Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

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

  1. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:08:00 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    And a lot cheaper in the long run, and less grief ;-)
     
    Whisky-dave, May 21, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:47:13 PM UTC+1, 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.


    So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure or distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just from titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures either.


    >
    >
    >
    > digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever.


    No sauch thing as digita unless yo're talking about the idea of 1s and 0s or Ns and Ss but they rarely make very intersting pictures.


    > 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.


    Which is why prints are worth more than a digital 'image'.



    > > 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.


    Because it doesn;t exist as an image, it's just a list of numbers which is decode corectly will be seen as an image either or as screen or on other media.


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


    No, which is what maeks a print worth more, and the film it was printed from worth more for a collector.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 21, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:16:23 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > let's see you start with a blank document and create a photo.


    That's the point you can't with digital because a photo is the result of light.
    Paintign aren't called photos they never were and never will be, that's whyis you want to take photo's film is the way to go. Now if yuo want to collect pictures then maybe cut them out of a magazine.
    Photos use light but I guess if you use a photocopier which still uses light that's why they are called a photocopy rather than a digital copy.
    A printer does not use light in it's processes so I don't get a photo from a printer I get a print NOT a phot but a printed picture.


    > after all, you can add what wasn't there.


    and take away what was there too.


    > and this isn't about compositing anyway. the original example above
    >
    > removed a tear, adding what looks like should have been where the tear
    >
    > was. you can only add what you *think* was there, not what really was
    >
    > there.


    Depends how much you jknow about the original scene.


    > but why am i not surprised you keep changing things.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I could replace those gloves in her hand with an iPad, and I imagine

    >
    > > you could too.

    >
    >
    >
    > which is done digitally, with photoshop.


    That's one way, there are others.


    >
    > let's see you do it with film. good luck.


    Wedding photographers used to do that all the time, the classic reflection in a wine glass, but they didn;t do it with fil;m they did it using light or rather the holding back and buring in of an differnt image, which required quite a bit of skill unlike using photoshop where it's just a bit of practising with the cloning.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 21, 2013
  4. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:47:13 PM UTC+1, 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.

    >
    > So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure or distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just from titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures either.


    So how often do a dozen DVDs stored in different locations all get mold
    at the same time?

    > > digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever.

    >
    > No sauch thing as digita unless yo're talking about the idea of 1s and 0s or Ns and Ss but they rarely make very intersting pictures.


    Oh, to Hell with it. <plonk>
    >
     
    J. Clarke, May 21, 2013
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> 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.

    >
    > So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure or
    > distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just from
    > titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures either.


    so you've never heard of multiple backups on different media?

    > > digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever.

    >
    > No sauch thing as digita unless yo're talking about the idea of 1s and 0s or
    > Ns and Ss but they rarely make very intersting pictures.


    then there's no such thing as film images since it's just grains
    arranged in a certain pattern.

    > > 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.

    >
    > Which is why prints are worth more than a digital 'image'.


    no they aren't.

    > > > 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.

    >
    > Because it doesn;t exist as an image, it's just a list of numbers which is
    > decode corectly will be seen as an image either or as screen or on other
    > media.


    film images don't exist either. it's just a bunch of microscopic grains
    arranged in a certain pattern.

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

    >
    > No, which is what maeks a print worth more, and the film it was printed
    > from worth more for a collector.


    the original data file is worth more than any print.
     
    nospam, May 21, 2013
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > let's see you start with a blank document and create a photo.

    >
    > That's the point you can't with digital because a photo is the result of
    > light.


    digital images are the result of light.

    > Paintign aren't called photos they never were and never will be, that's why
    > is you want to take photo's film is the way to go. Now if yuo want to collect
    > pictures then maybe cut them out of a magazine.
    > Photos use light but I guess if you use a photocopier which still uses light
    > that's why they are called a photocopy rather than a digital copy.


    digital images are photos. they use light.

    > A printer does not use light in it's processes so I don't get a photo from a
    > printer I get a print NOT a phot but a printed picture.


    some printers use light, not that it matters.

    take a film photo, scan it and print it on an inkjet printer. is that
    still a photo?

    ...snip..

