"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

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


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

rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a
digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this
getting out of hand pretty quick.

Scott

On 27 Mar 2005 09:09:20 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:


rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a
digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this
getting out of hand pretty quick.


That's why I asked. I don't see anything
in the name or charter that excludes digital
darkroom, so if the natives want "analog only"
I've no need to annoy them.

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


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

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:35:15 -0500, rafe bustin
wrote:

....

there ought to be a
group named rec.photo.digital-darkroom
or some such.


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


mar2705 from Lloyd Erlick,

I think that is an excellent idea.

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

"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/

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

In the interest civil discourse,...

Must also be why you crossposted a thread inviting opines
predicting the future of b&w, knowing it would surely
take on the present form of a never ending debate? (i.e.,
a meaningless and pointless topic in and of itself if not
for the implied "digital-supplanting-traditional" subtopic...)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:26:23 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:
.... In my version of
'logical', digital _not_ being in the charter would seem
to exclude digital imaging from the group.
....

mar2805 from Lloyd Erlick,

Thank you!

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

This looks to me like a newsgroup unmistakably dedicated to
chemical photography. My guess is that a little digitalk would
be considered on-topic if it explains how to do certain digital effects in
a chemical darkroom. After all there are some of us who started digital and
now do (or try to do) some chemical.

In article t,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"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" wrote:

In the interest civil discourse,...

Must also be why you crossposted a thread inviting opines
predicting the future of b&w, knowing it would surely
take on the present form of a never ending debate? (i.e.,
a meaningless and pointless topic in and of itself if not
for the implied "digital-supplanting-traditional" subtopic...)

rafe bustin wrote:

On 27 Mar 2005 09:09:20 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:


rafe bustin wrote:
Honest question. If this is too hot a
topic, no big deal.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
For those of us who have worked in both a real darkroom and with a
digit darkroom I think this would be of interest. But I can see this
getting out of hand pretty quick.

ya think? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with
why he posted it, now could it?

That's why I asked. I don't see anything
in the name or charter that excludes digital
darkroom, so if the natives want "analog only"

I don't know whether to laugh or engage the killfile.

Digital "darkroom" is a bigger misnomer than digital
"photography." Only a troll (or a supercilious zealot,
which ever comes first...) would intentionally attempt to
misread and misinterpret the clear intent and purpose of
rec.photo.darkroom. Picture as synonym George Dubya Bush
the 1st, misinterpreting the Constitution by flashing that
infamously silly smirk of his and foisting: "It only says
Congress shall make no religious laws, nothing about
Executive Orders..."

I've no need to annoy them.

too late...

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

One can only chuckle someone actually thinks there's a
darkroom compiled somewhere in all that Photoshop code.
Must have been quite a plumbing job.