Darkroom classes

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:58:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-23 22:43:32 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:41:14 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:


If I could emulate that if I reach 91.

https://db.tt/6Wjcrfz9


Handsome guy and his pretty lady. Must be the good living! :-)


SD on the hat I wonder what that stands for

Sicherheitsdienst

Now that is not even funny.

I agree.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

So all those photographs found in the Antarctica didn't survive...

what photographs are those?

http://news.discovery.com/history/10...n-antarctica-p
hotos-131230.htm

there's visible damage in the photos.

meanwhile, digital cameras have survived explosions, floods, etc., with
photos fully intact.

*lots* of film photos have been lost, and probably more than digital
because most people don't take care of their negatives, which means the
prints (if they still have those) are the only copies.

And most peole don't even look at their digital images, they just store them
as they think they are valable in some way. some are of value to others of
course.

they don't look at film images either after a once-over when they get
them back from the store, mainly because there is no good way to
catalog them, so they're effectively 'lost' in a drawer or shoebox.

meanwhile, a couple of taps and any digital image can be displayed, at
any time, any where.

meanwhile, countless negatives and slides have been lost to mold, fire,
flooding and even just fading. you don't even need to copy it. it
deteriorates on its own!

And I bet even more digital photos have been deleted on purpose or by
accident.

deleting on purpose is intentional. it's the same as tearing up a photo
or destroying a negative. the user wanted it gone.

with digital, accidental deleting can easily be recovered from a
backup. try undoing an accidental destruction of film. good luck on
that.

and accidental doesn't have to be a tear. it could just be negligence
in storing them properly and they're ruined by mold.

Peolpe had to be far more picky and choosy over the keepers or those they
wanted printed. People used to take a few photos rather than a few 100.

which is yet another reason why film is worse.

with digital, they no longer have to decide if they can afford taking
another photo because it's free.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

It;s those that want it, not just teh bands.

The beatles are hardly independant.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005NJ9CHK/

the beatles recently released their music on the itunes store, after
many years of waiting.

yes so.
Why bring it out on Vinyl 5 years later and on Vinyl in mono, I guess they
don;t want to sell any.

no that many, which is obvious given the price. it's a collector's item
to put on a shelf.

But I bet an original set would be worth far more on Vinyl than on my hard
disc.

only because of it's rarity. not because it sounds any better.

I bet I can get a coupy on HD for less than the cost of a cup of tea, try
getting Vinyl for that.

why would anyone want to get vinyl when digital is easier and more
flexible?

the box set is $149, less than half the price of the above.

I wonder why, which do you think is worth more then, or more than.

do you want to listen to it or stare at the box?

vinyl is dead. and dead doesn't mean completely zero.

I'm glad you're not in the medical profession.
Someone alseep would be pronounced dead.

you're an idiot.

They use what the prefer. I know some DJ and they still cart their vinyl

around and they don;t scratch but prefer vinyl.

then you must know the only djs on the planet who do that.

Maybe I do, but they certainly find it a lot more fun using Vinyl, CDs coming
second then there's MP3.

not very many do.

here's one such app:

http://www.algoriddim.com/

A friend uses that sort of thing and he had a casio camera too.
He's upgraded to a P&S lumix now.
I still don;t even see him as a photographer though.

that means absolutely nothing.

$4.99 for ipad and $19.99 for mac, and it links to spotify for access
to 20 million songs.

aS I said I have many cars lamborgini, pagini, BMWs aston martins ,
they too are all on my iPad.

what are you talking about?

having access to 20 million songs in the cloud blows away anything you
could possibly do with vinyl.

let's see someone cart around 20 million albums *and* the above system.
good luck on that.

Lets see that person get a gig at teh minstry of sounds or some other proper
venue that doesn't have a bunk bed in it.

they already have.

professional djs and even non-pro djs have been using digital media for
around a decade or so, at least.


for every vinyl copy sold there are thousands of copies sold on
mp3/aac, or played on spotify, pandora, etc, which is where it's at
now.

A even more illegal copied apparently, billions worth well that's what the
record companies claim.

there will always be illegal copies and what the record companies claim
and what is reality are not always the same.

plus, metallica has their heads up their asses about digital anyway.

Yes they don;t like their music backed up do they.

metallica is as out of touch as you are.

digital media is the future.

