"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

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.

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.

FROM: Rec.Photo Charters & FAQ

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.

rec.photo.digital

This group is for the discussion of all aspects of digital
photography, including digital cameras, scanners, image manipulation
software, printers, and CD-ROM technology.

"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...)

"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 27 Mar 2005 13:25:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:


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


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

What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have
no idea what the question means.


Do you want to know? I suspect not.

To me it means digital image processing
and printing. But it allows for image
capture on either film or direct digital.

It's concerned with the processing/
printing rather than image acquisition.

Laser or LightJet printing would tecnically
fit this group's charter, I think. Inkjet
and dye-sub, maybe not.


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

On 27 Mar 2005 13:25:25 -0800, "Wayne" wrote:


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


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

What is "digital darkroom"? I cant answer the question because I have
no idea what the question means.


Do you want to know? I suspect not.

To me it means digital image processing
and printing. But it allows for image
capture on either film or direct digital.

It's concerned with the processing/
printing rather than image acquisition.

Laser or LightJet printing would tecnically
fit this group's charter, I think. Inkjet
and dye-sub, maybe not.


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

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus:

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

Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little
puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom".

But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital
photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which
I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then
sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say!


LightJet printing would certainly qualify.

Laser printing would qualify if you didn't
require "silver based paper."

But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or
dye-sub output devices.


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

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus:

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

Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little
puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom".

But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital
photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which
I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then
sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say!


LightJet printing would certainly qualify.

Laser printing would qualify if you didn't
require "silver based paper."

But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or
dye-sub output devices.


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

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:46:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 3/27/2005 8:53 AM rafe bustin spake thus:

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

Honest question, deserves honest answer. Like some others, I'm a little
puzzled by this, not knowing exactly what you mean by "digital darkroom".

But why not take this literally and at face value? If it's a digital
photographic method that involves darkroom processing at some point (by which
I assume one means wet printing using silver-based paper of some type), then
sure, why not discuss it? Let 'er rip, I say!


LightJet printing would certainly qualify.

Laser printing would qualify if you didn't
require "silver based paper."

But your definiiton would disallow inkjet or
dye-sub output devices.


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