Go Back  British Expats > Usenet Groups > rec.travel.* > rec.travel.europe
Reload this Page >

Digital photography, changing the world

Digital photography, changing the world

Old Nov 21st 2004, 10:32 am
  #61  
Miguel Cruz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Invariably, people who place a great deal of importance on whether an
    > image is "digital" or not tend to be angry young males who are more
    > concerned with gadgets than with actual photography. Additionally, they
    > are always people who haven't the slightest clue of what "digital"
    > actually means--because if they did know that, they'd realize how stupid
    > it is to call photography "digital" or "analog." All photography is
    > analog for capture and output.

My digital camera takes samples of the quantum states of the subject.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 12:10 pm
  #62  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

Miguel Cruz writes:

    > ...if you've calibrated your system against the bureau's output device.

Even if you haven't. The labs are often predictably set.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 12:13 pm
  #63  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

[email protected] writes:

    > How long is it since negative film scanners became available that
    > produced acceptable results.

About 25 years or so.

    > Which make/model do you use?

Nikon, several models.

    > The image is stored internally in the camera in a digital format,
    > that's why it is referred to as digital.

Unfortunately, storing it digitally has absolutely no correlation with
the quality of the image, so the widespread assumption that digital =
quality is incorrect.

    > because digital camera resolution is too low?

And because digital camera image quality is too poor.

Not only that, digital cameras cost many times more than film cameras,
even though the results they produce are worse.

    > You appear to attach a great deal of importance to it yourself :-)

Not really. I do wish people would learn what the word actuall means,
though.

    > Output from and to where?

Anywhere. All image capture and image output (printing or display) is
analog.

    > Most people use the word digital because that is the word that the
    > manufacturers use. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for
    > most people.

That's not good enough for me.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 12:14 pm
  #64  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

[email protected] writes:

    > They recycle the silver released in processing, the silver the
    > customer gets is lost forever.

It isn't lost. The customer gets it.

But in color photography, all the silver is removed. Only
black-and-white photography retains silver.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 12:37 pm
  #65  
nitram
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:13:54 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> How long is it since negative film scanners became available that
    >> produced acceptable results.
    >About 25 years or so.


So in1979 you could get a negative scanned and the output was in a
digital format?
    >> Which make/model do you use?
    >Nikon, several models.
    >> The image is stored internally in the camera in a digital format,
    >> that's why it is referred to as digital.
    >Unfortunately, storing it digitally has absolutely no correlation with
    >the quality of the image, so the widespread assumption that digital =
    >quality is incorrect.

I didn't make that assumption, it's also a fallacy that most owners of
cameras need anything like the quality that professionals require.

    >> because digital camera resolution is too low?
    >And because digital camera image quality is too poor.
    >Not only that, digital cameras cost many times more than film cameras,
    >even though the results they produce are worse.
    >> You appear to attach a great deal of importance to it yourself :-)
    >Not really. I do wish people would learn what the word actuall means,
    >though.
    >> Output from and to where?
    >Anywhere. All image capture and image output (printing or display) is
    >analog.
    >> Most people use the word digital because that is the word that the
    >> manufacturers use. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for
    >> most people.
    >That's not good enough for me.

I knew that by default.
--
Martin
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 12:39 pm
  #66  
nitram
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:14:38 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> They recycle the silver released in processing, the silver the
    >> customer gets is lost forever.
    >It isn't lost. The customer gets it.

and because the customer gets it, isn't recycled.


--
Martin
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 12:54 pm
  #67  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

[email protected] writes:

    > So in1979 you could get a negative scanned and the output was in a
    > digital format?

Yes, for printing purposes. Computers have been used for printing for
at least 30 years. I don't have an exact date for the start of scanning
for images, but I know it goes back more than 20 years.

New technologies aren't as new as people think. Flat-panel displays,
for example, have been around for at least forty years.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 12:54 pm
  #68  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

[email protected] writes:

    > and because the customer gets it, isn't recycled.

But it isn't discarded, either, so recycling isn't necessary. The paper
used in books at the library isn't being recycled, either.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 1:09 pm
  #69  
nitram
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:54:03 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> So in1979 you could get a negative scanned and the output was in a
    >> digital format?
    >Yes, for printing purposes.

The resolution need for printing purposes 25 years ago was
comparatively low.

    >Computers have been used for printing for
    >at least 30 years.

Computerised printing is a very different thing from high resolution
scanning of negatives.

    >I don't have an exact date for the start of scanning
    >for images, but I know it goes back more than 20 years.
    >New technologies aren't as new as people think. Flat-panel displays,
    >for example, have been around for at least forty years.

They have? Where were they? I don't recall VDUs being in common use 40
years ago.
--
Martin
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 1:13 pm
  #70  
nitram
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:54:39 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> and because the customer gets it, isn't recycled.
    >But it isn't discarded, either, so recycling isn't necessary. The paper
    >used in books at the library isn't being recycled, either.

because you over snip, your statement that silver is recycled
disappeared some time ago. The fact is some that some silver is
recycled and some is lost. Silver is a finite resource paper isn't. At
one time the photography industry was creating a world shortage of
silver,
--
Martin
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 4:26 pm
  #71  
Ptravel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > PTRAVEL writes:
    >
    > > If you want high-quality prints, the answer today is the same as it always
    > > was: go to a professional lab, or do it yourself.
    >
    > True if the highest quality is necessary. But today's cheapo prints
    > from neighborhood photo shops are dramatically superior to what was
    > available even a few years ago, mainly due to the advent of digital
    > printing systems like the Fuji Frontier. The Frontier and its software
    > can extract usable, attractive images from anything. I've even tested
    > this by deliberately almost ruining a roll of film (bad exposures), and
    > then asking a lab to print the roll with automatic adjustment. Every
    > photo came out acceptable. In the olden days of analog minilabs, most
    > of the prints would have been useless.

