The thing is, I can go down to a pawn shop (or a garage sale) and pick up a used enlarger for $50 - $100. As long as it's in good condition, its age doesn't matter. A 20-year-old enlarger will make prints as good as a brand new one.
Now, how much does that Epson 2200 cost? How much longer before its "obsolete" and you've got to get a new one? Exactly.
Besides, the darkroom is half the fun. It can be time consuming, but there is just something about developing and printing your own film that can't be had from shooting it digitally and then doing any post work in Photoshop. I think that all budding photographers should take a photography class down at their local community college, if for no other reason than to say that they've developed and printed their own film (any community college that has a photography program is going to have all the necessary equipment, like chemicals, a darkroom, development canisters, enlargers, changing bags, etc., so you don't have to buy anything besides the film).
They didn't *ALL* die. Two or three of them lived, and they "won", if you could call it that (see the movie and you'll know what I mean). Stupid farmers;)
Most photographers want LESS depth-of-field than the current crop of digital cameras provide.
Only amateurs want "everything from here to infinity" to be in-focus.
The advantages of selective depth-of-field cannot be understated. The ability to have the background be completely soft and have the subject be the only thing in sharp focus (thereby drawing the viewer's attention to it) is a huge advantage of film over digital.
For example, on Attack of the Clones, the guys at ILM actually had to process the images to give them less depth-of-field, because the cameras couldn't get as little depth-of-field as the cinematographer wanted.
HDRI is actually 32-bit floating-point per channel, but it's still RGB unless I'm mistaken. For an RGB image, this gives you 96 bits of color per pixel, 128 bits for RGBA.
Not completely true. If you do any processing of the images, only having 8 bits per channel is quite limiting, and color banding/quantization is not uncommon.
Additionally, the fact that camera negative film captures more color data than the print paper (or print film in the motion picture world) can capture gives you more latitude (and more artistic possibilities) when printing. You can print the "normal" ranges if you're doing something like wedding photos, you can print the lower ranges if you're shooting outside at sunset, etc. This is part of the art of shooting on film, and for a lot of photographers, part of the fun.
Adobe Photoshop works with images of up to 16 bits per channel
Yes, but it does it very badly. How many of the filters work with 16-bit-per-channel images? Not many. <shameless plug> check out CinePaint sometime </shameless plug>
Only amateurs say things like, "I don't want to see any grain at all!"
Real artists don't mind a little grain, because it makes the image look more natural and organic. Granted, too much grain makes the image unviewable, but if the grain is a little noticeable, only idiots go, "Eww! That looks sooo bad!"
Actually, modern motion picture film stocks do fine under low-light conditions, provided that the cinematographer knows what he's doing, and Kodak's still photo stocks are pretty good too.
What's more, only complete amateurs try to take pictures without any lights, which is where most of the "digital is better under low-light conditions" arguments come from.
Exactly. All these people going on about how wonderful digital is have no real photography experience.
Real photographers don't take their pictures down to the local "1 Hour Foto" place, because those places are marking up the price by a ridiculous amount.
Take lots of pictures, develop the film yourself, and only print the ones you like.
Plus, you can crop and enlarge without having to worry about pixelization. I've cropped pictures taken on film down to as much as half their original size, and when blowing up to 8x10 the difference is barely noticeable. Like others have said, the random nature of the film grain means you can blow images up much more before image quality becomes unacceptable.
Most of the advantages of digital turn out to only be advantages for the casual (or lazy) photographer. Real photographers don't take their film down to Walgreens to get it developed and printed. Real photographers don't need a nice LCD screen on the back to see how the picture turned out, because they already have a pretty good idea of how it's going to look.
One last note about film grain: grain is only a bad thing to amateurs. Most of the real artists like a little grain (but not too much) in the shot, as it gives a more organic feel to the image.
XENIX was developed for Microsoft by the original SCO (Santa Cruz Operation).
Caldera bought SCO's Unix IP, and SCO agreed to change their name (I forget what they changed it to). Caldera, owning SCO's Unix IP, decided to cash in and changed their name to the SCO Group.
IIRC, they had internal McDonalds documents (procedures, protocols, that sort of thing) that specified that the coffee was to be stored at a temperature that was significantly higher than the norm (FDA recommended temp. or something like that) so that it would keep longer (which in turn meant less coffee would be thrown out, saving McDonalds some money).
People often ignore/forget that the woman received 3rd degree burns from the coffee. It wasn't like that fat bastard suing McDonalds because, "Your hamburgers made me fat!" People were getting burned all the time because McDonalds was intentionally making their coffee too hot in order to save a few dollars.
