Velocity Reviews > The disappearance of darkness

# The disappearance of darkness

PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
On 5/15/2013 12:01 PM, nospam wrote:
> 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. Is one life important? After all there are billions of people on this planet. > >> 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. > Yes indeed I do understand your point. You don't have any sarcasm detector, nor do you recognize the drily logical conclusion of your "logic" -- PeterN J. Clarke Guest Posts: n/a  05-15-2013 In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says... > > 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.

Close enough for all practical purposes, yes. EXACTLY the same, no.
Paper has grain too you know. You would have to have a printer with
resolution much higher than the grain dimension to emulate the grain in
the paper and having done so, it would still be possible to detect the
pixel pattern of the printer at high enough magnification.

nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(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.

>
> You are so certain but you should read
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect

The hypersonic effect is a term coined to describe a phenomenon
reported in a controversial scientific study by Tsutomu Oohashi et al.

controversial study? seriously? that's supposed to convince me?

i guess you didn't read very far:

Numerous other studies have contradicted the portion of the results
relating to the subjective reaction to high-frequency audio, finding
that people who have "good ears"[6] listening to Super Audio CDs and
high resolution DVD-Audio recordings[7] on high fidelity systems
capable of reproducing sounds up to 30*kHz[8] cannot tell the
difference between high resolution audio and the normal CD sampling
rate of 44.1*kHz.[6][9]
....
480 man-hours of listening tests conducted at the London AES
convention in 1980 by Laurie Finchman of KEF concluded that subjects
could not distinguish a 20*kHz band limited version of a test signal
from the original played back on equipment capable of reproducing
sound up to 40*kHz.[4]
....
In September 2007, two members of the Boston Audio Society and the
Audio Engineering Society published their study in which about half
of the 554 double-blind ABX test listening trials made by 60
respondents showed the correct identification of high-resolution or
CD-standard sampling rate. The results were no better than flipping a
coin, producing 274 correct identifications (49.5% success), and it
would have required at least 301 correct identifications given 554
trials (a modest 54.3% success rate) to exceed a 95% statistical
confidence of audible difference, which will happen about once in
twenty such tests by chance alone.[6]

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

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

>
> http://www.matthewrobinson.pwp.bluey...uk/cables.html
>
> "The reasoning goes something like this: All power amplifiers
> require certain electrical conditions to be met in their output
> stages to ensure they remain stable in operation. All power
> amplifiers need to be connected to speaker cable in order to be
> used and all cables will have electrical properties. If you know
> these properties in advance then it turns out you can simplify and
> improve the design of the output stage of a power amplifier by
> using the cable as part of the circuit. Of course this means that
> a cable with the appropriate electrical characteristics must be
> used with Naim amplifiers.

then include the correct cables, ones which cannot be removed. that way
you can't ever use the 'wrong' cables.

> This is the reason for Naim insisting on using Naim supplied
> speaker cable and for the minimum length requirement of 3.5m. If
> the cable does not meet these criteria then the output stage of
> the amplifier can become unstable and potentially cause damage to
> both the amplifiers and the speakers.
>
> For the technically minded the assumed electrical characteristics
> of the speaker cable are as follows:
>
> 1.3 - 1.5microHenries per metre (Loop)
> About 25milliOhms per meter (loop)
> MIN Length 3.5 metres

you do realize how tiny these numbers are, right?

for reference, a speaker is nominally 8 ohms and you're worried about
25 milliohms or 20 picofarads? even if a speaker is 4 ohms, it's still
insignificant.

> Also note there is a specific warning not to use Litz type high
> capacitance cables."

design defect.

nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know.
> > Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the
> > speaker. 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.
> >
> > In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the
> > unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable.

>
> If the impedance of the cable is not 0 (or reasonably close) then it
> becomes part of the system. Multiple insulated strands of conductor
> will have higher impedance to be sure.
>
> Some might mistake "change" in the sound for "improvement" in the sound
> when it is in fact a distortion of the recording.

true. that's why people like the 'warmth' of vinyl. it's distortion,

> Really - if you could hear any change, the best thing to do was get
> progressively fatter copper until there was no more audible change
> between progressively fatter copper cables.

yep, but you can't sell that for high markup.

> One reference I found claims that total cable resistance should be less
> than 5% of the speaker impedance. So, for a 4 ‡ load a resistance of
> 0.2 ‡ over the length of the cable is acceptable. Just get a fatter
> cable if not sure.

and 25 feet of 14ga is 0.063 ohms. that's 1.6%, well under 5%.

nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, J. Clarke
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > 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.

>
> Close enough for all practical purposes, yes. EXACTLY the same, no.
> Paper has grain too you know. You would have to have a printer with
> resolution much higher than the grain dimension to emulate the grain in
> the paper and having done so, it would still be possible to detect the
> pixel pattern of the printer at high enough magnification.

if you have to go to that extreme it to find any difference, then it
can be considered to be the same.

you can always print it on photo paper anyway.

Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-15-2013
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:41:46 -0400, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> Really - if you could hear any change, the best thing to do was get
>> progressively fatter copper until there was no more audible change
>> between progressively fatter copper cables.

>
>yep, but you can't sell that for high markup.

