Darkroom classes

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

And some haven't. We have pictures of WWI and WWII and older.

there weren't digital cameras back then.

Yes and those photos exceed the age of any digital photo.

only because digital is new.

yes and 20 year old photos are better than 20 year old digtal from the
POV of quality.

only because digital was in its infancy 20 years ago.

compare early digital photos with the very first film photos. if you
can find any, that is.

Depends on whehter you'd call it a photograph doesn't it.

if it was taken by a camera, it is a photograph. period.


A friends smart phone didn;t survive a dip in the canel.
Digital IS NOT indestructable.

nothing is.

That's the 4th time his phone has taken a dip , removing the batteries and
letting it dry out for a few days, and it springs back to life it's an old
nokia about as smart as my cats arse, ancient technolgy, and I'll admit an
iPhone would probbly stop working for good when it detected it was heading
for a dip.

buy a lottery ticket.

How does buying a lottery ticket help.

because he is exceptionally lucky for a phone to have been in water and
continue to work.

however, it will outlast film and without any degradation whatsoever.

Provided it's reguallry backed up on current media.
That's the theory as yet unproven.

what's to prove? if you have backups, you can't lose the data.

Which is why there are companies selling recovery utils.

those are for the idiots *without* backups.


only the medium on which it's stored is different.

Until viewed.

if someone put a print made from a digital camera and a print made from
a film camera in front of you, you would not be able to tell which was
which (assuming the digital image was reduced in quality to look like
film).

That is NOT the issue.

yes it is.

On 6/30/2014 12:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

And some haven't. We have pictures of WWI and WWII and older.

there weren't digital cameras back then.

Yes and those photos exceed the age of any digital photo.

only because digital is new.

yes and 20 year old photos are better than 20 year old digtal from the
POV of quality.

only because digital was in its infancy 20 years ago.

compare early digital photos with the very first film photos. if you
can find any, that is.

Depends on whehter you'd call it a photograph doesn't it.

if it was taken by a camera, it is a photograph. period.


A friends smart phone didn;t survive a dip in the canel.
Digital IS NOT indestructable.

nothing is.

That's the 4th time his phone has taken a dip , removing the batteries and
letting it dry out for a few days, and it springs back to life it's an old
nokia about as smart as my cats arse, ancient technolgy, and I'll admit an
iPhone would probbly stop working for good when it detected it was heading
for a dip.

buy a lottery ticket.

How does buying a lottery ticket help.

because he is exceptionally lucky for a phone to have been in water and
continue to work.

however, it will outlast film and without any degradation whatsoever.

Provided it's reguallry backed up on current media.
That's the theory as yet unproven.

what's to prove? if you have backups, you can't lose the data.

Which is why there are companies selling recovery utils.

those are for the idiots *without* backups.


only the medium on which it's stored is different.

Until viewed.

if someone put a print made from a digital camera and a print made from
a film camera in front of you, you would not be able to tell which was
which (assuming the digital image was reduced in quality to look like
film).

That is NOT the issue.

yes it is.

I am interested in the idea that digital prints and film prints cannot
be distinguished. Just how do you intend to make the prints? I'd think
that those from wet chemistry and those from a digital printer could
easily be told apart, especially under a magnifying lens since there
would be discrete dots for the digital printer and irregular colored
areas from the wet process.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:33:17 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sure I've had files change attribute by beoming invisible, after a
crash.
Both Macs and PC are far more relible now than in the 90s same with
whatever
OS, excluding vistor, Melenium 2000 perhaps ;-)

And if you haven't noticed that they have vanished you never include
them in the next umteen backups.

include??

Let me explain it. Every week I give an instruction 'Backup Archive'
and all of Archive is backed up. I keep adding new jobs to Archive and
adding to jobs which are already backed up there. So the backup
instruction is supposed to maintain a copy of all the jobs I have ever
done.

i know what you meant by include.

From what you have written below, I don't think you understand what I
mean by 'include'.

i do.

you were manually managing backups, which sets you up for problems, as
you found out the hard way.

I don't do it manually. I have an automatic command file which tells
2nd Copy to do it. Backing up the archive happens every week without
intervention from me.

