Although I expect to see about a 100:1 ratio of B&W is dead to not dead, here's the thing. B&W is hardly dead, it's simply being moved into the realm of art rather than production photography. When was the last time you went to a major gallery and didn't see silver based prints? True, digital is overtaking, if it hasn't already overtaken, typical every day photography. But, silver halide is anywhere but dead. Remember platinum prints? Go to a high end gallery and you'll see lots of them. Not practical in any way for every day use, and even possibly for a lot of typical fine art work, but it's not going anywhere.
Other than in a classroom, you don't find all that many people printing on Kodak B&W papers anyway, and it's been that way for a long time. I'm a phto student/beginning pro photographer and the only time I've printed on Kodak is when it's been given to me. There are other papers that are cheaper and work as well, if not better.
Call it trolling, or flamebait, or whatever, but the biggest thing you have to understand is that the fine art world of photography is not going to die no matter what becomes popular. Hell, there are still people shooting tintype, because they can, and because that's the nature of art. Not what's popular, but what they create and what sells.
Kodak can sit and spin, they aren't the only supplier of B&W paper. It'd be worse if they got rid of their chemicals, which I do use, but also wouldn't be the end of the world. There are many alternatives besides Kodak.
Ranting maybe, but this has been a major topic on many photo boards (it's not new news really), and life goes on.
This is as stupid as arguing that RC paper is better than fiber base, or visa vie. It all depends on what you're doing.
And yes, I do shoot digital too. And large format. I won't give up any of them, they all have teir place, and each have their strong points and weak points.
Being a serious ameture/semi professional photographer and photography student, I tend to be above average on the picture taking side. Of the many Walmarts within a short drive of my location, there is one that generally refused to release my work to me, even when provided with a copyright release for printing. Simple solution, I don't go there anymore.
Why would a person want to print at Walmart? Simple, convienient, quick turnaround on the cheap.
There are many times that I've done an assignment where I need to provide 4x6 prints for review in class, and Walmart is good enough for that usually. If I need quality, I go elsewhere.
Simply buying a photo printer is not always good enough. Yes, they are incredible compared to what could be done just a few years ago, but they still lack the perminance that a lab print has.
And yes, there are many photographers that will not release the negatives or copyright to a client, which is done simply to try to get more money from the shoot at a later date.
Copyright law gives copyright to the photographer automatically unless there is a contract making it a work for hire, or stating otherwise. I do not see a problem with that, as the photographer IS the artist that is producing the work. If I have a client that wants the negatives, I allow that, but I charge for it. When it comes to wedding work, my most common contract allows the client to reproduce the work, be it at Walmart or where ever, and comes with a copyright release to that effect. I however still retain copyright and just grant use to the client. There's nothing wrong with that, allows them to make copies whereever they want, if they want, but still allows me to use the work for my portfolio, etc. And yes, I charge more for that than I would if I retain all copyright rights.
The funny thing, is that most of them still come back to me for reprints. Mainly because the quality I can give them is beyond when Walmart can produce. Yes, if they really wanted to they could do their homework and have them printed at the same pro-lab I use, and get the same results I would give them. But they usually don't do that.
Traditionally photographers for weddings have retained all copyright, requiring the client to come back to them for reprints. That is a business model that is dying, but still very much alive. If you don't like it, go to a photographer that gives you the option. There is NOTHING that requires you to use a photographer that won't release copyright in any way. It's your choice.
But don't bitch if a photographer that will release copyright wants more money than the one that won't, that's the whole reason they charge less, they expect to make more money later off the client.
As to getting Walmart to print an individuals good quality work, be it ameteur or professional, either have a copyright release handy (you can snag 'em from that newfangled thing called the internet for nothing after all), or DON'T GO TO WALMART. One of the reasones the small photo shop is going under is because of places like Walmart. If you want to be treated nicely, try a smaller shop, you might be suprised that they actually listen to you when you say it's your shot...
