Film vs Digital

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Pumper Hinkle, Mar 23, 2008.

  1. Pumper Hinkle

    Rob Morley Guest

    I don't. Nor do I spew crap in this group, unlike you.
     
    Rob Morley, Mar 28, 2008
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. You do.

    Nor do I spew crap in this group, unlike you.

    Its good to meet an infallible saint like you.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 28, 2008
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pumper Hinkle

    Marvin Guest

    It's "art-speak".
     
    Marvin, Mar 28, 2008
    #83
  4. Pumper Hinkle

    Peter Guest


    I will not even try to prove a negative. Prove your premise
     
    Peter, Mar 28, 2008
    #84
  5. Pumper Hinkle

    krishnananda Guest

    That's an interesting point of view. Adams took the broad spectral
    continuum of light from the brightest possible to its nearly complete
    absence and compressed it into exactly ten shades of gray which have a
    logarithmic relationship to each other.

    He took nature, the continuous gradient of light, and made it artificial
    to compensate for the limitations of silver salts' light sensitivity.

    Besides adhering to the inverse square law of light falloff I can't
    think of a less natural, less manipulative approach. Light as perceived
    by the human eye is a continuum, not a very small set of quantized data
    points.

    But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, I often am.
     
    krishnananda, Mar 28, 2008
    #85
  6. Whatever its called, it invites serious refutation rather than mere
    discomforted grunts.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 28, 2008
    #86
  7. A Prime Directive is EAT. This activity is impossible without
    manipulation of the environment. Unless of course you can describe a
    human behavior that is not manipulative related to its surroundings.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 28, 2008
    #87
  8. The "zone system" is not an abstraction. If it were it couldn't be
    described objectively.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 28, 2008
    #88
  9. Pumper Hinkle

    Peter Guest


    You have an interesting POV on what "manipulation" means
     
    Peter, Mar 28, 2008
    #89
  10. Do you have a contra meaning?
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 28, 2008
    #90
  11. Pumper Hinkle

    Rob Morley Guest

    I don't.
    When did I ever claim any degree of infallibility (and why the obsession
    with religion)? I'm quite happy to accept that I'm just another
    chattering monkey, randomly evolved on an insignificant speck of dust
    somewhere in a vast universe - it's you who seems preoccupied with
    imparting your own sense of order to the chaos. Why are you trying to
    apply verbal, intellectual concepts to something that is intrinsically
    visual and emotional?
     
    Rob Morley, Mar 29, 2008
    #91
  12. Pumper Hinkle

    Zilla Guest

    For pure convenience, I went digital.
     
    Zilla, Mar 29, 2008
    #92
  13. Pumper Hinkle

    Marvin Guest

    So refute it. Your frequent postings seem to have no point
    to them.
     
    Marvin, Mar 29, 2008
    #93
  14. Only if you're not human.
    Only the infallible need not pray.

    (and why the obsession
    Care to explain this nonsense?

    I'm quite happy to accept that I'm just another
    Again, you claim to be above the human condition.

    Why are you trying to
    Think of it this way , dearheart: art is in the doing, not the viewing.
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 30, 2008
    #94
  15. Refute my own assertion?

    Your frequent postings seem to have no point to them.

    I doubt I've posted to this ng more than a dozen times, 98% of those
    posts exclusive to this thread. If that seems like "frequent" posting
    to you... well...
     
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 30, 2008
    #95
  16. Pumper Hinkle

    Vance Guest

     
    Vance, Mar 30, 2008
    #96
  17.  
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 30, 2008
    #97
  18. Pumper Hinkle

    Vance Guest

     
    Vance, Mar 30, 2008
    #98
  19. Pumper Hinkle

    Peter Guest

    Yes!
    My tendency is to define words in context, unless there is a clear
    indication, otherwise. Therefore, the word "manipulation" as used in the
    context of a discussion of photography may very well have a meaning other
    than your definition.
    You have so twisted the discussion that I have lost track of precisely how
    much manipulation of a photograph is acceptable to you.
    Before you ask me, I will answer form my perspective:

    For medical documentation - none, except perhaps some enhancement to
    illustrate the purpose for which the picture was taken.

    For scientific cataloging - none.

    For advertising purposes - does it make a difference whether the
    manipulation is done in camera, or in post processing.

    For fine art photography - anything the artist wants, goes.

    For "I've been there" snapshots - who gives a shit.
     
    Peter, Mar 31, 2008
    #99
  20.  
    Roy Jose Lorr, Mar 31, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.