You should always check the return value of a function (Although you only loose half point for this, as some functions can return void. Although that's generally bad practice itself...)
Umm... he is checking the return value of the function. That's what the whole if statement was about.
That's what KDE does. There's kdecore, kdelib, etc.
But one of my complaints against GNOME is that the developers went apeshit nutzoid when drawing the line as far as where to split things up. There are, IMHO, too many small, independent components in GNOME.
Like all things in life, there needs to be a balance. In this case, the balance is between only having to use the stuff you want, and not devolving into a Windows-like DLL hell where it's a huge pain in the ass to keep track of all those small, little shared libraries, which ones need to be built in what order, etc.
And while KDE might lean a little towards the "Just lump it all into one big library" side of things (note that I said "a little"; there are more than one KDE library, as I have stated above), on the other hand GNOME is leaning so far the other way that it would fall over if it leaned only a little more.
You forgot the American Revolutionary War. While France was technically on the winning side, Americans did almost all of the fighting.
Reminds me of a line from the movie Ocean's Eleven, where Elliot Gould says, "He's got enough security guys in there to occupy Paris. Ok, ok, bad example."
I can't be the only one who thought of Fight Club when reading this.
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Writing "to all the person(s) using MicroBSD" is the equivalent of writing "to the person or persons using MicroBSD" and is indicative that the author of that statement didn't know if more than one person actually used MicroBSD.
Although I've never done assembly programming on them, SPARC CPUs have hardware contexts, so as long as you're not running more processes than your SPARC CPU has hardware contexts, the large register set doesn't hurt performance when switching between processes.
Slashdot Mirror
The enlarger is dead
The thing is, I can go down to a pawn shop (or a garage sale) and pick up a used enlarger for $50 - $100. As long as it's in good condition, its age doesn't matter. A 20-year-old enlarger will make prints as good as a brand new one.
Now, how much does that Epson 2200 cost? How much longer before its "obsolete" and you've got to get a new one? Exactly.
Besides, the darkroom is half the fun. It can be time consuming, but there is just something about developing and printing your own film that can't be had from shooting it digitally and then doing any post work in Photoshop. I think that all budding photographers should take a photography class down at their local community college, if for no other reason than to say that they've developed and printed their own film (any community college that has a photography program is going to have all the necessary equipment, like chemicals, a darkroom, development canisters, enlargers, changing bags, etc., so you don't have to buy anything besides the film).
They didn't *ALL* die. Two or three of them lived, and they "won", if you could call it that (see the movie and you'll know what I mean). Stupid farmers ;)
Oh dear God why did you have to remind me of that awful game?
Didn't the C64 use a 6510, not a 6502?
MIPS, being a RISC processor, wouldn't have a MOVE instruction. It does have the normal load and store, though, IIRC.
You just LOAD one register with the contents of another.
What I should have said was, "Only complete amateurs take pictures indoors without any lights (and I don't just mean the kitchen light, or whatever)."
Obviously, if you are outside, in the daytime, you won't need lights unless it's overcast and you need it to look sunny, or something like that.
Most photographers want LESS depth-of-field than the current crop of digital cameras provide.
Only amateurs want "everything from here to infinity" to be in-focus.
The advantages of selective depth-of-field cannot be understated. The ability to have the background be completely soft and have the subject be the only thing in sharp focus (thereby drawing the viewer's attention to it) is a huge advantage of film over digital.
For example, on Attack of the Clones, the guys at ILM actually had to process the images to give them less depth-of-field, because the cameras couldn't get as little depth-of-field as the cinematographer wanted.
HDRI is actually 32-bit floating-point per channel, but it's still RGB unless I'm mistaken. For an RGB image, this gives you 96 bits of color per pixel, 128 bits for RGBA.
far, far more than the human eye can distinguish
Not completely true. If you do any processing of the images, only having 8 bits per channel is quite limiting, and color banding/quantization is not uncommon.
Additionally, the fact that camera negative film captures more color data than the print paper (or print film in the motion picture world) can capture gives you more latitude (and more artistic possibilities) when printing. You can print the "normal" ranges if you're doing something like wedding photos, you can print the lower ranges if you're shooting outside at sunset, etc. This is part of the art of shooting on film, and for a lot of photographers, part of the fun.
Adobe Photoshop works with images of up to 16 bits per channel
Yes, but it does it very badly. How many of the filters work with 16-bit-per-channel images? Not many. <shameless plug> check out CinePaint sometime </shameless plug>
Only amateurs say things like, "I don't want to see any grain at all!"