What about eye problems and retinal scans?
on
National Biometric IDs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Stuff like this makes me wonder about another factor. I have minor keratoconus (http://www.nkcf.org), which isn;t bad enough to keep me from driving, etc., but has made it pretty much impossible for any retinal scanner to get a proper image of my retina. Basically, unless EVERY factor is the same when it tries to take the image (and my eye doesn't twitch), no two scans end up looking the same. What would people with problems like this do if they passed crasp like this, instant second class citizen status?
It would seem that everybody posting so far has lost their minds. It should be obvious that this is a reminder to people.
The day the shuttle exploded was a sad day for all of us. It was a day that was to show that politics and budgets were more important than advances or peoples lives. It was a day that showed us that an accident can eliminate the enthusiasm of an entire nation and put a program that, IMHO, is one of the most critical to the development of human knowlege.
Remember the people that died.
Remember what the program was TRYING to do.
Remember what happened.
Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
I work for one of the non-P4 installable distros, and with ours at least, the problem lies with RPM itself. The installer works, it's just that we're using an older version of RPM (3.0). If you notice, RedHat and Turbo use 4.0, which doesn't have the problem. It's a simple fix, at least with ours you can switch to a virtual console, manually update the CPUID database and then continue. Not the best solution, but it works for now until we release a new version. Should realistically work for any distro that way.
It would seem that there are more than a few applications that this could be used for, everything from commercial use to military to medical. The questions I would have is what kind of cost range are we talking about for something like this? Is this something that might soon be affordable for the ultimate gaming display, or will it remain in the hands of a few corporations for the time being? Also, is this something that will take the complex and make it simple (such as the mentioned air-traffic control), or take the complex and make it even more so?
Actually, there are a few Sun dealers in Utah, including one up by the U and one in Sandy, as well as the many mail-order shops you can buy Sun equipment from, or even Sun directly.
Everytime I see an article like this, I, as well as many others, have to just sit back and laugh at it. The main thing that never seems to be taken into account is how many of said bugs are still there? What was the fix for them? Was it a matter of saying "I just can't use this service/software anymore"? Or perhaps a patch was released, and if so, how soon after the bug was found? Linux is a VERY dynamic OS, with changes being made on a much more frequent scale than just about any other OS currently. This inherently is going to cause more problems. However, it also allows for the fixes to be implemented immediately as well. People also love to tear Linux apart, and unlike Windows as an example, publish the results in a widespread manner instead of simply exploiting them. Simply saying that OS A had only 20 bugs vs. OS B which had 50 bugs makes OS A a better OS is simply showing how small a persons brain can really be. Give me the 50 small bugs from an OS vs. the couple massive, instant root-shell level bugs in the competition any day.
It would seem that not many people have read the actual transcript from the speech. It was also said that Linux is going to become a combination of proprietary (read cloased) and GPLed software. I also see here many comments about Caldera tanking in the stock market. Has anybody looked at the other Linux stocks? They ALL tanked. Nobody seems to remember that Caldera is still in the last stages of the post IPO quiet period. The hard cash that was made from the initial stock sales is still there, and hasn't devalued in the slightest. The acquisition of other technologies is going to be the prime concern in the immediate future. You also need to remember, Caldera isn't aiming at the individual open source sealot community. They're focusing on taking Linux to the mainstream big-business customers, as the eBuilder lineup would show if you actually looked at it. Everybody wanted Linux to grow up, and now that it is you don't like what you're seeing. Linux will become at least to some degree proprietary. Realize THAT and deal with it.
Realistically, if this information was available through the net from the devices, wouldn't that make an interesting source of information? For example, if an insurance co. wanted to check on you, they could get an idea what was eaten in the household and modify ratings based on how well you eat, what food you buy, when you have your morning coffee, etc? I can just see targeted marketing based on the brand of milk that you're fridge reported it contained.
Every engineer I've ever talked to at a HD co. has outright said that the IDE drives are not bui;t to anywhere near the quality levels that the same cos SCSI drives are. This for me is enough of a factor to go SCSI on anything that I want some reliability out of. IDE may be half price, but how much does it cost after a premature failure?
Slashdot Mirror
The DREN network... Was I the only one that thought of Farscape when I read the name?