The name 'Archive' seems to be misleading you. Jobs are either open or
closed. As soon as they are closed I move them into 'Archive'. Also, I
have simplified the actual file structure for the sake of explanation.
It's more like:

Jobs ---+---Archive
|
+--- Job A
+--- Job B
+--- Job C

As soon as I closed down a job (in the sense of my personal working) I
would copy it into Archive and then delete it's external files.

Backup was of the entire Jobs folder so it captured Archive in the
process.

The file that I said had gone missing had been copied to Archive and
happily sat there for several years. Then one day it was no more. I
haven't the faintest idea of how long it had been missing. I can't
remember now when this happened but I think I was running
Windows 2000.

does it automatically include it or not?

If it's there, yes it does.

you said you keep adding new jobs to archive. if it was automatic, you
would not need to add anything. it would be done *for* you.

But, for reasons I don't understand, Job 8764 vanishes. That's alright
because I still have a backup copy of Job 8764. The problem is, I
don't know that Job 8764 is missing. So the next backup I do is
lacking Job 8764 as it is no longer there to backup. I still don't
realise that Job 8764 is missing so the backup after the last is still
lacking Job 8764. And so it goes on, until I reach a point where there
are ten backups lacking Job 8764. Still not knowing that Job 8764 is
missing, according to to the backup protocol, I delete the 11th backup
after making the 10th. After all, who needs 11 backups.

that's yet another flaw in your backup strategy.

What is the flaw?

manually managing backups.

But I wasn't.

if the computer was managing the backups *for* you, you'd have at least
one copy of your files, possibly multiple versions of it.

I don't see why it matters whether it's me or the computer which
initiates the backup. From then on, the process is exactly the same.

because you can easily make mistakes, and did.

You clearly have the wrong idea. Once my backup protocol was
established I had to do nothing. My computer did it all for me.

the computer will make sure there is at least one copy of anything,
without any effort.

But if something has gone missing then the current backup can no
longer contain a copy of it.

multiple backups can be coalesced to save space so you don't need a
dozen copies of the same stuff. however, you *do* need at least one
copy offsite, ideally more than one.

Bear in mind these backups date back to the days of MS-DOS.

there weren't very many options back then.

now there are.

But I wasn't doing it now.

Two years later I need to access Job 8764 and only then do I discover
it is missing. Anxiously I search the ten backup copies I have and to
my despair I find there is no backup copy of Job 8764 in the backups
either. It vanished too long ago.

yet another reason why the computer can manage it *for* you and do a
much better job of it.

What form of management do you have in mind?

let the computer do it.

It all depends on the protocol you are able to setup into the backup
software.

the backups happen automatically. if the file existed, it's backed up.
it's automatically included.

And as I explained above, if it no longer exists it cannot be
included.

as i explained above, the fact you manually include and exclude files
means you can (and did) make a mistake, with undesirable consequences.

But I don't manually include and exclude files. They are in a common
folder and I backup them all.

if you did that then nothing would be missing.

Hah!

and how do you reconcile that you said you add jobs to be backed up?

By adding them to the common folder. See above.

For how far back is it practical to
keep all your old backups?

as far back as needed to have backup copies of anything that you want
to keep.

That's a weasel's answer.

no it isn't.

Give me a practical number.

there is no number.

.... and you can't answer my question.

the computer maintains at least one copy of your files automatically.

if the backup volume fills, you get a bigger one.

My archive file contains 1,123 folders, 16,546 files and occupies
33.8GB. If I was to keep 104 backup copies as my hypothetical example
requires I would need 3.51TB of backup storage (or thereabouts). That
might be practical now (just) but it wasn't when I retired only a few
years ago.

it all depends how important the data is to you.

But that's only 10 weeks of backups which occupies 3.51 TB. I've got
more than 20 years worth of job files. To back them up every week
would take (I conservatively estimate) 12 TB.

if the value of the data is worth more than a drive (which is almost
always the case) then buy another drive.

On those figures I would need several drives.

In fact 32 bit Windows systems can't manage more than
2.19TB of storage.

that's per single volume and it's a ridiculous limitation

Ridiculous or not, that's 'all' that it can manage.

os x can access up to 8 exabytes per volume, regardless of 32/64 bit.

