Yet more evidence of the dominance of digital/demise of darkroom?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by David Nebenzahl, Nov 6, 2004.

  1. Data point: in the latest Costco catalog (no, I'm not a member, it's someone
    else's), out of their offering of 36 cameras, only *one* is not digital. (It's
    a Konica Minolta Maxxum 70 SLR.) Can you say "nails in the coffin"?

    DISCLAIMER: I'm no fan of digital. I love "traditional" wet photography. I
    love old cameras. But I also try to recognize reality. I rue this trend the
    same way I rue the results of the recent election.


    --
    .... voting for John Kerry now is like voting for LBJ in 1964 with full
    precognition of what he was going to do in Vietnam for the next four years.

    - Alexander Cockburn in _Counterpunch_
    (http://counterpunch.org/cockburn10282004.html)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Nov 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. In the same time, Sanyo (a big maker for Olympus and Nikon) and Canon reduce their production of
    digital cameras because demand is lower than expected ...

    Regards,
     
    Claudio Bonavolta, Nov 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Nebenzahl

    jjs Guest

    Aw, this digital argument is getting soooo old.

    I'm a Vector fanatic. Anybody wanna argue Vectors vs. Raster? Come on. Make
    my day.;)
     
    jjs, Nov 6, 2004
    #3
  4. If you want lots of agreement you could post it in rec.photodigital where it probably
    belongs, since this in fact is rec"darkroom" for which unless you have the shades
    drawn does not apply to digital photography.
     
    Gregory W Blank, Nov 6, 2004
    #4
  5. David Nebenzahl

    Alan Smithee Guest

    I would argue the little tiny space between the lens and the CCD on a
    digital camera "is" a wee tiny little darkroom. Yes, this is
    rec.photo.darkroom but nowhere does it have to say "traditional" whatever
    that means.
     
    Alan Smithee, Nov 6, 2004
    #5
  6. You can argue all you like in my kill file.
     
    Gregory W Blank, Nov 6, 2004
    #6
  7. David Nebenzahl

    Alan Smithee Guest

    Good grief. I can see why people leave this place in droves. Last time I
    checked my darkroom was loaded full of digital equipment, timers,
    densitometers, color computers all 20 years old the most recent addition is
    a computer. Yawn. So long everybody.
     
    Alan Smithee, Nov 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Well, shit, that's easy: obviously, vectors are better!

    In most cases. I speak semi-seriously since I'm a printer, and dread the times
    that someone comes in with a business card design to be printed ... as a
    Photoshop file. Bzzzzzt! Wrong format! (If I went ahead and printed it, they'd
    say "How come all the type is so fuzzy?") Almost as bad as the folks who want
    me to print stuff from Word documents and Powerpoint presentations ... not to
    mention Micro$oft Publisher ...

    On the other hand, I'd hate to have to process a 20x36" poster of a color
    photograph as a vector file: my poor RIP would be grinding away for a week!


    --
    .... voting for John Kerry now is like voting for LBJ in 1964 with full
    precognition of what he was going to do in Vietnam for the next four years.

    - Alexander Cockburn in _Counterpunch_
    (http://counterpunch.org/cockburn10282004.html)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Nov 7, 2004
    #8
  9. Hello David,

    This is a darkroom group. The working definition of this term is commonly
    understood by all those present, yourself included. The posters and readers
    here enjoy exercising this particular photographic technology. The
    processes required and the results they yield are satisfying to them. It is
    their preferred method of photographic creativity. If this were not the
    case, they would not be practicing this particular craft and not be reading
    and posting here on this subject.

    Yet even with the availability to you of this obvious, common knowledge, you
    still choose to initiate a new discussion with such inflammatory comments as
    "demise of darkroom" and "nails in the coffin." And in so doing you
    intentionally choose to showcase yourself in an extremely poor light as
    regards the fundamental purpose and day-to-day practices of this group.

    Why is that?

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Nov 7, 2004
    #9
  10. David Nebenzahl

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Oh gee, what will you do? Maybe you should just go digital.
    Like you voted for the democrats (not.)
     
    Tom Phillips, Nov 8, 2004
    #10
  11. David Nebenzahl

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Bull shit. There simply is no end to digital moronic claims and
    silly statements...
     
    Tom Phillips, Nov 8, 2004
    #11
  12. David Nebenzahl

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Yawn...Digital imaging means photoelectric, not densitometers.
    One should think before making fallacious statements. Densitometers
    are not used in digital imaging nor is my Gralab digital timer...
     
    Tom Phillips, Nov 8, 2004
    #12
  13. You miss quoted: that was Alan.
     
    Gregory W Blank, Nov 8, 2004
    #13
  14. David Nebenzahl

    Tom Phillips Guest

    I was replying to Alan.
     
    Tom Phillips, Nov 9, 2004
    #14
  15. Ah, yes, I hear you saying that out of pure spite. Quite your style, that.

    But my friend, don't you realize that when that big wave comes and smashes
    everything that's not digital to smithereens, that all of us who like
    darkroom-type photography will suffer? Including you?

    No thank you. I won't go digital, not just yet.
    No, I did not. What of it? (Hint: I didn't vote for the guy who won either.)

    I vote for democrats, not necessarily Democrats.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Nov 9, 2004
    #15
  16. David Nebenzahl

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Not spite, just a total lack of respect...
    Oh, the sky is falling the sky is falling! Dear me, what shall
    we do? "Nothing," saith seer David, "It's like rape, just lay
    back and enjoy it."

    Nothing is inevitable, only what we allow. And at least I don't
    roll over and play dead. Digital lies and then piggy backs
    itself on film photography in order to gain market share. I've
    never met a digital geek who didn't utter complete fallacies
    while knowing absolutely nothing about actual photographic processes,
    including digital processes. They're so full of digital spin and
    marketing B.S. attacking film (and have been since day one) it's
    hard to tell where one lie ends and another begins. "Digital is
    film" (bull shit); "digital kills film resolution" (bull shit);
    "digital is as archival as film" (bull shit); "digital has better
    color (bull shit); etc. etc. etc. Digital is about stock options,
    not photography.

    Apparently what you can't stand is when someone actually stands up
    to the lies...
    Who cares?
    Yes, that about says it all re your skewed perspectives.
    If it weren't for narcissistic self serving Nader, Gore would
    have won the electorial college in 2000 and Bush would not
    have been around to run in 2004 and make gay marriage an
    issue. Any Bush presidency is a Nader victory.
     
    Tom Phillips, Nov 9, 2004
    #16
  17. David Nebenzahl

    The Wogster Guest

    Why is it that every time, I get so sick of the digital/darkroom
    arguement that I filter the thread, you guys need to start it up again
    under a different thread name.

    Enough already

    W
     
    The Wogster, Nov 9, 2004
    #17
  18. What's "W" stand for "Whiner" :-D Kill file the thread and be done it!!!
    or specifically blame David N,... he started it.
     
    Gregory W Blank, Nov 9, 2004
    #18
    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.