Now we have a nearly sinister cooperation of the press and government all walking the same line. Calling them out on it is now unAmerican.
What the fuck are you talking about? Obama bashing is all the rage right now. The media has even been keeping the ridiculous "birth certificate" nonsense going. You can't visit any news site without seeing comments about Obama being a fascist or the spawn of satan.
Compare to the Bush administration after 9/11 - where one actually faced serious risk (loss of job, physical assault, arrest) for publicly speaking against Bush.
No, a scientist is someone who applies the scientific method. The scientific method had not been invented before the wheel was. Do you even know what science is? By your definition, I'm a scientist because I know the name of my next-door neighbor.
However what piece of software written 20 years ago is still useful for you?
Well, UNIX is extremely useful. And Pacman and Galaga, while maybe not useful, remain entertaining.
Moreover, why should the government act like a bookie, setting the odds on what we may or may not find useful in the future? One might say that music should have a shorter copyright term, because Britney Spears probably only has a shelf-life of 10 years, but on the other hand The Beatles continue to be of interest decades later.
The GP has a point; in a technical discussion, it makes sense to draw a distinction between the image and the medium it's recorded on.
That's why we use the terms "print" and "negative" for the medium it is carried on. The term "photograph" refers to any image that is the result of a photographic process. It does not refer to the medium used to view it.
The article talks about 'restoring' the image of a creased photo, not restoring a creased photo.
Substitute the word "print" for "photo" and you have a correct answer.
They most definitely are not, or would you not call a drawing an image?
Yes. A drawing is a subset of the term "image." A photograph and a drawing are both images. A photograph is an image created by photographic processes (i.e - response to light).
Is drawing on a computer with a Wacom tablet somehow not drawing because it doesn't involve pencil and paper?
A photograph is an object that *carries* an image; a medium.
No, a photograph is the image, or at least a version of it. Even if you insist on it being an object, there's no reason it has to be a physical object. A digital object performs the task just as well.
he's merely drawing a semantic difference between a photograph and an image on one hand, and chemical and digital photography on the other.
It's a semantic difference that is incorrect, and entirely irrelevant to the use of the term. You yourself called it "digital photography" - if we were to subscribe to the GP's POV, that would be an incorrect usage of the term "photography" because he claims that a digital image is not the result of a photographic process.
...if an object itself carries an image that was literally drawn with light, that object is a photograph.
But why does a photograph have to be an object? Where in the definition and practical use of the term is this specified?
Furthermore, why does an object have to be physical? There is such a thing as a digital object.
Digital images are not photographs any more than drawings or paintings or reflections in mirrors or many other kinds of images are photographs.
Nonsense. An image in a mirror or a telescope is not a photograph, because it is not fixed, or recorded. A digital photograph is a photograph, because it is a fixed or recorded image. Put a digital sensor on that telescope, and you can make a photograph.
Is an article published in an online journal not published, because it is not printed on paper? I don't think so. Is graphic design for a website not graphic design because it isn't printed?
Those bits represent an image, they encode an image, but they are not, themselves, "a photograph"; the idea itself should be silly.
Why?
You appear to be confusing photography with printing. Two entirely different things.
It doesn't matter whether silver halide in an emulsion captures an image, or an electronic sensor does. They are both photographic processes.
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.
Photography is obsolete? Since when? Digital imaging is photography. Photography is more relevant than ever.
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.
Where the hell do you get this idea from that a photograph has to be printed on paper? Digital imaging is a photographic process. Nothing about the definition requires the light-sensitive medium to be chemical.
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".
What the hell? When did anyone ever say that taking a photograph of an object makes the object itself a photograph?
Your assertion that photographs and images are the same thing is groundless and nonsensical.
No, your assertion that a digital image is not a photograph is groundless and nonsensical. Seriously. Explain to me why a digital image can't be a photograph.
What they did is made it more difficult for professionals to be employed and make money from it.
It's a game. Why should it be a job, let alone a money-making one? I know... professional sports, yadda yadda... but what about just enjoying the game?
