I'm a graduate student in physics and my friend started using started using LyX to do class notes and even homework. I've used it too and still do for very math-heavy homework and so on. It's very readable compared to handwriting, you can cut and paste, and it's not significantly slower. I still do a lot of analysis on paper with a good fountain pen, but I always have to rewrite a final, legible version anyway, and LyX is very easy and my professors love it.
I agree that digital imaging is an evolution of art. It is obviously a great and impactful, important, brand new, and very powerful evolution of visual art and imaging. It is also fundamentally different than silver halide and other optically direct photographic imaging processes, which were previously collectively known as "photography". Now the difficulty is that it is not in English distinguished, as it deserves to be, from these old and different media.
I don't intend to argue about word definitions; my point is ONLY to highlight that digital imaging represents a FORK of photographic art, and does not now constitute, in itself, photographic art, despite its commercial dominance. It adds to and complements direct optical processes rather than superseding, overtaking, substituting for, deprecating, or obsoleting them. Optical processes are still in use, still beautiful, and better than they have ever been, and still expensive, slow, and arguably difficult to learn, and commercially impractical.
It's not that before, we had film/paper, and now we have digital instead. Rather, now we have BOTH film/paper AND digital. The two are different, fundamentally and superficially; as different to me as painting is to drawing, say. It's entirely unprofitable to ponder which is 'better'.
Thank God that we have digital now, and don't have to print everything with process cameras, optical lithography, and darkrooms. But if one wants to create original cyanotypes, silver prints, color slides--things that for over a hundred years were known simply as photographs--digital imaging is completely irrelevant to that goal, because it is just a different medium. You can't paint a picture with an essay or sculpt a musical score with a chisel, nor can you create photographs (by the old definition) with matrices of numbers.
Just a few minutes ago, the links themselves were also 9.04 links. Now they have changed the links but the header still says 9.04. And I still can't download the freakin torrent. Will someone put the 64-bit alternate torrent up somewhere?
Actually, I think they are editing the page now. Before, all the links that now say 9.10 were 9.04 links, and right now the title still says 9.04 even though the links have been changed to 9.10. And regardless, the the site is slammed and I can't download from it.
In fact, inkjet printing, between the photopaper and expensive inks is much more expensive per-area than traditional photographic printing even with the recent price increases for darkroom materials. It may still end up cheaper overall though, because editing in digital-land is done on the computer instead of on paper. In the darkroom, Ctrl-Z takes the form of a trash bin.
Watch this very cool old Kodak informational video (think "How it's Made" c.1950). They literally pull up train cars full of silver bars and unload them into the factory on conveyer belts.
That market has diminished drastically. You are right that "photography as a whole" is doing fine if we are agreeing that both silver-based imaging and digital imaging are both "photography". There's a lot of wanking over the word, which is mostly based on lay people's failure to understand the fundamental differences between them, and practitioners of both getting irritated at same.
Although there is no doubt that optical/chemical photography has declined drastically in popularity, digital has not, in principle, affected it. It's just that more people choose to use digital now that the option exists. Wet process photography is by no means obsolete or dead, just less popular. If you want to do real live chemical photography, nothing really has changed, except there are better photographic materials available now than ever in history. And nothing stops you from using a hybrid approach, shooting film and digitally printing, or capturing digitally and printing to silver paper. I don't find it worthwhile to ponder the meaning of "photography" so long as we agree what a "photograph" is, and digital images are not photographs.
Every now and then I hear some hipster say something like "photography is easier now that we have digital". That's like saying "horseback riding is so much easier now that we have cars". What he really means is "instead of doing wet process photography I can now do digital imaging instead which is so much easier". But that's not 'making photography easier' because photography proper, that is, optical printing of persistent images directly onto surfaces, is still done about the same has it was 100 years ago, except as already mentioned, we are spoiled with extremely high performance films and papers. Lay people don't realize that digital was a whole new and different medium coming up, and instead, from their perspective, they think that digital imaging is an evolution of the photographic process, rendering optical/chemical "<no qualification> photography" obsolete, when in fact, it is untouched and marching along on its own still, and better than ever. People still ride horses, and people still make <no qualifier> photographs, and the invention of cars and digital imaging don't really change the craft itself.
