Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 8, 2013.

  1. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:45:45 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >
    >you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
    >so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
    >dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.


    You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
    would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
    spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.

    You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
    as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
    it.

    Next séance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
    wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
    the SD card.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 16, 2013
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
    > >so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
    > >dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

    >
    > You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
    > would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
    > spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.


    no, that's not the only way.

    surprising as it may seem, ansel adams was not a hermit and spoke to
    many people in his lifetime, who have said he would have been very
    excited to use digital had it been available in his lifetime.

    > You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
    > as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
    > it.


    you are a liar.

    > Next séance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
    > wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
    > the SD card.


    straw man, and kodak, the company george eastman founded, invented
    digital photography anyway.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:17:24 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-05-16 15:28:52 -0700, Tony Cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:45:45 -0400, nospam <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
    >>> so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
    >>> dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

    >>
    >> You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
    >> would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
    >> spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.

    >
    >In the last 20 years of his life, Adams worked hand in hand with
    >Hasselblad. They pretty much sponsored him, supplying him with stock
    >and custom built 'blads.
    >Given what Hasselblad is producing today in MF digital cameras, I
    >believe that it would be fair to guess that he would indeed be using
    >one of their fine digital products. Perhaps one of their fine H4D-60's.
    >

    I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital. What
    I can't do, and wouldn't do, though is put words in his mouth and
    declare that *I* know he would be using digital.


    >> You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
    >> as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
    >> it.
    >>
    >> Next séance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
    >> wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
    >> the SD card.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 17, 2013
    #83
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.


    so you agree with me, yet you argue.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #84
  5. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    >
    >so you agree with me, yet you argue.


    I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    difference is in our positions.

    There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    photograph in color and with a digital camera.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 17, 2013
    #85
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    > >
    > >so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >
    > I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    > agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    > do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    > difference is in our positions.


    i most certainly do. i'm just pointing out that you argue for the sake
    of arguing.

    > There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    > black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    > technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    > photograph in color and with a digital camera.


    it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand digital
    technology and think film is better. anything they can do with film can
    be done better with digital (or the same if they like the look), and
    for less money too.
     
    nospam, May 17, 2013
    #86
  7. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, tonycooper214
    @gmail.com says...
    >
    > On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    > >
    > >so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >
    > I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    > agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    > do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    > difference is in our positions.
    >
    > There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    > black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    > technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    > photograph in color and with a digital camera.


    There are rewards to that approach that go beyond the merely
    photographic. I find that I miss the smell of a freshly opened roll of
    film to take one example. And with digital you never get the experience
    of having the hot girl you just shot deciding to follow you into the
    darkroom . . .
     
    J. Clarke, May 17, 2013
    #87
  8. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:17:33 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <>, tonycooper214
    >
    > @gmail.com says...
    >
    > >

    >
    > > On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>

    >
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > > >In article <>, Tony Cooper

    >
    > > ><> wrote:

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > >so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't

    >
    > > agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would

    >
    > > do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the

    >
    > > difference is in our positions.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively

    >
    > > black and white on film out of choice, not because they are

    >
    > > technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to

    >
    > > photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    >
    >
    >
    > There are rewards to that approach that go beyond the merely
    >
    > photographic. I find that I miss the smell of a freshly opened roll of
    >
    > film to take one example. And with digital you never get the experience
    >
    > of having the hot girl you just shot deciding to follow you into the
    >
    > darkroom . . .


    Time for a bevis and butthead snigger ....
    Haven't seen them on TV for some time.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 17, 2013
    #88
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2013 12:44 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.
    >>>
    >>> so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >>
    >> I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    >> agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    >> do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    >> difference is in our positions.

    >
    > i most certainly do. i'm just pointing out that you argue for the sake
    > of arguing.
    >
    >> There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    >> black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    >> technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    >> photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    >
    > it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand digital
    > technology and think film is better. anything they can do with film can
    > be done better with digital (or the same if they like the look), and
    > for less money too.
    >


    You sound like a Roy Larsen, without intellect.
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2013
    #89
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/17/2013 8:17 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <>, tonycooper214
    > @gmail.com says...
    >>
    >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:55:28 -0400, nospam <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.
    >>>
    >>> so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >>
    >> I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    >> agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    >> do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    >> difference is in our positions.
    >>
    >> There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    >> black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    >> technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    >> photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    >
    > There are rewards to that approach that go beyond the merely
    > photographic. I find that I miss the smell of a freshly opened roll of
    > film to take one example. And with digital you never get the experience
    > of having the hot girl you just shot deciding to follow you into the
    > darkroom . . .
    >


    There are those who go to a brothel for sexual satisfaction, because the
    result is almost certain, and probably less bother.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 17, 2013
    #90
  11. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 May 2013 00:44:58 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> I have no doubt that Adams would have been interested in digital.
    >> >
    >> >so you agree with me, yet you argue.

    >>
    >> I agree that he probably would be interested in digital, but don't
    >> agree that you can make a categorical statement about what he would
    >> do. The sad thing is that you don't even understand what the
    >> difference is in our positions.

    >
    >i most certainly do. i'm just pointing out that you argue for the sake
    >of arguing.
    >
    >> There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    >> black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    >> technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    >> photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    >
    >it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand digital
    >technology and think film is better. anything they can do with film can
    >be done better with digital (or the same if they like the look), and
    >for less money too.


    I could almost get along with you if you didn't make these categorical
    declarations of opinion couched as fact. "Better" is so subjective in
    photography that it's just something that "better" does not apply to.
    You say things like "Adams would..." and "digital...is better" and
    "because they don't understand" as if your opinion is some kind of
    fact. It isn't.

    Neither film nor digital is better except in the opinion of the
    individual.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 18, 2013
    #91
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    > >> black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    > >> technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    > >> photograph in color and with a digital camera.

    > >
    > >it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand digital
    > >technology and think film is better. anything they can do with film can
    > >be done better with digital (or the same if they like the look), and
    > >for less money too.

    >
    > I could almost get along with you if you didn't make these categorical
    > declarations of opinion couched as fact. "Better" is so subjective in
    > photography that it's just something that "better" does not apply to.


    nothing about it is subjective. all of it can be measured, and digital
    surpasses film.

    digital has higher dynamic range, lower noise, higher resolution,
    better colour accuracy (not relevant for b/w but it is for colour), no
    reciprocity failure, significantly higher iso, no grain, does not fade,
    just to name a few.

    again, anything film can do, digital can do better (or downgraded to
    match, for a 'film look').

    > You say things like "Adams would..." and "digital...is better" and
    > "because they don't understand" as if your opinion is some kind of
    > fact. It isn't.
    >
    > Neither film nor digital is better except in the opinion of the
    > individual.


    totally false. see above.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    #92
  13. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 00:01:41 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> There are many photographers today who continue to shoot exclusively
    >> >> black and white on film out of choice, not because they are
    >> >> technologically backwards. They are probably aware of the ability to
    >> >> photograph in color and with a digital camera.
    >> >
    >> >it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand digital
    >> >technology and think film is better. anything they can do with film can
    >> >be done better with digital (or the same if they like the look), and
    >> >for less money too.

    >>
    >> I could almost get along with you if you didn't make these categorical
    >> declarations of opinion couched as fact. "Better" is so subjective in
    >> photography that it's just something that "better" does not apply to.

    >
    >nothing about it is subjective.


    Oh, dear.

    >all of it can be measured, and digital
    >surpasses film.
    >
    >digital has higher dynamic range, lower noise, higher resolution,
    >better colour accuracy (not relevant for b/w but it is for colour), no
    >reciprocity failure, significantly higher iso, no grain, does not fade,
    >just to name a few.


    I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade". Are digital prints
    less likely to fade than prints made from film? As far as I can
    determine, you must be talking about prints.

    That's a straight question, not an argument. I've never seen any data
    on this.

    >again, anything film can do, digital can do better (or downgraded to
    >match, for a 'film look').
    >

    Can digital "do better" for the photographer who takes pleasure in
    shooting with a film camera?

    >> You say things like "Adams would..." and "digital...is better" and
    >> "because they don't understand" as if your opinion is some kind of
    >> fact. It isn't.
    >>
    >> Neither film nor digital is better except in the opinion of the
    >> individual.

    >
    >totally false. see above.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 18, 2013
    #93
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".


    what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    at risk for fire, mold, etc.

    digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever. film will
    not. you can make unlimited identical backups with digital and spread
    them all over the world, so if you lose one copy to fire or flood, you
    have identical copies elsewhere. you can't do that with film.

    > Are digital prints
    > less likely to fade than prints made from film? As far as I can
    > determine, you must be talking about prints.


    nope, i'm talking about the digital image itself, which will never
    fade. it cannot.

    however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.

    > That's a straight question, not an argument. I've never seen any data
    > on this.


    what data do you need to see? it's obvious.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    #94
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 10:47 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".

    >
    > what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    > at risk for fire, mold, etc.


    See
    <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.pdf>

    Digital doesn't degrade. the media does.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 18, 2013
    #95
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <5197a24d$0$10782$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".

    > >
    > > what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    > > at risk for fire, mold, etc.

    >
    > See
    >
    > <http://fht.byu.edu/prev_workshops/workshop07/papers/3/Digital-Preservation.pd
    > f>
    >
    > Digital doesn't degrade.


    exactly the point.

    > the media does.


    who cares. it's not an issue.

    since you can make unlimited identical copies of anything digital, you
    simply migrate to new media every couple of years, something which
    likely happens without even thinking about it when you upgrade
    hardware.

    and since there are multiple backups, if one fails, you have redundant
    copies.

    with film, fire, flood, mold, improper storage conditions, etc., can
    (and has) caused total loss.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    #96
  17. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:47:13 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".

    >
    >what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    >at risk for fire, mold, etc.


    The medium on which the digital image is stored is impervious to fire?
    >
    >digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever. film will
    >not. you can make unlimited identical backups with digital and spread
    >them all over the world, so if you lose one copy to fire or flood, you
    >have identical copies elsewhere. you can't do that with film.
    >
    >> Are digital prints
    >> less likely to fade than prints made from film? As far as I can
    >> determine, you must be talking about prints.

    >
    >nope, i'm talking about the digital image itself, which will never
    >fade. it cannot.


    But...but...but...the image is contained on some sort of medium. Is
    out of the question to think the medium could degrade, be lost in a
    fire or flood, or otherwise be out of the picture (if you'll forgive
    the word play).

    Wait...you're going to say that digital images can be duplicated on
    multiple units. Are you going to add that negatives can't be
    duplicated?

    >however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    >you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.


    You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    negative has faded?

    >> That's a straight question, not an argument. I've never seen any data
    >> on this.

    >
    >what data do you need to see? it's obvious.


    Yes, very obvious...until you think about it.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 18, 2013
    #97
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".

    > >
    > >what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    > >at risk for fire, mold, etc.

    >
    > The medium on which the digital image is stored is impervious to fire?


    could be (they do make fire resistant drives), but regardless, if you
    lose a drive to fire, you buy a new drive and restore it from one of
    your backups. no big deal.

    > >digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever. film will
    > >not. you can make unlimited identical backups with digital and spread
    > >them all over the world, so if you lose one copy to fire or flood, you
    > >have identical copies elsewhere. you can't do that with film.
    > >
    > >> Are digital prints
    > >> less likely to fade than prints made from film? As far as I can
    > >> determine, you must be talking about prints.

    > >
    > >nope, i'm talking about the digital image itself, which will never
    > >fade. it cannot.

    >
    > But...but...but...the image is contained on some sort of medium. Is
    > out of the question to think the medium could degrade, be lost in a
    > fire or flood, or otherwise be out of the picture (if you'll forgive
    > the word play).


    the chances that *all* of your backups will be lost in a fire or flood,
    all at the same time, are *so* remote.

    > Wait...you're going to say that digital images can be duplicated on
    > multiple units. Are you going to add that negatives can't be
    > duplicated?


    what's to add? this is well known, except by you it seems.

    if you copy a negative, there is a generational loss. that's not a
    duplicate, it's a copy.

    if you then lose the original in a fire, then any copy going forward is
    now a 3rd generation copy. more losses.

    contrast that with digital where there is *no* loss, no matter how many
    copies you make. every copy is identical. every copy of a copy is
    identical. you can make ten copies or 10 million copies. every single
    one is identical to the original.

    it's also easier to backup digital images because it can be completely
    automated. there is nothing for the user to do other than copy them to
    their computer, and actually they don't even need to do that anymore.

    how many people do you know who regularly copy of all of their film
    photos? i bet it's zero. the process is far too time consuming for
    people to bother, except on rare occasion for something unique, and
    then it's just that one photo.

    > >however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    > >you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.

    >
    > You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    > can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    > negative has faded?


    yes, it has faded. you could make a print but it won't be as good as
    the original you had back in your film days.

    also, depending on the film, it might have faded a lot. look at colour
    prints from the 70s. blech.

    > >> That's a straight question, not an argument. I've never seen any data
    > >> on this.

    > >
    > >what data do you need to see? it's obvious.

    >
    > Yes, very obvious...until you think about it.


    then why don't you start thinking about it.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    #98
  19. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:45:57 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    >> >
    >> >what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    >> >at risk for fire, mold, etc.

    >>
    >> The medium on which the digital image is stored is impervious to fire?

    >
    >could be (they do make fire resistant drives), but regardless, if you
    >lose a drive to fire, you buy a new drive and restore it from one of
    >your backups. no big deal.
    >
    >> >digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever. film will
    >> >not. you can make unlimited identical backups with digital and spread
    >> >them all over the world, so if you lose one copy to fire or flood, you
    >> >have identical copies elsewhere. you can't do that with film.
    >> >
    >> >> Are digital prints
    >> >> less likely to fade than prints made from film? As far as I can
    >> >> determine, you must be talking about prints.
    >> >
    >> >nope, i'm talking about the digital image itself, which will never
    >> >fade. it cannot.

    >>
    >> But...but...but...the image is contained on some sort of medium. Is
    >> out of the question to think the medium could degrade, be lost in a
    >> fire or flood, or otherwise be out of the picture (if you'll forgive
    >> the word play).

    >
    >the chances that *all* of your backups will be lost in a fire or flood,
    >all at the same time, are *so* remote.
    >
    >> Wait...you're going to say that digital images can be duplicated on
    >> multiple units. Are you going to add that negatives can't be
    >> duplicated?

    >
    >what's to add? this is well known, except by you it seems.
    >
    >if you copy a negative, there is a generational loss. that's not a
    >duplicate, it's a copy.
    >
    >if you then lose the original in a fire, then any copy going forward is
    >now a 3rd generation copy. more losses.
    >
    >contrast that with digital where there is *no* loss, no matter how many
    >copies you make. every copy is identical. every copy of a copy is
    >identical. you can make ten copies or 10 million copies. every single
    >one is identical to the original.
    >
    >it's also easier to backup digital images because it can be completely
    >automated. there is nothing for the user to do other than copy them to
    >their computer, and actually they don't even need to do that anymore.
    >
    >how many people do you know who regularly copy of all of their film
    >photos? i bet it's zero. the process is far too time consuming for
    >people to bother, except on rare occasion for something unique, and
    >then it's just that one photo.


    For that matter, how many people make multiple back-ups of their
    digital files? Mine are on my hard drive, on both of my external
    drives, and some (but not all) are on disks in my safety deposit box.
    Also, disks of the best of each year's family photos are sent to my
    son and daughter. Then, some are up on Dropbox.

    I would say, though, that the majority of amateur photographers have -
    at most - one backup set and most don't even have one backup set.
    While it is easy, it's not done all that much.
    >
    >> >however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    >> >you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.

    >>
    >> You can't? I have a drawer full of negatives from my film days. I
    >> can't make a print from one of those negatives? The image on the
    >> negative has faded?

    >
    >yes, it has faded. you could make a print but it won't be as good as
    >the original you had back in your film days.
    >
    >also, depending on the film, it might have faded a lot. look at colour
    >prints from the 70s. blech.


    But isn't that "twisting" and changing the subject? The issue isn't
    prints. Prints from digital may fade in time.


    >> >> That's a straight question, not an argument. I've never seen any data
    >> >> on this.
    >> >
    >> >what data do you need to see? it's obvious.

    >>
    >> Yes, very obvious...until you think about it.

    >
    >then why don't you start thinking about it.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 18, 2013
    #99
  20. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:47:13 -0400, nospam <> wrote:
    : In article <>, Tony Cooper
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : > I'm not sure what you mean by "does not fade".
    :
    : what's to not understand? digital doesn't fade. film does. film is also
    : at risk for fire, mold, etc.
    :
    : digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever. film will
    : not. you can make unlimited identical backups with digital and spread
    : them all over the world, so if you lose one copy to fire or flood, you
    : have identical copies elsewhere. you can't do that with film.
    :
    : > Are digital prints
    : > less likely to fade than prints made from film? As far as I can
    : > determine, you must be talking about prints.
    :
    : nope, i'm talking about the digital image itself, which will never
    : fade. it cannot.
    :
    : however, a print might, depending on the printer and ink, in which case
    : you print another identical copy. can't do that with film.
    :
    : > That's a straight question, not an argument. I've never seen any data
    : > on this.
    :
    : what data do you need to see? it's obvious.

    I think nospam is trying to refer to the negative (which is indeed subject to
    fading, water damage, and other physical degradation), but doesn't remember
    what it was called.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 18, 2013
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    3,050
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. One-Shot Scot

    Rental DVDs: "Rental Only - Not For Resale."

    One-Shot Scot, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,550
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
  3. Mikhail
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    390
    Stephen
    Jul 28, 2009
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    190
    Sandman
    Sep 2, 2013
  5. RichA

    Apple's foray into the "service/rental economy"

    RichA, Jun 3, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    757
    Whisky-dave
    Jun 17, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page