I probably shouldn't have used the term "purist philosophy" to describe your attitude towards photography in my previous post. Because it is neither pure or philosophy. A more apt description would be "nostalgic shortsightedness" or "ludditism."
The word "photography" at its root, means painting, drawing or writing with light. And "light" is really the key theme, the other root of the word describing "capturing" the light more than anything else. A digital image displayed on a screen that is never printed, fits the definition perfectly, and could be argued to be more "pure" than a print because you are observing the emission of light directly. But I won't argue about purity, because that's a completely irrelevant concept here, as photography was never "pure" to begin with.
I find your attitude to be insulting to photography. What is "traditional photography" anyway? Photography is a science, a craft, and an artform that has always been changing, and always at the cutting edge of technology and culture. Photographers have always been striving for new techniques and tools. To say that there is some "traditional" form that has some kind of purity or superiority to others is ludditism. Do you think that any of the pioneers of traditional photography would shun the digital form, rather than embrace it as a tool?
I say this as a person who has explored your idea of traditional photography for many years, and who still sometimes uses film and darkrooms and cameras that are half a century old. I too, have nostalgia for black-and-white film and beautiful prints. But to say that a digital image is not a photograph, or is some how less worthy, is nonsense.
Why is it that you are so annoyed by people who use "photograph" and "image" interchangeably? They are the same thing. Are you upset by people using language accurately? I think you're suffering from a very misplaced sense of romanticism and nostalgia. That's not good. Imagine if in earlier years, people acted on such romanticism, and decided that the Daguerreotype was the only real photography (it's certainly more "pure" than negatives and prints) and never developed flexible film, 35mm film, rangefinder cameras, SLRs and the like. Where would your traditional photography be now?
Isn't your idea of traditional photography just a bastard stepchild of Daguerre and Talbot? Why aren't you using those metal plates instead of those newfangled films?
So is TIFF, plus it has more features than PNG. So, why would I use PNG over TIFF?
If you're going to use a more "common" format like that, it should at least be something that's not nearly so shitty.
What do you mean by "these devices"? A scanner doesn't deliver a JPEG to the computer - it delivers raw data. It's up to the software to save the file in whatever format it supports. And I don't believe I've ever come across scanning software that doesn't support formats other than JPEG, they usually support TIFF and BMP at the very least.
Anyway, JPEG isn't so bad. The compression ratio is excellent, and at higher quality settings, artifacts are largely imperceptible. If small file size is a concern, then JPEG is an excellent choice. And small file size does matter to many users, who send images via email, etc. In fact, it is possible to get better quality out of JPEG at the same file size as a PNG. JPEG's superior compression allows you to save the file at a higher resolution than an equivalent PNG, which cancels out any artifacts.
You called JPEG "shitty." Now that's an over-the-top statement. JPEG is an excellent format, it was nothing short of a revolution when introduced - but it's not intended for every purpose. Just like PNG isn't.
Which are standard, but in high-quality print studios and other places that would do this kind of retouching by hand anyway in order to preserve or achieve better quality of the final product.
Actually, most images are restored using digital techniques these days, because it can achieve better results than doing it by hand. You'd only do it by hand if you were talking about something like a historical artifact or unique artwork.
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.
That's stupid. A traditional print is made from a negative or slide, so by your purist philosophy, restoring the print isn't actually restoring "the photograph." Digital images are photographs and vice versa. What matters is the image, not the medium it is presented on.
Your idea of the photograph would be considered silly and outdated by the photographers of 50 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we have a nearly sinister cooperation of the press and government all walking the same line. Calling them out on it is now unAmerican.
What the fuck are you talking about? Obama bashing is all the rage right now. The media has even been keeping the ridiculous "birth certificate" nonsense going. You can't visit any news site without seeing comments about Obama being a fascist or the spawn of satan.
Compare to the Bush administration after 9/11 - where one actually faced serious risk (loss of job, physical assault, arrest) for publicly speaking against Bush.
No, a scientist is someone who applies the scientific method. The scientific method had not been invented before the wheel was. Do you even know what science is? By your definition, I'm a scientist because I know the name of my next-door neighbor.