The futures already here.

exactly, and vinyl is dead.

but still sold just like old film cameras, old cars and lots of
other things that are old that people still think has value.

for collectors maybe. not to use. they keep them on a shelf or in a
garage for old cars.

again, vinyl was 1.4% of all albums sold in 2013. that's nothing. put
another way, 97.6% *weren't* vinyl.

once the hipsters get tired of vinyl, its share will drop to a tiny
fraction of that.

it's dead.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

http://news.discovery.com/history/10...nd-in-antarcti
ca-photos-131230.htm

there's visible damage in the photos.

So, better to have such a thing that not have the photos at all which is
what happens with most digital imaged. That's one of the disadvantages.

nonsense. digital would easily survive just about anything you can
throw at it.

meanwhile, digital cameras have survived explosions, floods, etc., with
photos fully intact.

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

there weren't digital cameras back then.

had there been, there would have been a *lot* more photos and a lot
better photos.

And most peole don't even look at their digital images, they just store
them
as they think they are valable in some way. some are of value to others of
course.

they don't look at film images either after a once-over when they get
them back from the store, mainly because there is no good way to
catalog them, so they're effectively 'lost' in a drawer or shoebox.

Strange that the old photos I have have writen info on the back saying when
it was taken and sometimes even who's in the photo.

that can be done automatically now.

Of course things never get lost on hard drives do they.

no they don't.

Why has anyone bothered to write utilties for resuing photos from memory
cards if they never get lost or damaged.

nobody said never. just because some moron accidentally reformatted a
card does not mean digital is worse.

the fact that they *can* recover it is a huge, huge plus for digital.

if someone accidentally (or even deliberately) destroys film, it's
gone. there is no recovery.

meanwhile, a couple of taps and any digital image can be displayed, at
any time, any where.

Not quite. People have lost digital images, they lose them everyday, plenty
of posts about it there's even been some here.

nobody said that never happens, but the point is that it happens with
film too and there is no recovery, ever.

there have been countless people who have not noticed the film wasn't
winding, or they opened the camera when there was film in it, or there
was light leakage and part of the image is fogged and much more.

none of that can happen in digital. in fact, you can set the camera so
it can't take photos if there's no memory card in for the truly stupid
users.

I've lost a whole card ful,. when I put my card in the washing machine, I've
never put a roll of film through the washing machine but then again such a
thing (a roll of film) in my shirt pocket is quite noticable unlike a simm
card.

memory cards can easily withstand going through the wash and much,
much, much more.

if you put film through the wash, it' will be ruined.

and accidental doesn't have to be a tear. it could just be negligence
in storing them properly and they're ruined by mold.

or a simm card dropped and lost down a drain or put in a washing machine.

losing film happens, and more often than with digital because you have
to send it out for processing, and it can and does get lost or damaged.

and all they do is give you a free roll of film to replace it which is
an insult.

I've never had this problem with film.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658197/

that's a sim card, not a memory card.

Peolpe had to be far more picky and choosy over the keepers or those they
wanted printed. People used to take a few photos rather than a few 100.

which is yet another reason why film is worse.

It's a reason why film is better because it makes you think before the shot
rather than later, that's one of the biggest and most important things when
teaching actual photography[1] rather than the art of digital manupulation
which is a differnt art altogether.

nonsense. anyone can take all the time they want with digital.

the point is that you don't have to do that anymore.

with digital, they no longer have to decide if they can afford taking
another photo because it's free.

Monkeys, shakespeare, digital camera users and Ansel adams spring to mind.

bad analogy.

Which is why the use of video cameras will increase as people know they can
use them as still cameras and get the perfect shot because they can just keep
taking pictures all day.

video and still are two very different things.

[1] which is the art of manupulating light and shadows rather than creating
objects and areas which is what you do in photoshop.

nonsense.

On 6/25/2014 9:05 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

http://news.discovery.com/history/10...nd-in-antarcti
ca-photos-131230.htm

there's visible damage in the photos.

So, better to have such a thing that not have the photos at all which is
what happens with most digital imaged. That's one of the disadvantages.

nonsense. digital would easily survive just about anything you can
throw at it.

meanwhile, digital cameras have survived explosions, floods, etc., with
photos fully intact.

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

there weren't digital cameras back then.

had there been, there would have been a *lot* more photos and a lot
better photos.