I can't seem to find torrents for the either 32 or 64 bit versions on the download page. Why hide the torrents, especially when traffic is so heavy right after release?
I suspect the same dynamic. Sony as the Japanese Apple. Both groups willing to buy into the slavery/trendiness, and thus any questions as to why they do so make sense only when you consider the fan club aspect. Japanese probably wonder why Americans buy all those Apple products, not realizing the trend factor.
Nihonjin: Did you see the Sony's new Box Thing? Awesome! Oh, what's that thing you got there, an iPod? Why would anyone buy one of those? I'd just buy Sony's new Box Thing.
American:Did you see the new Apple MacProNanoPod? Awesome! Oh, what's that thing you got there, some Sony Box Thing? Why anyone buy one of those? I'd just buy an Apple MacProNanoPod.
Better question: How do you MEASURE her blood pressure?
Blood pressure is commonly measured by listening with a stethescope for the pressure at which the pulse becomes audible. How in the world would you take her blood pressure...implanted transducer?
I was into unschooling when it was still underground.
Seriously, I homeschooled, but not in any structured way. I often joke that instead of going to highschool, I mostly went fishing instead. I had a standardized curriculum with quarterly tests and as long as I was making progress through it my parents didn't care what else I did. I would typically do a week's worth of class in one day and spend the rest building dirt jumps in the woods, building model airplanes, modifying my go-kart, and starting and failing several small business enterprises (it's amazingly difficult to make money as a 15 year old).
I ended up getting a B.S. in Physics and a M.S. in Materials Science. Currently working on my Ph.D and I don't think unschooling hurt me one bit. If I had gone to highschool, I would probably be in jail or a mental institution. Public schools are nothing but indoctrination camps and would be recognized for the horror they are if adults were forced to do the same thing.
Governments don't have rights, they have powers. A specific set of powers is delegated to the federal government in the constitution, and all other powers are the states'. Supposedly.
What is the government but a monopoly? And nowadays it seems that rather than being funded by a pseudo-monopoly's strong revenue stream, scientific research is instead funded by the government's force-backed revenue stream.
I'm a graduate student in materials science and I can tell you that recent graduate-level textbooks are beginning to state that "degrees kelvin" is acceptable usage. You can also find it all over the literature. Since I've never really heard a satisfying argument as to why "degrees Kelvin" is confusing, unclear or anything else, I'm ok with either usage.
Mod parent up. Those with a natural genetic advantage should be allowed to compete and excel...this includes Shaq, Phelps, or anyone else with a natural genetic advantage.
Of course, this is going to be pretty hard on the women, since they get the short end of the genetic stick regarding certain physical traits. But there are many, many MEN that cannot compete with either the men or the women in certain sports. Statistically, there are nearly as many men that cannot compete with the best male athletes as there are females that cannot compete with the best male athletes. And as an average man I know I would have no chance against many female athletes.
I understand that the idea of a female league/sport/category for sports is something that a lot of people want, but things like TFA's quandary are just rule quibbles. There's nothing like "Oh, she was faster, but she's not really a she so it doesn't count". If she was faster, she was fucking faster, just like all the male athletes that are faster and you exclude from your league to give it a reason to exist.
I have no illusions of granduer nor do I feel that photographic processes are better at imaging than digital processes; I'm sorry if you got that idea somewhere. You seem to have your panties in a bunch over the fact that I understand the difference between an image and a photograph. Digital imaging is superior to photographic imaging in countless ways that I shouldn't have to mention; that's why photography is obsolete and digital is taking over everything commercially. Doesn't change the fact that a digital image is not a photograph. You can print a digital image out photographically and obtain a photograph, but that doesn't make the digital image a photograph. You can can take a lens and some light-sensitive material and obtain a photograph of the Grand Canyon photographically; that does not make the Grand Canyon a "photograph". Your assertion that photographs and images are the same thing is groundless and nonsensical.
