Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > The disappearance of darkness

Reply
Thread Tools

The disappearance of darkness

 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.


> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
> How much teaching experience do you have?


Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.

> <snip>


>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
>>> a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
>>> buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
>>> just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

>>
>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
>> the tools that are different.


> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.


It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the
effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the
effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information
needed is already contained in the digital image.

> Similarly for fau infra-red.


Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
exist in the image.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <518e73cc$0$10805$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
>>>
>>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
>>> How much teaching experience do you have?

>>
>> digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.
>>
>>>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>>>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
>>>>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>>>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>>>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
>>>>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
>>>>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
>>>>
>>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
>>>> the tools that are different.
>>>
>>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
>>> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.

>>
>> nothing faux about it.
>>
>> solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
>> darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
>>

> You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
> digitized image to the rays of the sun?


That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
if it wasn't.

> Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.


There are important differences between good large expensive
dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
is.

Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.

--
Chris Malcolm

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:49:10 AM UTC+1, Me wrote:
> On 14/05/2013 2:40 p.m., nospam wrote:
>
> > In article <kms79s$h0l$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me <(E-Mail Removed)>

>
> > wrote:

>
> >

>
> >> One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by

>
> >> a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones":

>
> >> http://www.shakti-innovations.com/audiovideo.htm

>
> >>

>
> >> Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently.

>
> >

>
> > not only does that improve sound but it increases horsepower. amazing

>
> > what technology can do.

>
> >

>
> > just be sure your vinyl records are fully demagnetized before

>
> > listening. otherwise you won't obtain the full effect of shatki.

>
> >

>
> > <http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm>

>
> > Well, according to Furutech, the material added to vinyl to color it

>
> > black has magnetic properties, and demagnetizing LPs makes them

>
> > sound better.

>
> >

>
> Even better - they claim that the paint used to print CDs and the
>
> aluminium used in CDs itself is slightly magnetic, and that outfit
>
> recommends using the "demag" for CDs...
>
>
>
> Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold
>
> claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic /
>
> mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance
>
> which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based
>
> on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies,
>
> when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the
>
> difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher.


I certainly can, it's pretty easy actually, just did it lunchtime.

I do find it diffiult at 10KHz and above.
I couldn't here anything relibly above 15KHz.


> That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers,
>
> powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very
>
> expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the
>
> system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over
>
> 6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before
>
> installing the 300kg or so sound system.
>
> On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between
>
> normal CD and SACD.


Sometimes that just down to the individual, I only just tell the diffnce between a 16KHz loop and a 24KHz (sampling rate) loop but a friend of mine can.

Some can tell the differnces between foods and drinks, but not everyone has the best pallette or nose for it, some have to be trained.
Most people can't tell the differnce between male and female chicks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
On 5/15/2013 7:42 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <518e73cc$0$10805$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
>>>> How much teaching experience do you have?
>>>
>>> digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.
>>>
>>>>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>>>>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
>>>>>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>>>>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>>>>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
>>>>>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
>>>>>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
>>>>>
>>>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
>>>>> the tools that are different.
>>>>
>>>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
>>>> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.
>>>
>>> nothing faux about it.
>>>
>>> solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
>>> darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
>>>

>> You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
>> digitized image to the rays of the sun?

>
> That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
> that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
> the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
> if it wasn't.
>
>> Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.





>
> There are important differences between good large expensive
> dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
> dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
> technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
> is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
> is.


You are right, in general, however in this case AFAIK the OED has a
similar definition.
I would not rely on any dictionary for technical applications, but might
use one as a starting point.

>
> Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
> resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.
>


Yes the results may be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye, but
the process is not the same. The context of the discussion, was process.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > if the distortion is within the audio range (20-20k), then it is
> > probably audible. if the distortion is outside that range, it's not
> > audible.

>
> But tehre;s more ir it than that due to harmonics and even if yuo can;t hear
> 25KHz that if it exists in teh signal will alter the dynamics of teh speaker
> due to power disapation, this is one of the things that used to blow up
> tweeters as it doesn;t take much at high frequancy, hopefully those
> frequancies are filered out before amplification.


you can't hear what's outside the range of human hearing.

> > plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they
> > once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end.

>
> Yes but it can still matter to the overall sound.


not if you can't hear it, it won't.

> If you're only interest is in what the human ear can hear.


for speaker cables, that's all that matters.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> It was a long time ago and my memory is coming back to me. I am using
> >> a low-oxygen cable but not the fancy stuff that the audiophiles pay
> >> heaps for. I can't the conductor cross section but it is generous.

> >
> >in other words, standard wire.

>
> 'Good' standard wire. The bulk of the advantage is mechanical.


what matters is the electrical characteristics of the wire, not its
mechanical characteristics, which has *no* effect on sound quality.

> >> What I was testing against was a fancy cable where the in and out
> >> conductors each employed three sets of wires which were interwoven. I
> >> think that this may have been the conductor which achieved fame by
> >> blowing up a Naim amplifier as soon as it was connected. Fortunately
> >> the Quad 606 is "Unconditionally stable with any load and any signal".
> >> In any case, I could hear the difference and dumped the fancy cable.

> >
> >woven wire looks nice. electrically it's meaningless.

>
> Not this lot. Three cores in, three cores out, the whole interwoven to
> form a six ply tube. As I said, the reactance was such that in the old
> days Naim amplifiers could not tolerate them even for milliseconds.


that's done for looks. you don't need twisted pairs for audio and
certainly not triplets. it's still a tiny fraction of an ohm.

> >> Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know.