Although I expect to see about a 100:1 ratio of B&W is dead to not dead, here's the thing. B&W is hardly dead, it's simply being moved into the realm of art rather than production photography. When was the last time you went to a major gallery and didn't see silver based prints? True, digital is overtaking, if it hasn't already overtaken, typical every day photography. But, silver halide is anywhere but dead. Remember platinum prints? Go to a high end gallery and you'll see lots of them. Not practical in any way for every day use, and even possibly for a lot of typical fine art work, but it's not going anywhere.
Other than in a classroom, you don't find all that many people printing on Kodak B&W papers anyway, and it's been that way for a long time. I'm a phto student/beginning pro photographer and the only time I've printed on Kodak is when it's been given to me. There are other papers that are cheaper and work as well, if not better.
Call it trolling, or flamebait, or whatever, but the biggest thing you have to understand is that the fine art world of photography is not going to die no matter what becomes popular. Hell, there are still people shooting tintype, because they can, and because that's the nature of art. Not what's popular, but what they create and what sells.
Kodak can sit and spin, they aren't the only supplier of B&W paper. It'd be worse if they got rid of their chemicals, which I do use, but also wouldn't be the end of the world. There are many alternatives besides Kodak.
Ranting maybe, but this has been a major topic on many photo boards (it's not new news really), and life goes on.
This is as stupid as arguing that RC paper is better than fiber base, or visa vie. It all depends on what you're doing.
And yes, I do shoot digital too. And large format. I won't give up any of them, they all have teir place, and each have their strong points and weak points.
Being a serious ameture/semi professional photographer and photography student, I tend to be above average on the picture taking side. Of the many Walmarts within a short drive of my location, there is one that generally refused to release my work to me, even when provided with a copyright release for printing. Simple solution, I don't go there anymore.
Why would a person want to print at Walmart? Simple, convienient, quick turnaround on the cheap.
There are many times that I've done an assignment where I need to provide 4x6 prints for review in class, and Walmart is good enough for that usually. If I need quality, I go elsewhere.
Simply buying a photo printer is not always good enough. Yes, they are incredible compared to what could be done just a few years ago, but they still lack the perminance that a lab print has.
And yes, there are many photographers that will not release the negatives or copyright to a client, which is done simply to try to get more money from the shoot at a later date.
Copyright law gives copyright to the photographer automatically unless there is a contract making it a work for hire, or stating otherwise. I do not see a problem with that, as the photographer IS the artist that is producing the work. If I have a client that wants the negatives, I allow that, but I charge for it. When it comes to wedding work, my most common contract allows the client to reproduce the work, be it at Walmart or where ever, and comes with a copyright release to that effect. I however still retain copyright and just grant use to the client. There's nothing wrong with that, allows them to make copies whereever they want, if they want, but still allows me to use the work for my portfolio, etc. And yes, I charge more for that than I would if I retain all copyright rights.
The funny thing, is that most of them still come back to me for reprints. Mainly because the quality I can give them is beyond when Walmart can produce. Yes, if they really wanted to they could do their homework and have them printed at the same pro-lab I use, and get the same results I would give them. But they usually don't do that.
Traditionally photographers for weddings have retained all copyright, requiring the client to come back to them for reprints. That is a business model that is dying, but still very much alive. If you don't like it, go to a photographer that gives you the option. There is NOTHING that requires you to use a photographer that won't release copyright in any way. It's your choice.
But don't bitch if a photographer that will release copyright wants more money than the one that won't, that's the whole reason they charge less, they expect to make more money later off the client.
As to getting Walmart to print an individuals good quality work, be it ameteur or professional, either have a copyright release handy (you can snag 'em from that newfangled thing called the internet for nothing after all), or DON'T GO TO WALMART. One of the reasones the small photo shop is going under is because of places like Walmart. If you want to be treated nicely, try a smaller shop, you might be suprised that they actually listen to you when you say it's your shot...