I'm amazed at the confusion over the semantic difference between a photograph and an image, but I point it out in this case because TFS cleary implies that they are restoring creased photographs, when what they are really doing is copying an image of the photograph and manipulating the image. That is noble if you want to save the image; to some people the image is all that matters. But you are not restoring the photograph, and to some people the photograph itself matters.
""A traditional print is made from a negative or slide, so by your purist philosophy, restoring the print isn't actually restoring "the photograph.""
You don't understand the supposed "philosophy" you think I have at all. Restoring the print would be restoring the print. Restoring the image contained on the print would be restoring the image, but it wouldn't be restoring the photograph. TFS uses the term "the photograph" synonymously with "the image contained in the photograph".
Of course traditional photographic prints are photographs; they are usually made by photographing an original camera negative, copy negative, color separation, or something else; they are objects written onto by light, and thus they are photographs. Negatives are also photographs themselves as you pointed out irrelevantly, as are slides or positive Polaroids. The definition of a photograph is very broad, simple and obvious...if an object itself carries an image that was literally drawn with light, that object is a photograph.
Photographs are not images. Photographs contain images. Images are concepts; they are not even objects, have no mass or reality about them and are not photographs. When you look into a mirror and see an image of yourself, that is not a photograph. It is an image, but not a photographic image. When you look through a telescope you see an image, but that's not a photograph image, just an image. When you take a pencil and make a drawing, that is an image, but it's not a photograph. When you look at your computer monitor at any sort of picture, you are viewing an image, but it's not a photograph. Digital images are not photographs any more than drawings or paintings or reflections in mirrors or many other kinds of images are photographs.
It should be clear that digital cameras don't produce photographs considering they don't produce any objects at all...their main advantage over photographic processes is that they can obtain images WITHOUT the trouble of generating a photograph that can get lost, costs money, takes up space, and has to be copied later! They are awesome, efficient imaging devices that read the image that the lens projects onto the sensor and convert it into numbers that represent said image. Those bits represent an image, they encode an image, but they are not, themselves, "a photograph"; the idea itself should be silly.
Now, if you used an inkjet printer to print out a digital negative of that image, you would then have an inkjet print, written by jets of ink; still not a photograph. If you put that negative in a photographic enlarger or copy camera and made a photographic print, that print IS a photograph. A photograph of the digital negative, in fact!
TFS exhibits muddled thinking and equates a photograph with its image with its claims that HP is "restoring creased photographs". They are imaging a photograph and manipulating the image contained on the photograph, but they are not restoring the photograph. The photograph is still creased. Which is the weakness of photography; digitally storing images has many obvious advantages over photographically storing them.
This does nothing to restore creased photographs. What it does is scan the photograph, manipulate the digital image obtained, so that you can print out the image onto another piece of paper. This is not restoring the photograph. The photograph still has a crease in it.
As a practitioner of traditional photography, I'm annoyed to no end by people who talk as if the concepts of "photograph" and "image" were one and the same. Photographs are unique physical objects that have mass. Speaking as if photographs are digital images is like speaking as if symphonies are.mp3 files.
If there was some way to make it work with Crash Team Racing I would use this to become financially independent, because I'm the best Crash Team Racing player in the world. I once had a standing bet with an entire dorm room that nobody could beat me. I couldn't lose, even against sober people when I was too drunk to walk.
Do you live in Cambridge, OH? Cause you exactly described it. $12 shipping for a $.07 part was about right. I live in Dallas now, but I remember those days. I think I kept more small electronics parts in stock at my college apartment than Radioshack had. There is an amazingly awesome misc surplus electronics store here that has EVERYTHING you need and stuff you didn't know you did. I just went there and bought some cool TO-220 heatsinks and 3-amp power op-amps; it's basically heaven.
I heard Montana actually has pretty good tubes due to some fiber optic runs that cross the state.
Slashdot Mirror
There's always DSL. It's 50mb and uses an older kernel. I used it on a laptop with no USB booting and 64mb ram, but I did have a detachable CD drive.
I'm a graduate student in physics and my friend started using started using LyX to do class notes and even homework. I've used it too and still do for very math-heavy homework and so on. It's very readable compared to handwriting, you can cut and paste, and it's not significantly slower. I still do a lot of analysis on paper with a good fountain pen, but I always have to rewrite a final, legible version anyway, and LyX is very easy and my professors love it.