THat's later but the earlier versions could only manage 2 TB with 8 TB
and 16 TB coming later. See http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2422

2 tb was with os x 10.1, which came out in 2001. there were no 2 tb
drives then, so it was effectively unlimited.

And less than I would have needed. Besides, I wasn't using an Apple.

16 tb was available with 10.3, which was 2003 and there weren't any 16
tb disks then and there still aren't any now, so it's still effectively
unlimited.

it's now much higher than that, even though 8 exabyte hard drives won't
exist for a very, very long time.

for any system to still be limited to 2 tb is laughable.

anyway, nothing prevents someone from having multiple volumes, or if
they're truly masochistic, optical discs.

See
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/wd-break...tb-hard-drive/
I only bought my first 64 bit system relatively recently.

Of course, had I been aware of the risk of losing files and folders
from what appear to be correctly functioning hard drives, I could have
used a more complex backup protocol which might have helped deal with
files that are missing. But I wasn't then aware of the risk.

more simple, you mean.

let the computer worry about tracking what has changed and what is
unique across multiple snapshots.

That's practical now but the earlier MS backup systems were not user
friendly

they still aren't.

I've had bad experiences with older MS backup systems.

if you don't need to keep it then it can be discarded.

Apart from that I've had a logic bit reset over night in an HP
calculator. Last thing the previous day it was on. The next morning it
was off. Cosmic rays were the explanation. Stored data is not entirely
reliable.

yes it is.

No it isn't.

Are you really saying that all methods of data storage are absolutely
reliable? All methods have their weaknesses.

what i'm saying is that files don't delete themselves, and they don't.

One day it may happen to you.

no it won't.

files do *not* delete themselves. period.

they may get deleted by accident, and i've certainly done that
(everyone has) but that's very different.

when that happens, i just pull the files from a backup. no big deal.

If you do it, you are liable to know it. But if it's a gremlin, you
may not find out for years.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:24:37 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 28 June 2014 04:45:30 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave



Apart from that I've had a logic bit reset over night in an HP

calculator. Last thing the previous day it was on. The next morning it

was off. Cosmic rays were the explanation. Stored data is not entirely

reliable.

I found a folder renamed =========== of something similar .
Cause was my cat laying on the keyboard, I noticed becaue I heard the repeat key sounding.

:-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:33:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

And some haven't. We have pictures of WWI and WWII and older.

there weren't digital cameras back then.

Yes and those photos exceed the age of any digital photo.

only because digital is new.

yes and 20 year old photos are better than 20 year old digtal from the
POV of quality.

only because digital was in its infancy 20 years ago.

compare early digital photos with the very first film photos. if you
can find any, that is.

Depends on whehter you'd call it a photograph doesn't it.

if it was taken by a camera, it is a photograph. period.


A friends smart phone didn;t survive a dip in the canel.
Digital IS NOT indestructable.

nothing is.

That's the 4th time his phone has taken a dip , removing the batteries and
letting it dry out for a few days, and it springs back to life it's an old
nokia about as smart as my cats arse, ancient technolgy, and I'll admit an
iPhone would probbly stop working for good when it detected it was heading
for a dip.

buy a lottery ticket.

How does buying a lottery ticket help.

because he is exceptionally lucky for a phone to have been in water and
continue to work.

Clean fresh water may not be too bad, especially if you can quickly
get the battery out, but sal****er is almost immediately fatal.


however, it will outlast film and without any degradation whatsoever.

Provided it's reguallry backed up on current media.
That's the theory as yet unproven.

what's to prove? if you have backups, you can't lose the data.

Which is why there are companies selling recovery utils.

those are for the idiots *without* backups.


only the medium on which it's stored is different.

Until viewed.

if someone put a print made from a digital camera and a print made from
a film camera in front of you, you would not be able to tell which was
which (assuming the digital image was reduced in quality to look like
film).

That is NOT the issue.

yes it is.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , James Silverton
wrote:

only the medium on which it's stored is different.

