Darkroom classes

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

system files, which are owned by the system, get deleted when the
system decides. the user of those files is the system itself.

user files, which are owned by a user, get deleted when the user
decides.

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.

that's a safe update, so that file loss *doesn't* happen. if the
writing of the new file fails for any reason, then the old version
would not be deleted.

only *if* the update is successfully written will the old one be
deleted and the new one take its place.

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.

which is why defragmenting is a *very* bad idea.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

nothing bogus about it. it happened.

Of course they do, but not frequently

i didn't say frequently. you made that part up.

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.

loss of photos and reputation.

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?

if you need the shots, absolutely.

do you think an ad agency who is shooting an ad will go back to the
client and say 'sorry, but they lost the film, here's the free roll of
film they gave me'.

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.

it's valid.

you're even saying the same thing i did but you're so bent on arguing
you can't even see that.

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.

more to the story, i see.

someone brings in a camera with film in it to have it processed and
can't figure out how to open the camera, so he asks for assistance and
hands the camera to a drugstore employee who then opens it without
realizing there's film in it?

why did he think the customer was bringing the camera to the drugstore
in the first place, if not to have it processed?

that's negligence on the employee's part.

now if the *customer* opened the camera and then gave it to the clerk,
it would be different.

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.

why would your insurance company find you at fault for a crash when the
other person hit you?

it's obviously their error, not yours.

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.

if you're referring to liebeck v. mcdonald's, she was not an a-hole,
nor did she remove the lid on the cup while driving. in fact, the car
was *parked*, with her in the passenger seat and her grandson at the
wheel.

didn't they discuss that case in law school? apparently not, which is
too bad, because it's *very* misunderstood.

mcdonald's, by their own testimony, stated that what they were selling
was unfit for human consumption as served and also showed that they had
a complete disregard for the safety of their customers since they knew
about the danger and had no plans to do anything about it (over 700
others had been burned in the previous ten years).

mcdonald's was fined $200k in compensatory damages, reduced to $160k
because ms. liebeck was found to be 20% at fault, plus an additional
$2.7 million in punitive damages, which is just two days of coffee
sales.

that was later reduced to $480k (3x compensatory) and ultimately
settled in a private settlement, where nobody knows the final amount.

but when have facts mattered to you.

On 7/2/2014 11:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

nothing bogus about it. it happened.

Of course they do, but not frequently

i didn't say frequently. you made that part up.

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.

loss of photos and reputation.

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?

if you need the shots, absolutely.

do you think an ad agency who is shooting an ad will go back to the
client and say 'sorry, but they lost the film, here's the free roll of
film they gave me'.


Do learn how to read. I specifically excepted professionals on
assignment, from my statement. And if a professional wanted to save
money and gave it to a drug store to process, he deserves to lose the
client. That would be utter stupidity.


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.

it's valid.

you're even saying the same thing i did but you're so bent on arguing
you can't even see that.

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.

more to the story, i see.

someone brings in a camera with film in it to have it processed and
can't figure out how to open the camera, so he asks for assistance and
hands the camera to a drugstore employee who then opens it without
realizing there's film in it?

why did he think the customer was bringing the camera to the drugstore
in the first place, if not to have it processed?

that's negligence on the employee's part.

now if the *customer* opened the camera and then gave it to the clerk,
it would be different.

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.

why would your insurance company find you at fault for a crash when the
other person hit you?

it's obviously their error, not yours.

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.

if you're referring to liebeck v. mcdonald's, she was not an a-hole,
nor did she remove the lid on the cup while driving. in fact, the car
was *parked*, with her in the passenger seat and her grandson at the
wheel.

didn't they discuss that case in law school? apparently not, which is
too bad, because it's *very* misunderstood.

mcdonald's, by their own testimony, stated that what they were selling
was unfit for human consumption as served and also showed that they had
a complete disregard for the safety of their customers since they knew
about the danger and had no plans to do anything about it (over 700
others had been burned in the previous ten years).

mcdonald's was fined $200k in compensatory damages, reduced to $160k
because ms. liebeck was found to be 20% at fault, plus an additional
$2.7 million in punitive damages, which is just two days of coffee
sales.

that was later reduced to $480k (3x compensatory) and ultimately
settled in a private settlement, where nobody knows the final amount.

but when have facts mattered to you.