I agree that digital imaging is an evolution of art. It is obviously a great and impactful, important, brand new, and very powerful evolution of visual art and imaging. It is also fundamentally different than silver halide and other optically direct photographic imaging processes, which were previously collectively known as "photography". Now the difficulty is that it is not in English distinguished, as it deserves to be, from these old and different media.
I don't intend to argue about word definitions; my point is ONLY to highlight that digital imaging represents a FORK of photographic art, and does not now constitute, in itself, photographic art, despite its commercial dominance. It adds to and complements direct optical processes rather than superseding, overtaking, substituting for, deprecating, or obsoleting them. Optical processes are still in use, still beautiful, and better than they have ever been, and still expensive, slow, and arguably difficult to learn, and commercially impractical.
It's not that before, we had film/paper, and now we have digital instead. Rather, now we have BOTH film/paper AND digital. The two are different, fundamentally and superficially; as different to me as painting is to drawing, say. It's entirely unprofitable to ponder which is 'better'.
Thank God that we have digital now, and don't have to print everything with process cameras, optical lithography, and darkrooms. But if one wants to create original cyanotypes, silver prints, color slides--things that for over a hundred years were known simply as photographs--digital imaging is completely irrelevant to that goal, because it is just a different medium. You can't paint a picture with an essay or sculpt a musical score with a chisel, nor can you create photographs (by the old definition) with matrices of numbers.
I anticipate having to have a phone conversation w/IT about why I need to use bittorrent at work.
Just a few minutes ago, the links themselves were also 9.04 links. Now they have changed the links but the header still says 9.04. And I still can't download the freakin torrent. Will someone put the 64-bit alternate torrent up somewhere?
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n78/daravon/torrents.jpg
Actually, I think they are editing the page now. Before, all the links that now say 9.10 were 9.04 links, and right now the title still says 9.04 even though the links have been changed to 9.10. And regardless, the the site is slammed and I can't download from it.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n78/daravon/torrents.jpg
In fact, inkjet printing, between the photopaper and expensive inks is much more expensive per-area than traditional photographic printing even with the recent price increases for darkroom materials. It may still end up cheaper overall though, because editing in digital-land is done on the computer instead of on paper. In the darkroom, Ctrl-Z takes the form of a trash bin.
Watch this very cool old Kodak informational video (think "How it's Made" c.1950). They literally pull up train cars full of silver bars and unload them into the factory on conveyer belts.
httphttp://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Sg0n://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Sg0n
That market has diminished drastically. You are right that "photography as a whole" is doing fine if we are agreeing that both silver-based imaging and digital imaging are both "photography". There's a lot of wanking over the word, which is mostly based on lay people's failure to understand the fundamental differences between them, and practitioners of both getting irritated at same.
Although there is no doubt that optical/chemical photography has declined drastically in popularity, digital has not, in principle, affected it. It's just that more people choose to use digital now that the option exists. Wet process photography is by no means obsolete or dead, just less popular. If you want to do real live chemical photography, nothing really has changed, except there are better photographic materials available now than ever in history. And nothing stops you from using a hybrid approach, shooting film and digitally printing, or capturing digitally and printing to silver paper. I don't find it worthwhile to ponder the meaning of "photography" so long as we agree what a "photograph" is, and digital images are not photographs.
Every now and then I hear some hipster say something like "photography is easier now that we have digital". That's like saying "horseback riding is so much easier now that we have cars". What he really means is "instead of doing wet process photography I can now do digital imaging instead which is so much easier". But that's not 'making photography easier' because photography proper, that is, optical printing of persistent images directly onto surfaces, is still done about the same has it was 100 years ago, except as already mentioned, we are spoiled with extremely high performance films and papers. Lay people don't realize that digital was a whole new and different medium coming up, and instead, from their perspective, they think that digital imaging is an evolution of the photographic process, rendering optical/chemical "<no qualification> photography" obsolete, when in fact, it is untouched and marching along on its own still, and better than ever. People still ride horses, and people still make <no qualifier> photographs, and the invention of cars and digital imaging don't really change the craft itself.