Until viewed.

if someone put a print made from a digital camera and a print made from
a film camera in front of you, you would not be able to tell which was
which (assuming the digital image was reduced in quality to look like
film).

That is NOT the issue.

yes it is.

I am interested in the idea that digital prints and film prints cannot
be distinguished. Just how do you intend to make the prints?

with a printer. how did you think they'd be made?

I'd think
that those from wet chemistry and those from a digital printer could
easily be told apart, especially under a magnifying lens since there
would be discrete dots for the digital printer and irregular colored
areas from the wet process.

depends on the printer used.

if you use the same printer for both, that takes the printer variable
out of the equation.

you do realize that film prints are now done digitally, don't you?

and this isn't about pixel peeping anyway. even if you use a good
inkjet printer and wet chemistry, the viewer will still not be able to
tell which is which.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The file that I said had gone missing had been copied to Archive and
happily sat there for several years. Then one day it was no more. I
haven't the faintest idea of how long it had been missing. I can't
remember now when this happened but I think I was running
Windows 2000.

you or someone with access to the computer deleted it.

files do not disappear on their own.

does it automatically include it or not?

If it's there, yes it does.

ok

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Depends on whehter you'd call it a photograph doesn't it.

if it was taken by a camera, it is a photograph. period.

For me it's the people that take the photos, the camera is the tool.

But for you google is a good photographer it takes high resolution pictres
so is therefor better.

google hosts photos. google the service does not take them.

employees at google might, and they might post them so that they show
up in a google search.

Give a cabbage a camera and you the same camera the picture quality from each
would be indentical.

cabbage cannot take photos.

put down the whiskey.


Which is why there are companies selling recovery utils.

those are for the idiots *without* backups.

No it's for peoole who haven;t done a backup form whatever reason.

then they are idiots.

there will always be idiots.

This is where they are such utils of SD cards , as data corruption can occur
before it even gets out of the camera.

that is exceptionally rare.

film can be damaged too.

You think corruption never happens, you have to be really dump to nbelieve
such things
although perhapos you have little understanding of this technology.
http://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/vi...p?f=28&t=36533

i never said it doesn't happen.

you're also assuming it never happens to film. it does.

in fact, it happened so much with film that photoprocessing companies
had a policy to replace damaged or lost film.

On 7/1/2014 3:33 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , James Silverton
wrote:

only the medium on which it's stored is different.

Until viewed.

if someone put a print made from a digital camera and a print made from
a film camera in front of you, you would not be able to tell which was
which (assuming the digital image was reduced in quality to look like
film).

That is NOT the issue.

yes it is.

I am interested in the idea that digital prints and film prints cannot
be distinguished. Just how do you intend to make the prints?

with a printer. how did you think they'd be made?

I'd think
that those from wet chemistry and those from a digital printer could
easily be told apart, especially under a magnifying lens since there
would be discrete dots for the digital printer and irregular colored
areas from the wet process.

depends on the printer used.

if you use the same printer for both, that takes the printer variable
out of the equation.

you do realize that film prints are now done digitally, don't you?

and this isn't about pixel peeping anyway. even if you use a good
inkjet printer and wet chemistry, the viewer will still not be able to
tell which is which.

I'm not sure that I believe that but I suppose a negative can scanned
digitally and then printed with a digital printer. I did that a little
when I first started using a digital editing program. I must try to find
the files and have a careful look.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

In article , James Silverton
wrote:

I'd think
that those from wet chemistry and those from a digital printer could
easily be told apart, especially under a magnifying lens since there
would be discrete dots for the digital printer and irregular colored
areas from the wet process.

depends on the printer used.

if you use the same printer for both, that takes the printer variable
out of the equation.

you do realize that film prints are now done digitally, don't you?

and this isn't about pixel peeping anyway. even if you use a good
inkjet printer and wet chemistry, the viewer will still not be able to
tell which is which.

I'm not sure that I believe that but I suppose a negative can scanned
digitally and then printed with a digital printer. I did that a little
when I first started using a digital editing program. I must try to find
the files and have a careful look.

that probably won't tell you much since it greatly depends on the
printer and scanner and that you know which is which, biasing any
conclusion.

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.