Well, you could always not have children if it's too much effort or you don't have time.
Obviously the better solution would be to go with cloth nappies and get them cleaned
This.
It doesn't have to be the 20-year-old version to retain copyright. The Simpsons is 20 years old, but they still release new episodes.
However what piece of software written 20 years ago is still useful for you?
Well, UNIX is extremely useful. And Pacman and Galaga, while maybe not useful, remain entertaining.
Moreover, why should the government act like a bookie, setting the odds on what we may or may not find useful in the future? One might say that music should have a shorter copyright term, because Britney Spears probably only has a shelf-life of 10 years, but on the other hand The Beatles continue to be of interest decades later.
The GP has a point; in a technical discussion, it makes sense to draw a distinction between the image and the medium it's recorded on.
That's why we use the terms "print" and "negative" for the medium it is carried on. The term "photograph" refers to any image that is the result of a photographic process. It does not refer to the medium used to view it.
The article talks about 'restoring' the image of a creased photo, not restoring a creased photo.
Substitute the word "print" for "photo" and you have a correct answer.
They most definitely are not, or would you not call a drawing an image?
Yes. A drawing is a subset of the term "image." A photograph and a drawing are both images. A photograph is an image created by photographic processes (i.e - response to light).
Is drawing on a computer with a Wacom tablet somehow not drawing because it doesn't involve pencil and paper?
A photograph is an object that *carries* an image; a medium.
No, a photograph is the image, or at least a version of it. Even if you insist on it being an object, there's no reason it has to be a physical object. A digital object performs the task just as well.
he's merely drawing a semantic difference between a photograph and an image on one hand, and chemical and digital photography on the other.
It's a semantic difference that is incorrect, and entirely irrelevant to the use of the term. You yourself called it "digital photography" - if we were to subscribe to the GP's POV, that would be an incorrect usage of the term "photography" because he claims that a digital image is not the result of a photographic process.
Deepest sympathies to you.
What's so special about software that it needs a different copyright term than everything else?
Does "politics" == "American politics" as far as Slashdot is concerned?
Yes.
ABC Bin collection in point, my bin is emptied every 2 weeks...My babies nappies and the flies are horrendous
Uhhh... what the hell are you doing putting diapers in the trash?
...if an object itself carries an image that was literally drawn with light, that object is a photograph.
But why does a photograph have to be an object? Where in the definition and practical use of the term is this specified?
Furthermore, why does an object have to be physical? There is such a thing as a digital object.
Digital images are not photographs any more than drawings or paintings or reflections in mirrors or many other kinds of images are photographs.
Nonsense. An image in a mirror or a telescope is not a photograph, because it is not fixed, or recorded. A digital photograph is a photograph, because it is a fixed or recorded image. Put a digital sensor on that telescope, and you can make a photograph.
Is an article published in an online journal not published, because it is not printed on paper? I don't think so. Is graphic design for a website not graphic design because it isn't printed?
Those bits represent an image, they encode an image, but they are not, themselves, "a photograph"; the idea itself should be silly.
Why?
You appear to be confusing photography with printing. Two entirely different things.
It doesn't matter whether silver halide in an emulsion captures an image, or an electronic sensor does. They are both photographic processes.
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.
Photography is obsolete? Since when? Digital imaging is photography. Photography is more relevant than ever.
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.
Where the hell do you get this idea from that a photograph has to be printed on paper? Digital imaging is a photographic process. Nothing about the definition requires the light-sensitive medium to be chemical.
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".
What the hell? When did anyone ever say that taking a photograph of an object makes the object itself a photograph?
Your assertion that photographs and images are the same thing is groundless and nonsensical.
No, your assertion that a digital image is not a photograph is groundless and nonsensical. Seriously. Explain to me why a digital image can't be a photograph.
What they did is made it more difficult for professionals to be employed and make money from it.
It's a game. Why should it be a job, let alone a money-making one? I know... professional sports, yadda yadda... but what about just enjoying the game?