    > Wedding photographers used to do that all the time, the classic reflection in
    > a wine glass, but they didn;t do it with fil;m they did it using light or rather
    > the holding back and buring in of an differnt image, which required quite
    > a bit of skill unlike using photoshop where it's just a bit of practising with
    > the cloning.


    photoshop takes skill. you don't just click the clone tool and instant
    fix.
     
    nospam, May 21, 2013
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:52:58 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > says...
    >
    > >

    >
    > > On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:47:13 PM UTC+1, 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure or distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just from titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures either.

    >
    >
    >
    > So how often do a dozen DVDs stored in different locations all get mold
    >
    > at the same time?


    How many people store DVDs in differnt locations ?
    How many people store prints in differnt locations ?

    It's certainly easier to keep digital copies of anything in differnt places.

    Strangley enough I found some of my earilest prints over the weekend going back to mid 70s, but I can't find my earilest digital pictures.

    Although one of my eariest being on this PC here is a little strange.


    it's a BMP 352X288
    date created 27/06/2011 11:11
    date modified 19/04/2002 12:39
    size 297KB.

    Handy to have such things as dates and times recorded provided they make sense that is.


    > > > digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > No sauch thing as digita unless yo're talking about the idea of 1s and 0s or Ns and Ss but they rarely make very intersting pictures.

    >
    >
    >
    > Oh, to Hell with it. <plonk>


    Well those that claim digital is better without actually saying what they are comparing it to or in what way.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 22, 2013
  8. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:55:09 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure or

    >
    > > distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just from

    >
    > > titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures either.

    >
    >
    >
    > so you've never heard of multiple backups on different media?


    I have but most people haven't, most people don't even check their backups are OK, or can be recovered.


    > > > digital will last forever with no degradation whatsoever.

    >
    > > No sauch thing as digita unless yo're talking about the idea of 1s and 0s or

    >
    > > Ns and Ss but they rarely make very intersting pictures.

    >
    >
    >
    > then there's no such thing as film images since it's just grains
    >
    > arranged in a certain pattern.


    In a very particualar pattern set at that moment in time.
    Most people are prepared to pay more for such a thing than a digital copy.
    Take a digital copy of any picture and I doubt it'll be worth more than the original despite the fact that some will say digital is better.


    > > > 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Which is why prints are worth more than a digital 'image'.

    >
    >
    >
    > no they aren't.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

    The vast majority of these are all before digital came about.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 22, 2013
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > > So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure
    > > > or distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just
    > > > from titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures
    > > > either.

    > >
    > > So how often do a dozen DVDs stored in different locations all get mold
    > > at the same time?

    >
    > How many people store DVDs in differnt locations ?
    > How many people store prints in differnt locations ?


    just because people are irresponsible doesn't mean the technology is
    bad.

    > It's certainly easier to keep digital copies of anything in differnt places.


    exactly.
     
    nospam, May 22, 2013
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:


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

    > >
    > > > So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure or
    > > > distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just from
    > > > titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures either.

    > >
    > > so you've never heard of multiple backups on different media?

    >
    > I have but most people haven't, most people don't even check their backups
    > are OK, or can be recovered.


    that's their own fault, not the fault of the technology.

    people also stored photos in non-ideal conditions, such as a damp
    basement.
     
    nospam, May 22, 2013
  11. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:35:22 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > > So is digital you've not heard of DVD mould or even scratches and erasure

    >
    > > > > or distortion due to heat or other damage some damge can be done just

    >
    > > > > from titling the CD/DVD. You've never heard of hard diosc faliures

    >
    > > > > either.

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > So how often do a dozen DVDs stored in different locations all get mold

    >
    > > > at the same time?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > How many people store DVDs in differnt locations ?

    >
    > > How many people store prints in differnt locations ?

    >
    >
    >
    > just because people are irresponsible doesn't mean the technology is
    >
    > bad.


    I've never said technology is ba, the effect it hasn't isn't always good and mostly makes peolpe lazy, I bet few peole can remmber phone munmbers as well as they use dto or do simple maths in their head.

    >
    > > It's certainly easier to keep digital copies of anything in differnt places.

    >
    >
    >
    > exactly.


    That doesnt; make digital better or worth more
     
    Whisky-dave, May 22, 2013
    1. Advertisements

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.
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.