I think, though, it probably comes down to why people are taking
pictures in the first place. People who want casual keepsakes go to
minilabs. I'll take your word for it that the Fuji Frontier is a
dramatic step up -- I don't know that I've ever seen any prints from
one. I do know that the "snapshots" I've seen taken by my friends
vary (from a technical quality perspective) from ugh to okay, but just
okay. Okay is okay for keepsakes. I also want keepsakes, but I
aspire to higher quality -- mine go on a wall or in a frame. Though I
may shoot 1000s of pictures, I'll frame only 3 or 4 and have long ago
given up making albums out of the others. My friends who see my
photos almost always comment on the vivid color, the composition that
results from careful cropping, the atmosphere (which results from
careful manipulation of the levels), etc.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with minilab printing, either
digital or chemical. I was responding only to the assertion that
there's no reason to print digital pictures at home.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 4:55 pm
  #72  
Erilar
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > erilar writes:
    >
    > > You mean most people who have computers don't HAVE printers?
    >
    > Yes. This is especially true if you're talking about printers suitable
    > for printing photos.
    >
    > > And if you have a decent printer you already have made that
    > > investment.
    >
    > A photo printer is a separate and expensive investment, and it still
    > won't match what you can get from a lab.

My printer prints good quality prints; It's just slower that way.
    >
    > > Buying photo paper for it is far cheaper than paying someone
    > > to make prints for you any day.
    >
    > No, it's not.
    >
    > I've been there, and I've done all this. A lab is cheaper and faster
    > and gives better results than a home printer, even a good home printer.
    >
    > > And as for different sizes of paper: use scissors if you
    > > can't afford a paper cutter. Talk about inept!!!
    >
    > With the current price of photo paper, every snip costs you a fortune.

? I print an 8X10 sheet full and THEN cut them apart after i print them.

We're working at cross purposes here, I think. I don't hang big prints
on my wall. I put fairly small ones into an album. At this size I find
no significant difference between the ones in this album and the ones in
earlier albums where I had to physically cut and paste the more
expensive commercial prints on pages for the album.

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 4:57 pm
  #73  
Erilar
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

In article <1gnlkhn.1b2peiw6k3z7kN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.com>,
[email protected] (chancellor of the duchy of besses
o' th' barn) wrote:

    > erilar <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:
    > > >
    > > > > I've tried tweaking different settings, touching up the images-
    > > > > just
    > > > > doesn't look very good in comparison to the original print.
    > > >
    > > > Successful scanning and printing of film images requires quite a bit
    > > > of
    > > > practice.
    > >
    > > I guess I've jsut been playing with graphics on my Mac for too long to
    > > see a problem here.
    >
    > I've been playing with graphics (and scanning) on my Mac for quite a
    > while too. No doubt, if I played a little bit more, I'd get better
    > results than I currently do, but I don't have that time. It still makes
    > me think that for the average user, it's just not worth it, and you'll
    > getter results by far by ordering prints instead. However, marketing
    > does give the average consumer the impression that they can all do it at
    > home, with professional results.


Well, different people have different kinds of play. Instead of
complicated computer games, I play with graphics. 8-)

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 5:01 pm
  #74  
Erilar
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > erilar writes:
    >
    > > I guess I've jsut been playing with graphics on my Mac for too long to
    > > see a problem here.
    >
    > How much scanning and printing do you do?

None for a living. Rather a lot after each foreign trip. It goes in fits
and starts. But I've been doing it for several years. I used to do my
printing in a darkroom, and rather too much of it, as that WAS
associated with making a living. Feeding the images straight into the
computer, composing pages full of them, and printing them is pure play.

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 5:09 pm
  #75  
Erilar
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > erilar writes:
    >
    > > Well, that is if the newbies don't know much about computers and
    > > printers either... I've had a digital camera for a few months now, I
    > > get great prints, and I can fit them together to make a neat page for
    > > my
    > > foto album as well rather than physically cutting and pasting. Of
    > > course, I know how to use both computer and printer and I buy the
    > > right
    > > paper.
    >
    > When you scan film, you discover just how far digital still has to go.


I've never scanned film, just fed it into an enlarger, exposed the
paper, ran same through developer, stop bath, and fixer, washed it,
dried it, trimmed it, pasted it on to pages for a yearbook.....

And I shot the film with a real camera in the first place. I've been
resisting digital cameras for some time because they couldn't do some
things real cameras can. The one I finally bought still can't take a
fast picture, but the "instant gratification" factor is nice,
particularly since I can check and retake the picture if necessary.


Note: "real camera" for many years = NON-automatic anything beyond a
built-in light meter I could ignore if I pleased. Before that I didn't
even have a built-in light meter.

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
 

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.