television). In the future, when 99% of picture is digital, you may have to use something like 'all chemical photograph' to get the point across that you are talking about traditional photography. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | William Graham | Digital Photography | 0 | November 7th 04 11:20 PM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | William Graham | Digital Photography | 0 | November 7th 04 11:18 PM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | Linda_N | Digital Photography | 0 | November 6th 04 02:08 PM |
OT - Congratulations to George Bush - 4 more years! | ArtKramr | Digital Photography | 4 | November 4th 04 11:00 PM |