That is exactly why film processors limit their liability. I guess you
wouldn't think it stupid to open a container of hot coffee on your lap.
The reason McDonald's lost was because of there own arrogance. It was a
case they should not have lost. And makes my point completely, which is
limit your liability. If that is not your idea of smart business, wallow
in your ignorance.






--
PeterN

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 23:38:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

So you say.

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.

My experience with Windows 2000 was particularly bad. I was on first
name terms with Safe Mode and Repair Mode. The Registry was always a
source of excitement and was continually being patched by one tool or
another. Blue screens, black screens, white screens and all kinds of
lock ups were quite common. I rebuilt the system from scratch twice
and I couldn't get out of Windows 2000 into XP fast enough. Anyone of
the problems I suffered could have damaged the file system.

My experience was particularly bad but it needs only one experience of
the wrong kind (and I am sure I had one of those) to cause the loss of
a folder. My problem was that I didn't know that it had gone.

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.

In Windows? Come on, I had to earn a living.

It's even worse now. I have more than 1.7 million files to keep track
of. How do you suggest I do that?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , nospam wrote:

In article , Sandman

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.

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

Sandman:
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.

How do you propose that a forensic team determine what camera took an image
by looking at ink blots on photo paper?

i don't know if it can identify which film type but that
would not be surprising.

It would be very surprising.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 7/2/2014 11:38 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

It seems to me that it would be difficult if not impossible to
distinguish a digital camera print and a print from a digitally scanned
and edited film negative. The only dark room activity is loading the
developing tank and that's rather trivial and hardly needs a class.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

if you're referring to liebeck v. mcdonald's, she was not an a-hole,
nor did she remove the lid on the cup while driving. in fact, the car
was *parked*, with her in the passenger seat and her grandson at the
wheel.

didn't they discuss that case in law school? apparently not, which is
too bad, because it's *very* misunderstood.

mcdonald's, by their own testimony, stated that what they were selling
was unfit for human consumption as served and also showed that they had
a complete disregard for the safety of their customers since they knew
about the danger and had no plans to do anything about it (over 700
others had been burned in the previous ten years).

mcdonald's was fined $200k in compensatory damages, reduced to $160k
because ms. liebeck was found to be 20% at fault, plus an additional
$2.7 million in punitive damages, which is just two days of coffee
sales.

that was later reduced to $480k (3x compensatory) and ultimately
settled in a private settlement, where nobody knows the final amount.

but when have facts mattered to you.

That is exactly why film processors limit their liability. I guess you
wouldn't think it stupid to open a container of hot coffee on your lap.
The reason McDonald's lost was because of there own arrogance. It was a
case they should not have lost.

they lost because of their own testimony. mcdonald's were the assholes.

what they were serving was unfit for human consumption as served and
they had a reckless disregard for the safety of their patrons. their
actions injured over 700 people in the previous ten years, which is
about 5 people every single *week* and they took *no* action to reduce
that.

they refused to pay her medical bills, which were $20k, and refused to
go to arbitration prior to the trial. $20k is about 20 *minutes* of
coffee sales.

they absolutely should have lost, and they got off much too easy.

And makes my point completely, which is
limit your liability. If that is not your idea of smart business, wallow
in your ignorance.

i never said anything to the contrary. you just want to argue.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

In Windows? Come on, I had to earn a living.

It's even worse now. I have more than 1.7 million files to keep track
of. How do you suggest I do that?

let the computer take care of it, as i said earlier in this thread and
in many other threads.

In article , Sandman
wrote:
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.

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

Sandman:
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.

How do you propose that a forensic team determine what camera took an image
by looking at ink blots on photo paper?

different cameras have different responses to subjects.

some people claim they can tell nikon from canon by the colours, for
example.

similarly, different films have different responses. kodachrome and
ektachrome look different, velvia and provia look different.

forensics can analyze it and make a fairly accurate determination what
the source was.

similar things have been done with cellphones, where characteristics
about the transmission can identify the manufacturer of the phone, and
if it doesn't match the esn, the phone has been hacked.

i don't know if it can identify which film type but that
would not be surprising.

It would be very surprising.

not really.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 16:06:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

In Windows? Come on, I had to earn a living.

It's even worse now. I have more than 1.7 million files to keep track
of. How do you suggest I do that?

let the computer take care of it, as i said earlier in this thread and
in many other threads.

It sounds good when you say it quickly.

What software will automatically keep track of unwanted changes for
me?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens