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 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
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
    #83
  4. 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
    #84
  5. 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
    #85
  6. 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
    #86
  7. 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
    #87
  8. 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
    #88
  9. 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
    #89
  10. 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
    #90
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > 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.


    bad attempt at a jab.

    apparently you don't remember slides, which are also film and also
    subject to the same problems.

    it's not just negatives.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    #91
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > For that matter, how many people make multiple back-ups of their
    > digital files?


    not enough.

    > 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.


    that's more than most people do.

    > 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.


    yes, that's unfortunate.

    > >> >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.


    they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    advancements in printer and inks.

    which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    they used to.

    with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    #92
  13. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:36:22 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >they used to.
    >
    >with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.


    That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 18, 2013
    #93
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >they used to.
    > >
    > >with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.

    >
    > That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.


    you can't add what was never there.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2013
    #94
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <201305181538569530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    > >>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    > >>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    > >>> they used to.
    > >>>
    > >>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    > >>
    > >> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    > >> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    > >> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.

    > >
    > > you can't add what was never there.

    >
    > ...but you can fix damage.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >


    you can but it's not exactly what was originally there, however, it's
    probably close enough not to matter.

    don't forget, retouching that took time, and in some cases, it can be a
    *lot* of time.

    for digital, you get new algorithms in raw processing without any extra
    work. just click the checkbox to use the new algorithm versus the old
    and you get the benefits. no additional effort, other than a one time
    checkbox.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
    #95
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 12:03 PM, nospam wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
    #96
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2013 5:36 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> For that matter, how many people make multiple back-ups of their
    >> digital files?

    >
    > not enough.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > that's more than most people do.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > yes, that's unfortunate.
    >
    >>>>> 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.

    >
    > they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    > identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    > advancements in printer and inks.


    Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 19, 2013
    #97
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51981778$0$10766$-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.
    > >> pdf>
    > >>
    > >> 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.

    >
    > Congratulations. I hereby nominate that comment, for the MACY award.
    > (Most Asinine Comment of the Year.)


    more of your usual insults and nothing whatsoever to refute anything i
    said.

    my point stands.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
    #98
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51981a67$0$10837$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>> 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.

    > >
    > > they might, but the original data is the same, so another print will be
    > > identical to the previous one and quite possibly it could better due to
    > > advancements in printer and inks.

    >
    > Possibly, if the ICC profile of the printer and paper have not changed.


    doesn't matter if it has or not. go learn about colour management
    before you say more stupid things.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
    #99
  20. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-05-18 15:11:18 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >
    >> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> which brings up another point, advancements in raw processing can make
    >>>> old images look better too. use lightroom's latest noise reduction, for
    >>>> instance, and those noisy photos taken 10 years ago look better than
    >>>> they used to.
    >>>>
    >>>> with film, what you have is what you have. it can't ever get better.
    >>>
    >>> That will come as a surprise to those of us who have scanned old
    >>> family prints and processed them in Photoshop and/or used a program
    >>> like Noiseware or Nik's Dlight.

    >>
    >> you can't add what was never there.

    >
    >...but you can fix damage.
    >< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_224.jpg >


    Evidently, nospam is not proficient in Photoshop if he thinks you
    can't improve, or even add what wasn't there, in Photoshop.

    I could replace those gloves in her hand with an iPad, and I imagine
    you could too.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 19, 2013
    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.