Stuff like this makes me wonder about another factor. I have minor keratoconus (http://www.nkcf.org), which isn;t bad enough to keep me from driving, etc., but has made it pretty much impossible for any retinal scanner to get a proper image of my retina. Basically, unless EVERY factor is the same when it tries to take the image (and my eye doesn't twitch), no two scans end up looking the same. What would people with problems like this do if they passed crasp like this, instant second class citizen status?
It would seem that everybody posting so far has lost their minds. It should be obvious that this is a reminder to people. The day the shuttle exploded was a sad day for all of us. It was a day that was to show that politics and budgets were more important than advances or peoples lives. It was a day that showed us that an accident can eliminate the enthusiasm of an entire nation and put a program that, IMHO, is one of the most critical to the development of human knowlege. Remember the people that died. Remember what the program was TRYING to do. Remember what happened. Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
I work for one of the non-P4 installable distros, and with ours at least, the problem lies with RPM itself. The installer works, it's just that we're using an older version of RPM (3.0). If you notice, RedHat and Turbo use 4.0, which doesn't have the problem. It's a simple fix, at least with ours you can switch to a virtual console, manually update the CPUID database and then continue. Not the best solution, but it works for now until we release a new version. Should realistically work for any distro that way.
It was also rejected...
It would seem that there are more than a few applications that this could be used for, everything from commercial use to military to medical. The questions I would have is what kind of cost range are we talking about for something like this? Is this something that might soon be affordable for the ultimate gaming display, or will it remain in the hands of a few corporations for the time being? Also, is this something that will take the complex and make it simple (such as the mentioned air-traffic control), or take the complex and make it even more so?
Actually, there are a few Sun dealers in Utah, including one up by the U and one in Sandy, as well as the many mail-order shops you can buy Sun equipment from, or even Sun directly.
Everytime I see an article like this, I, as well as many others, have to just sit back and laugh at it. The main thing that never seems to be taken into account is how many of said bugs are still there? What was the fix for them? Was it a matter of saying "I just can't use this service/software anymore"? Or perhaps a patch was released, and if so, how soon after the bug was found? Linux is a VERY dynamic OS, with changes being made on a much more frequent scale than just about any other OS currently. This inherently is going to cause more problems. However, it also allows for the fixes to be implemented immediately as well. People also love to tear Linux apart, and unlike Windows as an example, publish the results in a widespread manner instead of simply exploiting them. Simply saying that OS A had only 20 bugs vs. OS B which had 50 bugs makes OS A a better OS is simply showing how small a persons brain can really be. Give me the 50 small bugs from an OS vs. the couple massive, instant root-shell level bugs in the competition any day.
Is it just me or is this the first one out there that actively warns poeple about what it can do? Perhaps people will wake up finally.
It would seem that not many people have read the actual transcript from the speech. It was also said that Linux is going to become a combination of proprietary (read cloased) and GPLed software. I also see here many comments about Caldera tanking in the stock market. Has anybody looked at the other Linux stocks? They ALL tanked. Nobody seems to remember that Caldera is still in the last stages of the post IPO quiet period. The hard cash that was made from the initial stock sales is still there, and hasn't devalued in the slightest. The acquisition of other technologies is going to be the prime concern in the immediate future. You also need to remember, Caldera isn't aiming at the individual open source sealot community. They're focusing on taking Linux to the mainstream big-business customers, as the eBuilder lineup would show if you actually looked at it.
Everybody wanted Linux to grow up, and now that it is you don't like what you're seeing. Linux will become at least to some degree proprietary. Realize THAT and deal with it.
Realistically, if this information was available through the net from the devices, wouldn't that make an interesting source of information? For example, if an insurance co. wanted to check on you, they could get an idea what was eaten in the household and modify ratings based on how well you eat, what food you buy, when you have your morning coffee, etc? I can just see targeted marketing based on the brand of milk that you're fridge reported it contained.
Every engineer I've ever talked to at a HD co. has outright said that the IDE drives are not bui;t to anywhere near the quality levels that the same cos SCSI drives are. This for me is enough of a factor to go SCSI on anything that I want some reliability out of. IDE may be half price, but how much does it cost after a premature failure?