Real artists don't mind a little grain, because it makes the image look more natural and organic. Granted, too much grain makes the image unviewable, but if the grain is a little noticeable, only idiots go, "Eww! That looks sooo bad!"
Actually, modern motion picture film stocks do fine under low-light conditions, provided that the cinematographer knows what he's doing, and Kodak's still photo stocks are pretty good too.
What's more, only complete amateurs try to take pictures without any lights, which is where most of the "digital is better under low-light conditions" arguments come from.
Exactly. All these people going on about how wonderful digital is have no real photography experience.
Real photographers don't take their pictures down to the local "1 Hour Foto" place, because those places are marking up the price by a ridiculous amount.
Take lots of pictures, develop the film yourself, and only print the ones you like.
Plus, you can crop and enlarge without having to worry about pixelization. I've cropped pictures taken on film down to as much as half their original size, and when blowing up to 8x10 the difference is barely noticeable. Like others have said, the random nature of the film grain means you can blow images up much more before image quality becomes unacceptable.
Most of the advantages of digital turn out to only be advantages for the casual (or lazy) photographer. Real photographers don't take their film down to Walgreens to get it developed and printed. Real photographers don't need a nice LCD screen on the back to see how the picture turned out, because they already have a pretty good idea of how it's going to look.
One last note about film grain: grain is only a bad thing to amateurs. Most of the real artists like a little grain (but not too much) in the shot, as it gives a more organic feel to the image.
Not 100% on-topic, but still relevant IMO, is this picture
Please, think of the kittens.
XENIX was developed for Microsoft by the original SCO (Santa Cruz Operation).
Caldera bought SCO's Unix IP, and SCO agreed to change their name (I forget what they changed it to). Caldera, owning SCO's Unix IP, decided to cash in and changed their name to the SCO Group.
IIRC, they had internal McDonalds documents (procedures, protocols, that sort of thing) that specified that the coffee was to be stored at a temperature that was significantly higher than the norm (FDA recommended temp. or something like that) so that it would keep longer (which in turn meant less coffee would be thrown out, saving McDonalds some money).
People often ignore/forget that the woman received 3rd degree burns from the coffee. It wasn't like that fat bastard suing McDonalds because, "Your hamburgers made me fat!" People were getting burned all the time because McDonalds was intentionally making their coffee too hot in order to save a few dollars.
You should always check the return value of a function (Although you only loose half point for this, as some functions can return void. Although that's generally bad practice itself...)
Umm... he is checking the return value of the function. That's what the whole if statement was about.
CLIX, eh? Boy, somebody had fun naming that one. ;)
build it from small, *independent* components
That's what KDE does. There's kdecore, kdelib, etc.
But one of my complaints against GNOME is that the developers went apeshit nutzoid when drawing the line as far as where to split things up. There are, IMHO, too many small, independent components in GNOME.
Like all things in life, there needs to be a balance. In this case, the balance is between only having to use the stuff you want, and not devolving into a Windows-like DLL hell where it's a huge pain in the ass to keep track of all those small, little shared libraries, which ones need to be built in what order, etc.
And while KDE might lean a little towards the "Just lump it all into one big library" side of things (note that I said "a little"; there are more than one KDE library, as I have stated above), on the other hand GNOME is leaning so far the other way that it would fall over if it leaned only a little more.
For that particular script, it's supposed to be obfuscated.
You forgot the American Revolutionary War. While France was technically on the winning side, Americans did almost all of the fighting.
Reminds me of a line from the movie Ocean's Eleven, where Elliot Gould says, "He's got enough security guys in there to occupy Paris. Ok, ok, bad example."
the only OS this software supports
Not true. CinePaint runs on Linux (x86), IRIX (SGI MIPS), and Mac OS X. A Windows port is in the works.
Writing "to all the person(s) using MicroBSD" is the equivalent of writing "to the person or persons using MicroBSD" and is indicative that the author of that statement didn't know if more than one person actually used MicroBSD.
Claiming that you own the copyright to something, when you do in fact not own said copyright, is a violation of copyright laws in the US.
You could probably get in trouble for fraud, too, if any money changed hands, like selling MicroBSD CDs.
It depends on the processor.
Although I've never done assembly programming on them, SPARC CPUs have hardware contexts, so as long as you're not running more processes than your SPARC CPU has hardware contexts, the large register set doesn't hurt performance when switching between processes.