And most peole don't even look at their digital images, they just store
them
as they think they are valable in some way. some are of value to others of
course.

they don't look at film images either after a once-over when they get
them back from the store, mainly because there is no good way to
catalog them, so they're effectively 'lost' in a drawer or shoebox.

Strange that the old photos I have have writen info on the back saying when
it was taken and sometimes even who's in the photo.

that can be done automatically now.

Of course things never get lost on hard drives do they.

no they don't.

Why has anyone bothered to write utilties for resuing photos from memory
cards if they never get lost or damaged.

nobody said never. just because some moron accidentally reformatted a
card does not mean digital is worse.

the fact that they *can* recover it is a huge, huge plus for digital.

if someone accidentally (or even deliberately) destroys film, it's
gone. there is no recovery.

meanwhile, a couple of taps and any digital image can be displayed, at
any time, any where.

Not quite. People have lost digital images, they lose them everyday, plenty
of posts about it there's even been some here.

nobody said that never happens, but the point is that it happens with
film too and there is no recovery, ever.

there have been countless people who have not noticed the film wasn't
winding, or they opened the camera when there was film in it, or there
was light leakage and part of the image is fogged and much more.

none of that can happen in digital. in fact, you can set the camera so
it can't take photos if there's no memory card in for the truly stupid
users.

I've lost a whole card ful,. when I put my card in the washing machine, I've
never put a roll of film through the washing machine but then again such a
thing (a roll of film) in my shirt pocket is quite noticable unlike a simm
card.

memory cards can easily withstand going through the wash and much,
much, much more.

if you put film through the wash, it' will be ruined.

and accidental doesn't have to be a tear. it could just be negligence
in storing them properly and they're ruined by mold.

or a simm card dropped and lost down a drain or put in a washing machine.

losing film happens, and more often than with digital because you have
to send it out for processing, and it can and does get lost or damaged.

and all they do is give you a free roll of film to replace it which is
an insult.

I've never had this problem with film.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658197/

that's a sim card, not a memory card.

Peolpe had to be far more picky and choosy over the keepers or those they
wanted printed. People used to take a few photos rather than a few 100.

which is yet another reason why film is worse.

It's a reason why film is better because it makes you think before the shot
rather than later, that's one of the biggest and most important things when
teaching actual photography[1] rather than the art of digital manupulation
which is a differnt art altogether.

nonsense. anyone can take all the time they want with digital.

the point is that you don't have to do that anymore.

with digital, they no longer have to decide if they can afford taking
another photo because it's free.

Monkeys, shakespeare, digital camera users and Ansel adams spring to mind.

bad analogy.

Which is why the use of video cameras will increase as people know they can
use them as still cameras and get the perfect shot because they can just keep
taking pictures all day.

video and still are two very different things.

[1] which is the art of manupulating light and shadows rather than creating
objects and areas which is what you do in photoshop.

nonsense.


Most of what you say is true, but it has nothing to do with the reasons
for teaching film,and alternative processes.
Horror of horrors, there are even places where on can learn to pain with
brushes, and knit with knitting needles. They even teach crocheting.
Totally useless skills.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:05:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

Of course things never get lost on hard drives do they.

no they don't.

Oh yes they do. Over the years I have on occasion had complete job
folders just vanish from my archives.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Of course things never get lost on hard drives do they.

no they don't.

Oh yes they do. Over the years I have on occasion had complete job
folders just vanish from my archives.

files do not vanish for no reason.

someone deleted them. either you did and forgot or someone with access
to the computer did and did not inform you.

but even if they were deleted, they'd be in a backup. that's what
backups are *for*.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

http://news.discovery.com/history/10...-found-in-anta
rcti

ca-photos-131230.htm

there's visible damage in the photos.

So, better to have such a thing that not have the photos at all which is
what happens with most digital imaged. That's one of the disadvantages.

nonsense. digital would easily survive just about anything you can
throw at it.

So why are there rescue utilities for HDDs and flash cards.
Data gets corrupted, or have you never heard of such a thing.
even on macs it can happen on PCs too.

because people are morons and don't have backups.

meanwhile, digital cameras have survived explosions, floods, etc., with
photos fully intact.

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.

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

nothing is.

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

had there been, there would have been a *lot* more photos and a lot
better photos.

Better in what way?

higher quality, for one.

cameras in wwi/wwii were nowhere near as good as what exists now and
the film from back then has faded and/or been ruined by mold or other
damage.

you'd be lucky to even *have* photos from back then.