Turn evil? That would require them not to be evil in the first place.
P.S:
I probably shouldn't have used the term "purist philosophy" to describe your attitude towards photography in my previous post. Because it is neither pure or philosophy. A more apt description would be "nostalgic shortsightedness" or "ludditism."
The word "photography" at its root, means painting, drawing or writing with light. And "light" is really the key theme, the other root of the word describing "capturing" the light more than anything else. A digital image displayed on a screen that is never printed, fits the definition perfectly, and could be argued to be more "pure" than a print because you are observing the emission of light directly. But I won't argue about purity, because that's a completely irrelevant concept here, as photography was never "pure" to begin with.
I find your attitude to be insulting to photography. What is "traditional photography" anyway? Photography is a science, a craft, and an artform that has always been changing, and always at the cutting edge of technology and culture. Photographers have always been striving for new techniques and tools. To say that there is some "traditional" form that has some kind of purity or superiority to others is ludditism. Do you think that any of the pioneers of traditional photography would shun the digital form, rather than embrace it as a tool?
I say this as a person who has explored your idea of traditional photography for many years, and who still sometimes uses film and darkrooms and cameras that are half a century old. I too, have nostalgia for black-and-white film and beautiful prints. But to say that a digital image is not a photograph, or is some how less worthy, is nonsense.
Why is it that you are so annoyed by people who use "photograph" and "image" interchangeably? They are the same thing. Are you upset by people using language accurately? I think you're suffering from a very misplaced sense of romanticism and nostalgia. That's not good. Imagine if in earlier years, people acted on such romanticism, and decided that the Daguerreotype was the only real photography (it's certainly more "pure" than negatives and prints) and never developed flexible film, 35mm film, rangefinder cameras, SLRs and the like. Where would your traditional photography be now?
Isn't your idea of traditional photography just a bastard stepchild of Daguerre and Talbot? Why aren't you using those metal plates instead of those newfangled films?
PNG is lossless but compressed
So is TIFF, plus it has more features than PNG. So, why would I use PNG over TIFF?
If you're going to use a more "common" format like that, it should at least be something that's not nearly so shitty.
What do you mean by "these devices"? A scanner doesn't deliver a JPEG to the computer - it delivers raw data. It's up to the software to save the file in whatever format it supports. And I don't believe I've ever come across scanning software that doesn't support formats other than JPEG, they usually support TIFF and BMP at the very least.
Anyway, JPEG isn't so bad. The compression ratio is excellent, and at higher quality settings, artifacts are largely imperceptible. If small file size is a concern, then JPEG is an excellent choice. And small file size does matter to many users, who send images via email, etc. In fact, it is possible to get better quality out of JPEG at the same file size as a PNG. JPEG's superior compression allows you to save the file at a higher resolution than an equivalent PNG, which cancels out any artifacts.
You called JPEG "shitty." Now that's an over-the-top statement. JPEG is an excellent format, it was nothing short of a revolution when introduced - but it's not intended for every purpose. Just like PNG isn't.
PNG? Don't you mean RAW, PSD or DNG? PNG is useful for things like web distribution, but you wouldn't want to use it as a production format.
Which are standard, but in high-quality print studios and other places that would do this kind of retouching by hand anyway in order to preserve or achieve better quality of the final product.
Actually, most images are restored using digital techniques these days, because it can achieve better results than doing it by hand. You'd only do it by hand if you were talking about something like a historical artifact or unique artwork.
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.
That's stupid. A traditional print is made from a negative or slide, so by your purist philosophy, restoring the print isn't actually restoring "the photograph." Digital images are photographs and vice versa. What matters is the image, not the medium it is presented on.
Your idea of the photograph would be considered silly and outdated by the photographers of 50 years ago.
Scientists invented the wheel? I don't think so. It was invented before science.
MS Paint graphics.
My God, your grocer is worse than Hitler.
Palm wouldn't parry Apple's anti-competitive measures
Anti-competitive? That word does not mean what you think it does.
90% of Palm users don't actually exist.