I thought your position is that anything that has higher specs can't
be considered higher in price?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-16-2013
On 5/15/2013 7:34 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:41:46 -0400, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>> Really - if you could hear any change, the best thing to do was get
>>> progressively fatter copper until there was no more audible change
>>> between progressively fatter copper cables.

>>
>> yep, but you can't sell that for high markup.

>
> I thought your position is that anything that has higher specs can't
> be considered higher in price?
>

It depends on his argument at the moment.

--
PeterN

Peter Irwin
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-16-2013
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> and 25 feet of 14ga is 0.063 ohms. that's 1.6%, well under 5%.

If the cable is 25 feet long then you have fifty feet of wire
in series with the speaker so 0.126 ohms.

If the speaker has a minimum Z of 5 ohms, then you will get
just over 0.2 dB loss in the wire which is borderline audible.

loss in dB = 20 log10(5.126/5)
= .216...

That being said, production variations in good loudspeakers
are rather larger than this so there is no sense in worrying
about even twice that much resistance.

Peter.
--
(E-Mail Removed)

J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-16-2013
In article <2013051516262729560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>
> On 2013-05-15 13:38:33 -0700, "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> > says...

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

> >
> > Close enough for all practical purposes, yes. EXACTLY the same, no.

>
> That seems to be a valid statement.
> The issue here is, chemical solarization was never consistent, and
> results depended on the actual technique used. The failure rates could
> be quite high. The "solarization" effect applied using a filter in the
> digital darkroom is a little more consistent, predictable, and
> adjustable. The one area where chemical and digital solarization is
> exactly the same, is the revelation that not all images deserve to be
> punished with a solarization treatment.
>
> > Paper has grain too you know. You would have to have a printer with
> > resolution much higher than the grain dimension to emulate the grain in
> > the paper and having done so, it would still be possible to detect the
> > pixel pattern of the printer at high enough magnification.

>
> Why? Most contemporary photo printers are capable of dealing with
> papers with a range of textures ranging from high gloss to canvas or
> linen.
> You are not emulating the grain, or texture of the paper.

I am using "grain" in the photographic sense.

> That texture
> is very real. What you will have to do, is use the correct
> printer/paper icc profile.
> I use Red River paper, printing with my R2880, mostly their 68Lb
> UltraPro Gloss, PolarPearl Metallic, 50Lb Premium Matte, & 68Lb
> UltraPro Satin, and I use the printer/paper icc profiles supplied by
> Red River. I have also used their linen and canvas papers which have
> the textures their name implies, again using the appropriate profiles.
>
> Then there is what you can do to an image in post processing using
> various texture layers to create aged, or grunge effects, and that is
> something which was not possible to do in the wet darkroom.

J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-16-2013
In article <2013051519460699097-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>
> On 2013-05-15 19:05:46 -0700, "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > In article <2013051516262729560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> > savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2013-05-15 13:38:33 -0700, "J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> >>> says...
> >>
> >> <<< Le Snip >>>
> >>
> >>>> Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
> >>>> resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.
> >>>
> >>> Close enough for all practical purposes, yes. EXACTLY the same, no.
> >>
> >> That seems to be a valid statement.
> >> The issue here is, chemical solarization was never consistent, and
> >> results depended on the actual technique used. The failure rates could
> >> be quite high. The "solarization" effect applied using a filter in the
> >> digital darkroom is a little more consistent, predictable, and
> >> adjustable. The one area where chemical and digital solarization is
> >> exactly the same, is the revelation that not all images deserve to be
> >> punished with a solarization treatment.
> >>
> >>> Paper has grain too you know. You would have to have a printer with
> >>> resolution much higher than the grain dimension to emulate the grain in
> >>> the paper and having done so, it would still be possible to detect the
> >>> pixel pattern of the printer at high enough magnification.
> >>
> >> Why? Most contemporary photo printers are capable of dealing with
> >> papers with a range of textures ranging from high gloss to canvas or
> >> linen.
> >> You are not emulating the grain, or texture of the paper.

> >
> > I am using "grain" in the photographic sense.

>
> Then why even mention paper if all you are going to do is view the
> shots on a display?

Who said anything about viewing the shots on a display?

The emulsion on photographic paper is composed of silver halide grains,
just like the emulsion on film. The difference is that the grains are
much smaller, hence the paper is "slower", and in normal use the paper
is seldom observed under high magnification.

"EXACTLY the same" would replicate the silver halide grains in the paper
without creating any detectable fine structure within that replication.

From a practical viewpoint it makes no difference--the grains in the
emulsion on the paper are too small to see with the unaided eye, but to
claim EXACT replication they still need to be there.

> Printing shouldn't be an issue of any kind, and any print would
> represent the final work done in post on whichever paper you might
> choose.

But it would not be EXACTLY the same as if it was printed on
photographic paper from a negative using an enlarger and wet chemistry.
Close enough for all ordinary purpose, yes. Close enough that a well
equipped forensic laboratory could not determine the difference, no.

> So I give you these, which were worked over to give a somewhat medium
> soft grained B&W conversion.
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...C5652Ae-1w.jpg >
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...C_7826EA2w.jpg >
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...3812Ase-Ew.jpg >

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what point you are making. I was not
talking about the grain in the film.