A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 27th 05, 07:45 PM
silver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have to agree with Gregory. There is no darkroom in digtal and no
digital in darkroom. Note that the charter states :

rec.photo.darkroom Developing, printing and other darkroom issues

This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects of
photographic
darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as the developing of
slide and negative film, photographic printing from negatives and
slides,
photographic toning processes and alternative chemistry. This newsgroup
specifically does *NOT* permit the posting of commercial advertisments
for
products or services, even if they are related to photography.

  #12  
Old March 27th 05, 08:43 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Let's cut a charter for a new group.


  #13  
Old March 27th 05, 08:43 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Let's cut a charter for a new group.


  #14  
Old March 27th 05, 09:12 PM
Lloyd Erlick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote:


Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com



mar2705 from Lloyd Erlick,

Recently Rafe posted the following:

....
Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom,
but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf,
and that is that both these groups (and I
suspect yours as well) are essentially
moribund. And I suspect we all know why.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
....

None of these groups is moribund. It's possible that
events have necessitated some changes in terminology,
such as 'rpe-large format film' or some such, but on
the whole I find discussion of digitally based
activities uninteresting and would prefer to be able to
keep myself out of them. The recent threads that have
been cross-posted to rp-darkroom have included a good
deal of name calling and mocking of individiuals' real
names. I prefer to remain apart from such discussions.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net:
www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

  #15  
Old March 27th 05, 09:12 PM
Lloyd Erlick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:53:12 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote:


Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com



mar2705 from Lloyd Erlick,

Recently Rafe posted the following:

....
Now, I don't know about your r.p.darkroom,
but I know this much about rpe-mf and rpe-lf,
and that is that both these groups (and I
suspect yours as well) are essentially
moribund. And I suspect we all know why.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
....

None of these groups is moribund. It's possible that
events have necessitated some changes in terminology,
such as 'rpe-large format film' or some such, but on
the whole I find discussion of digitally based
activities uninteresting and would prefer to be able to
keep myself out of them. The recent threads that have
been cross-posted to rp-darkroom have included a good
deal of name calling and mocking of individiuals' real
names. I prefer to remain apart from such discussions.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net:
www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

  #16  
Old March 27th 05, 09:26 PM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rafe bustin" wrote

"digital darkroom in r.p.d.?" Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


In the interest civil discourse, I would keep digital out of r.p.d.
No two people seem to be able to agree on just what is 'digital' and
if it is photographic. Some can't even agree with themselves.

If that's the case, there ought to be a
group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom
or some such.


There are a slew of groups dedicated to the processing of
digital images at:

comp.graphics.apps.*

covering PhotoShop and a whole mess of others. The PhotoShop
group has a respectable amount of traffic.

This should give the 'digital is not photography' faction
of r.p.d. a pleasant feeling of schadenfruede: "See, the
digital imaging groups don't even have 'photo' in the
name. Nya, nya!"

That's why I asked. I don't see anything
in the name or charter that excludes digital
darkroom,


Nothing excluding space aliens either. In my version of
'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem
to exclude digital imaging from the group.

Where technologies are combined, as in silver negs with digital
contrast masks, I would keep it in rpd. And I would amend
the charter to prohibit discussions on the definition of
photography - if someone can't recognize photography
when he sees it then he shouldn't be here.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
  #17  
Old March 27th 05, 09:26 PM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"rafe bustin" wrote

"digital darkroom in r.p.d.?" Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


In the interest civil discourse, I would keep digital out of r.p.d.
No two people seem to be able to agree on just what is 'digital' and
if it is photographic. Some can't even agree with themselves.

If that's the case, there ought to be a
group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom
or some such.


There are a slew of groups dedicated to the processing of
digital images at:

comp.graphics.apps.*

covering PhotoShop and a whole mess of others. The PhotoShop
group has a respectable amount of traffic.

This should give the 'digital is not photography' faction
of r.p.d. a pleasant feeling of schadenfruede: "See, the
digital imaging groups don't even have 'photo' in the
name. Nya, nya!"

That's why I asked. I don't see anything
in the name or charter that excludes digital
darkroom,


Nothing excluding space aliens either. In my version of
'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem
to exclude digital imaging from the group.

Where technologies are combined, as in silver negs with digital
contrast masks, I would keep it in rpd. And I would amend
the charter to prohibit discussions on the definition of
photography - if someone can't recognize photography
when he sees it then he shouldn't be here.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
  #18  
Old March 27th 05, 10:13 PM
John Bartley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jjs wrote:

Let's cut a charter for a new group.


What's the point? If you "need" a charter in order to start a new group,
then so be it. Otherwise, charters only serve a useful purpose if
they're enforced. These are unmoderated groups. Charters aren't
enforceable. The charter is useless.

cheers

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)
  #19  
Old March 27th 05, 10:13 PM
John Bartley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jjs wrote:

Let's cut a charter for a new group.


What's the point? If you "need" a charter in order to start a new group,
then so be it. Otherwise, charters only serve a useful purpose if
they're enforced. These are unmoderated groups. Charters aren't
enforceable. The charter is useless.

cheers

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)
  #20  
Old March 27th 05, 10:23 PM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
rafe bustin wrote:

Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


What does digital image processing have in common with a real darkroom,
that it should be discussed in this group?

In both cases you can start with a negative (or a slide) and end up with a
photo, but as far as I can see all steps in between are completely different.

(I can see a point in discussing the opposite: how to replicate in a real
darkroom what you can do with Photoshop. What is a simple levels or curves
in Photoshop would be quite tricky in darkroom color photo printing).


--
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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital darkroom Paul Friday Medium Format Photography Equipment 84 July 9th 04 05:26 AM
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
"Darkroom vs. digital" Mike In The Darkroom 0 June 17th 04 09:30 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? eProvided.com General Equipment For Sale 0 September 5th 03 06:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.