I can't seem to find torrents for the either 32 or 64 bit versions on the download page. Why hide the torrents, especially when traffic is so heavy right after release?
Tea isn't a human right either, but that didn't stop us from protesting taxes on it. Wolverines!!
I'd also mod u up, but I spent all my mod points in the libertarianism/foss thread.
I suspect the same dynamic. Sony as the Japanese Apple. Both groups willing to buy into the slavery/trendiness, and thus any questions as to why they do so make sense only when you consider the fan club aspect. Japanese probably wonder why Americans buy all those Apple products, not realizing the trend factor.
Nihonjin: Did you see the Sony's new Box Thing? Awesome! Oh, what's that thing you got there, an iPod? Why would anyone buy one of those? I'd just buy Sony's new Box Thing.
American:Did you see the new Apple MacProNanoPod? Awesome! Oh, what's that thing you got there, some Sony Box Thing? Why anyone buy one of those? I'd just buy an Apple MacProNanoPod.
Better question: How do you MEASURE her blood pressure?
Blood pressure is commonly measured by listening with a stethescope for the pressure at which the pulse becomes audible. How in the world would you take her blood pressure...implanted transducer?
I second that.
I can touch-type Dvorak at 80+wpm. I'm reduced to hunt-and-peck mode with Qwerty, however. Which proves the superiority of Dvorak of course.
I was into unschooling when it was still underground.
Seriously, I homeschooled, but not in any structured way. I often joke that instead of going to highschool, I mostly went fishing instead. I had a standardized curriculum with quarterly tests and as long as I was making progress through it my parents didn't care what else I did. I would typically do a week's worth of class in one day and spend the rest building dirt jumps in the woods, building model airplanes, modifying my go-kart, and starting and failing several small business enterprises (it's amazingly difficult to make money as a 15 year old).
I ended up getting a B.S. in Physics and a M.S. in Materials Science. Currently working on my Ph.D and I don't think unschooling hurt me one bit. If I had gone to highschool, I would probably be in jail or a mental institution. Public schools are nothing but indoctrination camps and would be recognized for the horror they are if adults were forced to do the same thing.
+1 Sadly True
Governments don't have rights, they have powers. A specific set of powers is delegated to the federal government in the constitution, and all other powers are the states'. Supposedly.
What is the government but a monopoly? And nowadays it seems that rather than being funded by a pseudo-monopoly's strong revenue stream, scientific research is instead funded by the government's force-backed revenue stream.
I'm a graduate student in materials science and I can tell you that recent graduate-level textbooks are beginning to state that "degrees kelvin" is acceptable usage. You can also find it all over the literature. Since I've never really heard a satisfying argument as to why "degrees Kelvin" is confusing, unclear or anything else, I'm ok with either usage.
Mod parent up. Those with a natural genetic advantage should be allowed to compete and excel...this includes Shaq, Phelps, or anyone else with a natural genetic advantage.
Of course, this is going to be pretty hard on the women, since they get the short end of the genetic stick regarding certain physical traits. But there are many, many MEN that cannot compete with either the men or the women in certain sports. Statistically, there are nearly as many men that cannot compete with the best male athletes as there are females that cannot compete with the best male athletes. And as an average man I know I would have no chance against many female athletes.
I understand that the idea of a female league/sport/category for sports is something that a lot of people want, but things like TFA's quandary are just rule quibbles. There's nothing like "Oh, she was faster, but she's not really a she so it doesn't count". If she was faster, she was fucking faster, just like all the male athletes that are faster and you exclude from your league to give it a reason to exist.
I have no illusions of granduer nor do I feel that photographic processes are better at imaging than digital processes; I'm sorry if you got that idea somewhere. You seem to have your panties in a bunch over the fact that I understand the difference between an image and a photograph. Digital imaging is superior to photographic imaging in countless ways that I shouldn't have to mention; that's why photography is obsolete and digital is taking over everything commercially. Doesn't change the fact that a digital image is not a photograph. You can print a digital image out photographically and obtain a photograph, but that doesn't make the digital image a photograph. You can can take a lens and some light-sensitive material and obtain a photograph of the Grand Canyon photographically; that does not make the Grand Canyon a "photograph". Your assertion that photographs and images are the same thing is groundless and nonsensical.
I'm amazed at the confusion over the semantic difference between a photograph and an image, but I point it out in this case because TFS cleary implies that they are restoring creased photographs, when what they are really doing is copying an image of the photograph and manipulating the image. That is noble if you want to save the image; to some people the image is all that matters. But you are not restoring the photograph, and to some people the photograph itself matters.
""A traditional print is made from a negative or slide, so by your purist philosophy, restoring the print isn't actually restoring "the photograph.""
You don't understand the supposed "philosophy" you think I have at all. Restoring the print would be restoring the print. Restoring the image contained on the print would be restoring the image, but it wouldn't be restoring the photograph. TFS uses the term "the photograph" synonymously with "the image contained in the photograph".
Of course traditional photographic prints are photographs; they are usually made by photographing an original camera negative, copy negative, color separation, or something else; they are objects written onto by light, and thus they are photographs. Negatives are also photographs themselves as you pointed out irrelevantly, as are slides or positive Polaroids. The definition of a photograph is very broad, simple and obvious...if an object itself carries an image that was literally drawn with light, that object is a photograph.
Photographs are not images. Photographs contain images. Images are concepts; they are not even objects, have no mass or reality about them and are not photographs. When you look into a mirror and see an image of yourself, that is not a photograph. It is an image, but not a photographic image. When you look through a telescope you see an image, but that's not a photograph image, just an image. When you take a pencil and make a drawing, that is an image, but it's not a photograph. When you look at your computer monitor at any sort of picture, you are viewing an image, but it's not a photograph. Digital images are not photographs any more than drawings or paintings or reflections in mirrors or many other kinds of images are photographs.
It should be clear that digital cameras don't produce photographs considering they don't produce any objects at all...their main advantage over photographic processes is that they can obtain images WITHOUT the trouble of generating a photograph that can get lost, costs money, takes up space, and has to be copied later! They are awesome, efficient imaging devices that read the image that the lens projects onto the sensor and convert it into numbers that represent said image. Those bits represent an image, they encode an image, but they are not, themselves, "a photograph"; the idea itself should be silly.
Now, if you used an inkjet printer to print out a digital negative of that image, you would then have an inkjet print, written by jets of ink; still not a photograph. If you put that negative in a photographic enlarger or copy camera and made a photographic print, that print IS a photograph. A photograph of the digital negative, in fact!
TFS exhibits muddled thinking and equates a photograph with its image with its claims that HP is "restoring creased photographs". They are imaging a photograph and manipulating the image contained on the photograph, but they are not restoring the photograph. The photograph is still creased. Which is the weakness of photography; digitally storing images has many obvious advantages over photographically storing them.
This does nothing to restore creased photographs. What it does is scan the photograph, manipulate the digital image obtained, so that you can print out the image onto another piece of paper. This is not restoring the photograph. The photograph still has a crease in it.
.mp3 files.
As a practitioner of traditional photography, I'm annoyed to no end by people who talk as if the concepts of "photograph" and "image" were one and the same. Photographs are unique physical objects that have mass. Speaking as if photographs are digital images is like speaking as if symphonies are
If there was some way to make it work with Crash Team Racing I would use this to become financially independent, because I'm the best Crash Team Racing player in the world. I once had a standing bet with an entire dorm room that nobody could beat me. I couldn't lose, even against sober people when I was too drunk to walk.
Do you live in Cambridge, OH? Cause you exactly described it. $12 shipping for a $.07 part was about right. I live in Dallas now, but I remember those days. I think I kept more small electronics parts in stock at my college apartment than Radioshack had. There is an amazingly awesome misc surplus electronics store here that has EVERYTHING you need and stuff you didn't know you did. I just went there and bought some cool TO-220 heatsinks and 3-amp power op-amps; it's basically heaven.
I heard Montana actually has pretty good tubes due to some fiber optic runs that cross the state.