> >
> >the impedance of wire is for all intents, zero. as noted before, 25' of
> >14ga wire is 0.063 ohms and any reactive component is many orders of
> >magnitude lower than that.

>
> Note that I did not say 'resistance'. I said 'impedance' of which
> reactance is a factor.


note that i said reactive component. also note that i said that it's
negligible.

> >> Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the
> >> speaker.

> >
> >it's close enough to zero that it can be considered zero.
> >
> >> Quad puts it as "For optimum performance it is necessary to
> >> ensure that the impedance of the cable is small relative to the
> >> impedance of the load". This makes sense as the amplifier is able to
> >> poke out more than 10 amps under the right conditions.

> >
> >the impedance of the wire *is* small relative to the load.
> >
> >the wire is 0.063 ohms and the load is nominally 8 ohms. even if the
> >load drops to 1-2 ohms at certain frequencies, the wire is still
> >insignificant.
> >
> >> In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the
> >> unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable.

> >
> >definitely not. what you were hearing was what you wanted to hear.

>
> Double blind, remember.


what assurances do you have that all other variables were normalized,
such as same volume level?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Chris Malcolm
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

>
> > Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
> > How much teaching experience do you have?

>
> Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.


so what? that's not important anymore. what's important is digital
workflow.

> >>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
> >>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
> >>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
> >>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
> >>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
> >>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
> >>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
> >>
> >> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
> >> the tools that are different.

>
> > Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.

>
> It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the
> effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the
> effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information
> needed is already contained in the digital image.


exactly correct.

> > Similarly for fau infra-red.

>
> Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
> software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
> exist in the image.


however, it is possible to shoot infrared with digital, and a whole lot
easier than with infrared film.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Chris Malcolm
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
> >>>> the tools that are different.
> >>>
> >>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
> >>> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.
> >>
> >> nothing faux about it.
> >>
> >> solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
> >> darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
> >>

> > You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
> > digitized image to the rays of the sun?

>
> That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
> that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
> the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
> if it wasn't.
>
> > Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

>
> There are important differences between good large expensive
> dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
> dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
> technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
> is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
> is.
>
> Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
> resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.


correct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
In article <51939627$0$10767$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
> > resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.

>
> Yes the results may be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye,


not almost.

they *are* indistinguishable because they are exactly the same.

> but
> the process is not the same. The context of the discussion, was process.


no it wasn't. it was about teaching concepts.

the steps to get there may be different, but that doesn't make any
difference.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> It was a long time ago and my memory is coming back to me. I am using
>>>> a low-oxygen cable but not the fancy stuff that the audiophiles pay
>>>> heaps for. I can't the conductor cross section but it is generous.
>>>
>>> in other words, standard wire.

>>
>> 'Good' standard wire. The bulk of the advantage is mechanical.

>
> what matters is the electrical characteristics of the wire, not its
> mechanical characteristics, which has *no* effect on sound quality.
>
>>>> What I was testing against was a fancy cable where the in and out
>>>> conductors each employed three sets of wires which were interwoven. I
>>>> think that this may have been the conductor which achieved fame by
>>>> blowing up a Naim amplifier as soon as it was connected. Fortunately
>>>> the Quad 606 is "Unconditionally stable with any load and any signal".
>>>> In any case, I could hear the difference and dumped the fancy cable.
>>>
>>> woven wire looks nice. electrically it's meaningless.

>>
>> Not this lot. Three cores in, three cores out, the whole interwoven to
>> form a six ply tube. As I said, the reactance was such that in the old
>> days Naim amplifiers could not tolerate them even for milliseconds.

>
> that's done for looks. you don't need twisted pairs for audio and
> certainly not triplets. it's still a tiny fraction of an ohm.
>
>>>> Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know.
>>>
>>> the impedance of wire is for all intents, zero. as noted before, 25' of
>>> 14ga wire is 0.063 ohms and any reactive component is many orders of
>>> magnitude lower than that.

>>
>> Note that I did not say 'resistance'. I said 'impedance' of which
>> reactance is a factor.

>
> note that i said reactive component. also note that i said that it's
> negligible.
>
>>>> Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the
>>>> speaker.
>>>
>>> it's close enough to zero that it can be considered zero.
>>>
>>>> Quad puts it as "For optimum performance it is necessary to
>>>> ensure that the impedance of the cable is small relative to the
>>>> impedance of the load". This makes sense as the amplifier is able to
>>>> poke out more than 10 amps under the right conditions.
>>>
>>> the impedance of the wire *is* small relative to the load.
>>>
>>> the wire is 0.063 ohms and the load is nominally 8 ohms. even if the
>>> load drops to 1-2 ohms at certain frequencies, the wire is still
>>> insignificant.
>>>
>>>> In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the
>>>> unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable.
>>>
>>> definitely not. what you were hearing was what you wanted to hear.

>>
>> Double blind, remember.

>
> what assurances do you have that all other variables were normalized,
> such as same volume level?
>


And this from the individual who alleges facts based upon unverifiable
observations

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Is there any way to get the raw image data from a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera? Tony Cooper Digital Photography 16 04-17-2013 07:49 PM
Windows 8 - so bad it's hastening the death of the PC? ~misfit~ NZ Computing 18 04-15-2013 04:15 AM
Re: Is there any way to get the raw image data from a Nikon Coolpix S8200 P&S camera? nospam Digital Photography 0 04-09-2013 07:42 PM
Re: Can anyone please help me in resolving the error => Peter Otten Python 0 04-09-2013 07:57 AM
Re: Can anyone please help me in resolving the error => Steven D'Aprano Python 0 04-09-2013 05:14 AM



Advertisments