But herein you still have the problem of a process developed by man through his knowledge of chemical composition to contend with. I still don't think you will ever be able to record all possible colors and informations present in our perceived or unconscious vision so long as the process is developed by and dependant upon people.

This ties in to why I like filming so much. (oh shit - here comes a segueway)

Even if you can't glean all the information present through light and color, you can glean a vast majority of the missing information through sound. Again, if it's analog it is comparable to chemical celluloid in that is picks up everything put into it, yet it is still limited by human knowledge of how sound works. Don't even get me started on the vast superiority of analog sound over digital. (Gets out her 10-foot-pole)

~spidey

Edited to fix my "that made no sense" quote

I have some photography sites, including my Facebook page which I would be willing to share with people in private messaging in personal confidence. I photograph religious subjects, my child, landscapes, mostly.

Not with our tools right now. No. We can't record OR perceive all information present.

With the chemical process, natural elements naturally react to light, which triggers a self perpetuating, non human dependant chemical reaction.

Chemicals are still a natural element reacting to wavelengths we have not tampered with or limited.

With digi, it's all been tampered with and limited by severely confined boundaries.

At least with film you get 'more' information. Not to mention you don't wreck your eyes and tweak your brain process.

With digi you just get - well not much of anything new. Just a limited set of averaged opinions of consciously watered down averaged color that is filed into a grid on the graph





Yeah. We're paying for discs that will break down and decode them selves in a few decades. I can still pop my cassettes from fifteen, twenty years ago in and the noize is deep, and rich and worth every. Single. Penny. I. Paid.

And vinyls. Oh gosh. My mom won't let me say words like that in public.

No it is limited to understanding how the process works. And unlimited by recognizing a limitation and evolving the process to include the absence of the limitation.

And my segue for sound would be into the comparison of the light wave to the sound wave in its natural state. In both of those things, we don't tinker, limit or mess with the WAVES in their natural state. Not the waves them selves. We just imprint aspects of the waves with the tools we have. And our perception of them happens on many levels.

And then you get into the language communication of the nature of the wave lengths into our direct subconscious level.

Which is what digi processes are removing altogether. The direct energy/wave length 'language' which communicates to our subconscious and basic neural electric synapse function of thought - wave - pattern.

And don't you just love how they refer to this as "advanced technology" or "superior" to analog media?  



Hee hee, I know what you mean there. I still go trolling for vinyl even though I no longer have a player. For a short while I was tempted to get myself one of those new vinyl to mp3 player thingys, but I thought better of it. If I get those bad boys out, I want them to be on an old turntable with big-ass speakers.



I don't know why, but that made me giggle.

There is some hope. The powers that be have recognized that they missed something in the race for "smaller/faster/more capacity" chips (at least insofar as cameras are concerned) and have begun to create larger, more light-sensitive chips. Maybe they'll eventually nail it by combining some sort of chemical process with the technology. Not exactly going backwards, just improving on a flawed technology.

I think they make technology that they know is flawed and just figure that the general public won't pick up on the missing chunks, and unfortunately that's what happens a lot of the time. People want "smaller/faster/higher capacity" so they can contend with the Jones amd they are willing to overlook flaws in the technology, which then perpetuates the prevalance of the industry to continue creating flawed technologies.  


~spidey

Yeah the whole bigger (or smaller as the case may be) faster now mind set is a waste of time.

But the thing that gets me is, people don;t realize digital isn't a light reactionary input process. That's just it. It is a color averaging process which files the color imprint onto a graph made up of little bitty pixel boxes.

It's why it is called graphics. And digital imagery. It isn't photography.

I hope they keep doing their thing. It's a cool process. They just need to lay off trying to kill photography. They are being idiots. Photography is where they GET all their information to develop their technology from. Digital imagery and  computer graphics aren't self supporting, self defined  processes. They are sub classes of ideals Photography provided.

The biggest thing is that the old photography, black and white film, with the "old school" cameras that you have to adjust yourself, actually presents a challenge. And when it's done right, you can make some really cool effects. One picture I took, I focussed to look as if I was in the cornfield, when I was actually in front of it, and it looks as if I'm lost.

http://mangledcorpse.deviantart.com/art/Lost-47937110

And then I got a pretty rose picture. Haha. Both these prints from my first roll of film. I need to take more pictures. Hehee, haven't found time though. I eventually will! I swear it!

http://mangledcorpse.deviantart.com/art/Life-47937353

That corn field is ace. Keep the negative clean and go back once you get to learn dark room techniques. Push that one as far as it will go under every process you can think of. That's the tops.

Nice eye for form and tone. Start looking at the greats and study their composition and placement. You have the eye to catch the strength of placement and language of strength.

I agree. NOTHING beats the old tools. You have to think. And apply. And look at the subject. And understand the process and light and chemistry. And the tool. I want to get my hands on a vintage plate panoramic box.

One of my favorite enlargers is a vintage portable briefcase Russian enlarger. It had to be rewired for the electrics, but the FX are amazing. I haven;'t been able to duplicate the look with any digi tool yet. Not even close. I'll try to find a photo to share from that. I just keep my FX and certain image edges off the net. Too many thieving, opportunist, anti-art, non serious, pop art brain rot, coat tail riding plonk heads oooozing their ethic-less slime all over the net.

Here's a link to some of my 'older stuff' I consider to be net safe, as these images have all been archived in either public viewings or documented through other sources.

http://community.webshots.com/user/walk ... k_mountain

Photography was the emphasis of my Art major in college.  We used only manual settings on the cameras, only film (you could scan & digitally manipulate prints though), and only B&W enlarging & printing.  It was so frustrating losing pics when the film touched itself afer I'd make a mistake winding it around a spool in the pitch black room!  Very delicate tactile experience though.

I take pictures to capture unique events or situation others might miss or not live in the area to be able to see, so, in order to have the pics avialable for manipulation & distribution ASAP, I've gone digital.  What I miss most is the flattening effect of my telephoto lens.  

I've been wondering if GothNet would prefer individual photography threads or one "Interesting Pics" thread.

Lovely prints, Walkingstick!
I particularly like the "Greek Angel" one.

But the photos I linked to were from my first roll of film, ever. And I am no longer in photography, and have no time for such, working on becoming a welder and all.
Alas, if I had the equipment on hand, I'd have fun with that.

Thanks.

ooooo. Fire. Compustible tanks. Tools that go hiss and bam. Nice!

I'm not into photography in the sense that I'm ever behind the camera -- but I do model nude, or in bondage, or fetish. I've worked with a few photographers and lately things have been taking off in the side-job-that-just-happens-to-satisfy-my-crazy-exhibitionism thing.

If you really want to start working and building your portfolio, the most helpful place I've found for models/photographers/wardrobe designers/makeup stylists to network in for free is ModelMayhem.Com -- and no, it's not just for crazy people like me who shoot nude.

PS - My portofolio is MM#510994, Kallisti.
http://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=510994
(No access to 18+ photos without membership, so work-safe. Sorta. ^^;; )

AA, your grass photo reminded me of this one I took during a recent lunch break (digital & slightly modified): http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l248/ ... /weeds.jpg

Nice picture, InKY, but what exactly, may I ask, is modified?

If you can't tell
I did it well

(though the lack of contrast on the left side of the sky bothers me).

I messed with the color to reduce the distracting effect of the flash, especially in the nearest cattail, and I adjusted the color of portions of the stems to make focal plant more of a whole.  Also messed with the sharpness a little and lessened the dark/light contrast between the "halves" of the sky, not enough though.

Well it's lovely.