Strange that the old photos I have have writen info on the back saying
when

it was taken and sometimes even who's in the photo.

that can be done automatically now.

you can write on the back of a digital photo how ?

same way you can write on the back of a film photo. with a pen.

do you write on negatives?

however, there is no need to write anything on the prints because the
metadata can be embedded in the actual file.

it's a string of 0 1 . usually held on magnetic or optical media.
You can write a label and stick it on I guess.

you guess wrong.

Of course things never get lost on hard drives do they.

no they don't.

Of course not, makes me wonder who those editiots are who write
resque/recovery apps.

there are lots of idiots in this world.


But every knows or should know that any digital value on a storage device
needs looking after. Whereas most peeole believe that putting a photo Paper
or neg in a safe place, they'll still be able to access it in 10 20 50 years.

they might think their film will be fine, but chances are it won't. it
will fade no matter what they do, if mold doesn't ruin it, or if it's
lost to fire/flood or even just lost. most people put their negatives
in a box or a drawer and it's near impossible to find a specific image.

You can;t say the same for your digital images stored on magnetic or optical
meadia unless you regually access them and check them.

nonsense. it can automatically be backed up and migrated as technology
changes.

If you don't make the effort with digital data it will get lost with time.

it's *much* harder to lose anything with digital.

if someone accidentally (or even deliberately) destroys film, it's
gone. there is no recovery.

Same with digital, I've delete loads of files in my time.
Theer's shredders for CD's utilities that the governemtn use for earasing
data, but I've used a far cheaper option it's called a big hammer.

so what?

Not quite. People have lost digital images, they lose them everyday,
plenty

of posts about it there's even been some here.

nobody said that never happens, but the point is that it happens with
film too and there is no recovery, ever.

There's no recovery with digital unless you have the faclities.

there's no recovery with film no matter what you do.

digital wins that race.

there have been countless people who have not noticed the film wasn't
winding, or they opened the camera when there was film in it, or there
was light leakage and part of the image is fogged and much more.

yes and I suppoose you're still saying no ones lost digital images.

not as many as have lost film.

The reason people back up IS because digital data IS more delicate.

nonsense. the reason people back up is because they can back up.

it's at best a pain in the ass to back up film and the backups are
second generation (or more).

Do you really think the photographers of teh past spent their time making
backups of their work.

they *couldn't*.

some did take second generation copies and put the original in a safe
climate controlled place though.

They didn't worry about backing up their photos on the hour every hour in
case their photo disapeared over-night or by touching the wrong button.

that doesn't happen and you know it.

none of that can happen in digital. in fact, you can set the camera so
it can't take photos if there's no memory card in for the truly stupid
users.

Soon you'll be able to 'write' direct to the 'cloud' then everyone will say
only stupid people use memory cards as they can be lost, stolen, damaged....
or even filled up.

that day happened.

I've lost a whole card ful,. when I put my card in the washing machine,
I've
never put a roll of film through the washing machine but then again such a
thing (a roll of film) in my shirt pocket is quite noticable unlike a simm
card.


memory cards can easily withstand going through the wash and much,
much, much more.

Phiscally they can.

and without data loss.


[1] which is the art of manupulating light and shadows rather than creating

objects and areas which is what you do in photoshop.



nonsense.

Are you saying photography has nothing to do with light ?

of course it does.

both film and digital photography use light.

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

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:57:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Of course things never get lost on hard drives do they.

no they don't.

Oh yes they do. Over the years I have on occasion had complete job
folders just vanish from my archives.

files do not vanish for no reason.

someone deleted them.

No.

either you did and forgot

Each time I got a new job I issued a new job number and opened a new
fold for it. All that happened in that job was subsequently saved in
subfolders. I have been deliberately saving my job files as many of
them are technically very interesting. The archives have been
accumulating for 25 years and passed from one computer to the next.
Over that period I have twice now found that a complete job folder has
vanished. I have no idea what else have vanished. I have no incentive
to delet job files, quite the reverse in fact.

or someone with access to the computer did and did not inform you.

The only other person with access is my wife. Not only does she have
no incentive but she wouldn't know how to do it anyway.

but even if they were deleted, they'd be in a backup. that's what
backups are *for*.

You have to know that a folder is missing before you can restore it.
Otherwise you just backup the archive as it now is, with a missing
folder.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
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. For how far back is it practical to
keep all your old backups?

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens