Velocity Reviews > The disappearance of darkness

# The disappearance of darkness

PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote:
> 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.

Who the hell are you to decide what's important.
Learning how to cook is not important in Japan, because they eat raw
fish. In the US cooking is not important because in addition to eating
raw fish, we eat steak tartar and pre-cooked TV dinners. \\end sarcastic tag

>
>>>>> 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.
>

--
PeterN

Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:20:51 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> 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.

No **** sherlock so why do they suppress drills and other motors if yuo can;'t heqar the frequancies the emit, and why do most apmpliers block DC if you can't hear it ?
If a speaker or output device is putting out a frequancy above yuor hearing ability it doesn't mean it's not doing anything it is using power and disapating that power

> > > 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.

It will, those freuencies DO have an effect on the circuits.

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

>
>
>
> for speaker cables, that's all that matters.

Try puttign a few voilts DC on those speaker cables see if you cvan still hear anything.

Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:20:55 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> 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 understandwhat'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,

you can't shoot with digital, digital is what comes out of the sensors andprocessed. Lok it up in teh dictionary digital is NOT a device.

and a whole lot
>
> easier than with infrared film.

How do yuo work that one out.
I shot IR with my canon A1 film camera I brought a roill of film put it in my camera took the photos adn handed teh film over to the processor and I collected it a week or so later. Now if I were to use my canon G10 or my friends 7D or 550D how would I go about shooting IR ?
I was told I had to send my camera in to have it altered.

PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote:
> 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. > We have already established your credentials to express an educated opinion on teaching methodology. -- PeterN nospam Guest Posts: n/a  05-15-2013 In article <5193a9b9$0$10783$(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 is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.

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

>
> Who the hell are you to decide what's important.

i didn't decide. the world decided. the future is digital.

film is going away and without film, there is no need for processing.

kodak is bankrupt. kodachome is no more. camera stores are closing
because the bulk of their income was processing film and that's gone.

meanwhile, more and more people are learning digital workflows.

> Learning how to cook is not important in Japan, because they eat raw
> fish. In the US cooking is not important because in addition to eating
> raw fish, we eat steak tartar and pre-cooked TV dinners. \\end sarcastic tag

you make my point for me and you probably don't even realize it.

nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
In article <5193a6fc$0$10819$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: > And this from the individual who alleges facts based upon unverifiable > observations not only is it verifiable but i told you how to verify all of it. stop lying. nospam Guest Posts: n/a  05-15-2013 In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: > > you can't hear what's outside the range of human hearing. > > No **** sherlock so why do they suppress drills and other motors if yuo > can;'t heqar the frequancies the emit, and why do most apmpliers block DC if > you can't hear it ? blocking dc is needed to avoid burning out components. > If a speaker or output device is putting out a frequancy above yuor hearing > ability it doesn't mean it's not doing anything it is using power and > disapating that power so what? you can't hear it, and the difference in power for high frequencies is negligible anyway. this is about wasting money on overpriced cables and other garbage that makes absolutely no difference in sound. > > > > 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. > > It will, those freuencies DO have an effect on the circuits. this isn't about circuit design, it's about whether you can hear a difference with various hyped cables, components and other crap. increasing the frequency response out to 30khz or 40khz is pointless. you can't hear it. > > > If you're only interest is in what the human ear can hear. > > > > for speaker cables, that's all that matters. > > Try puttign a few voilts DC on those speaker cables see if you cvan still hear anything. what's your point? submerge the speakers in water. then what? nospam Guest Posts: n/a  05-15-2013 In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: > > > > 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, > > you can't shoot with digital, people shoot with digital every day, and shoot way the hell more than they ever did with film. > digital is what comes out of the sensors and > processed. Lok it up in teh dictionary digital is NOT a device. a digital sensor is a device. a digital camera is a device. not that it matters. > and a whole lot > > > > easier than with infrared film. > > How do yuo work that one out. > I shot IR with my canon A1 film camera I brought a roill of film put it in my > camera took the photos adn handed teh film over to the processor and I > collected it a week or so later. Now if I were to use my canon G10 or my > friends 7D or 550D how would I go about shooting IR ? put an infrared filter on the lens and shoot. the results are instant. no need for special film with special handling. and be careful which canon slr you use. some of them had infrared film advance that counted sprocket holes. other cameras are not opaque to infrared light. > I was told I had to send my camera in to have it altered. that helps but is not required. digital cameras are optimized for normal photography, but there's nothing about them that precludes infrared photography. if you don't have it modified, the exposures will be long because of the infrared cut filter in front of the sensor. if you remove the ir cut filter, exposures will be in a more normal range. that just makes it easier. for some cameras, the difference is not much, such as on the canon g1, which didn't have a very strong infrared cut filter. there are also digital cameras designed just for infrared (and ultraviolet too), such as the fuji uvir. <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2006/8/9/fujifilms3prouvir> on sigma slrs, the 'dust filter' can be removed which is also the infrared cut filter, so the camera can be switched from normal to infrared and back at any time. unfortunately, you have to deal with it being a sigma slr and all its pitfalls. it's also not that hard to break the filter, so plan on getting a spare. PeterN Guest Posts: n/a  05-15-2013 On 5/15/2013 12:01 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <5193a6fc$0$10819$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> And this from the individual who alleges facts based upon unverifiable
>> observations

>
> not only is it verifiable but i told you how to verify all of it. stop
> lying.
>

\So you know how to verify your observations, that were made at an
indeterminate time! Yup! I guess I missed that posting.

--
PeterN

Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-13 12:26:51 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-08 21:15:54 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>>>> BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
>>>> BASIC meaning.

>>> Yup! More than "some" less than "all".

>> Much more fun is "almost all" and mathematicians.

> That could be translated as "all, except for that guy".

In fact it's translated to have only a finite number of
counter examples (while infinitely ones follow the rule).

Every single human is still a very finite number.

-Wolfgang