On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:36:35 -0800, "Chambers"
<bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
>> >A
>> >scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into the digital
>realm,
>> >but the point was you could have much higher quality without entering the
>> >digital realm.
>>
>> But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step into the
>> digital world.
>
>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
><sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
>> and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100 times
>> the normal photograph size.
>
>This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring to an analog
>(ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to a scanner was
>unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of the process, and the image
>would never be converted to a digital format.

LOL

I think you will find plenty of people who do scan their photos.


--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:32:25 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>>>>An interesting idea for sure. Makes one wonder exactly where the
>>>>copyright on the image itself produced lies.
>>>
>>>Obviously the image would be a derivative work of the scene file.
>> 
>> Mmm, reallly? When I posed that question I think the answer I was
>> expecting was almost a "duh, it's obvious - you are still the owner". 
>
>Sorry. I thought you'd know enough about copyright law that you'd 
>understand that the copyright holder owns the copyright on any 
>"derivative work" created from his original work.
>
>Or, to rephrase is, "duh, it's obvious - you are still the owner."

Thought as much. As I said, it's sometimes not obvious from a posting
what is going on in the mind of the poster.

>
>I am not a lawyer.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:mh94501snk2nr67ljq0srs9uo2s742h5k9@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:36:35 -0800, "Chambers"
> <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
> >> >A
> >> >scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into the digital
> >realm,
> >> >but the point was you could have much higher quality without entering
the
> >> >digital realm.
> >>
> >> But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step into the
> >> digital world.
> >
> >On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
> ><sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
> >> and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100
times
> >> the normal photograph size.
> >
> >This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring to an
analog
> >(ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to a scanner was
> >unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of the process, and the
image
> >would never be converted to a digital format.
>
> LOL
>
> I think you will find plenty of people who do scan their photos.

?

What does that have to do with anything?

BTW, when reading these NG's, do you hide all read messages?  It seems you
lose track of the context very quickly.  I find it useful not to hide
previous posts, as I often refer back to them to get the full context.

-- 
...Chambers
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:52:06 -0800, "Chambers"
<bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

>"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>news:mh94501snk2nr67ljq0srs9uo2s742h5k9@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:36:35 -0800, "Chambers"
>> <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>
>> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> >news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
>> >> >A
>> >> >scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into the digital
>> >realm,
>> >> >but the point was you could have much higher quality without entering
>the
>> >> >digital realm.
>> >>
>> >> But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step into the
>> >> digital world.
>> >
>> >On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
>> ><sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> >> I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
>> >> and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100
>times
>> >> the normal photograph size.
>> >
>> >This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring to an
>analog
>> >(ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to a scanner was
>> >unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of the process, and the
>image
>> >would never be converted to a digital format.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> I think you will find plenty of people who do scan their photos.
>
>?
>
>What does that have to do with anything?

Saying something would never be scanned is erroneous because people
scan their photos all the time.

>
>BTW, when reading these NG's, do you hide all read messages?  It seems you
>lose track of the context very quickly.  I find it useful not to hide
>previous posts, as I often refer back to them to get the full context.

No I see them. You are just losing track.

As has been pointed out elsewhere - this IS about chemical photography
and people DO scan their photos.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:50:08 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:55:00 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:36:15 -0800, "Chambers"
> > > > > <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:b8as40d47rtbrt8ih37iq1imnhvt7dckqo@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > Don't kid yourself that this is a community. A community
> > > > > > > happens in "meatspace", face to face, in real buildings
> > > > > > > with real progress. This is merely a exchange of data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will take personal offense at this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This *is* a community.  The individuals here are more
> > > > > > intelligent, capable, considerate, helpful and productive
> > > > > > than any other group I have known.  This community produces
> > > > > > incredible artwork, as well as the tools to create it.  I
> > > > > > am proud of the fact that I am allowed a space here in
> > > > > > these forums*, and I don't appreciate your attitude in this
> > > > > > respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Believe you me, comparing this news server and it contents to
> > > > > a community is inaccurate to say the least.
> > > >
> > > > Look up community in the dictionary "A group of people having
> > > > common interests" seems to crop up.
> > >
> > > Using a dictionary to define such a word is like using the self
> > > same dictionary to find a recipe for a cake - woefully skimpy on
> > > detail.
> >
> > Haha what a bizarre reply, I suppose you think the "scientific
> > community" is a city in America somewhere with lots of scientists!
>
> ???
>
> No, really, using a dictionary as your source is bad form.

Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the English
dictionary *defines* English words.  How could you possibly argue with the
dictionary?  Do you have your own version of English?

> > > > > People here post images, binaries, bits of POV code. They
> > > > > critique images and points of view. Share ideas on POV-Ray
> > > > > and its satellites of software. Some even discuss off-topic
> > > > > stuff like on the rest of usenet.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds just like a community to me.
> > >
> > > No. Sounds like usenet to me.
> >
> > Indeed it does, but it *is* also a community (have you still not
> > looked it up in the dictionary yet?)
>
> Again, dictionary usage in such cases is bad form. I know someone who
> does this all the time at work and he eventually realises that his
> dictionary is not giving him the full picture.

Please elaborate.

> > > > > In a real "meatspace" community the depth of interaction
> > > > > makes the above list of activitys look extremely small. The
> > > > > true personal touch is where community is really at. This is
> > > > > merely a digital facimile of a community, and as such does
> > > > > not go to the nth degree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try comparing this place and its sister groups to, say, a
> > > > > village or a city - both communities of differing scale. That
> > > > > will ensure that one will see that this is a merely drop in
> > > > > the ocean of human interaction.
> > > >
> > > > How many people in your village/town/city have you spoken to
> > > > about POV?  I think this community is far better than my
> > > > "real-life" one for discussing POV.
> > >
> > > Quite a few actually: my wife, people at work, friends I know.
> > > Don't think of POV as something special that only a select few
> > > talk about - it's just a piece of software people use.
> >
> > Indeed, but not very many people, hence this community is far more
> > productive than the couple of people I know at work who use POV.
>
> Well, obviously.

So, "this place" is not just "a drop in the ocean" then?

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:52:06 -0800, "Chambers"
> <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> > news:mh94501snk2nr67ljq0srs9uo2s742h5k9@4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:36:35 -0800, "Chambers"
> > > <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> > > > news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
> > > > > > A
> > > > > > scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into
> > > > > > the digital realm, but the point was you could have much
> > > > > > higher quality without entering the digital realm.
> > > > >
> > > > > But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step
> > > > > into the digital world.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
> > > > <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > > > I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
> > > > > and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up
> > > > > to 100 times the normal photograph size.
> > > >
> > > > This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring
> > > > to an analog (ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to
> > > > a scanner was unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of
> > > > the process, and the image would never be converted to a
> > > > digital format.
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > I think you will find plenty of people who do scan their photos.
> >
> > ?
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> Saying something would never be scanned is erroneous because people
> scan their photos all the time.

Oh do keep up please!

Post a reply to this message

IMBJR wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:02:12 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:59:40 -0800, Darren New
> > > > > <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > > > Costs? The software can be sourced freely. Just because
> > > > > > > you've been bitten by software does not mean we all have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just because I've been bitten by software doesn't mean
> > > > > > I'm lazy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got you in love with that word "lazy", no?
> > > > >
> > > > > But seriously, again I say, just because you've had bad
> > > > > experiences with software in the past is no sign that it will
> > > > > happen again, either for you or others. Shying away from the
> > > > > new because of the old is not going to get you far. Sure we
> > > > > all to a degree do not like progress, but progress is always
> > > > > present.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, but IME it's safest to let other people do the initial
> > > > "progress" and let them face all the problems.  I'll take up
> > > > any new technology later after all the problems have been
> > > > ironed out and I don't have to waste my time fiddling about.
> > >
> > > The problems are never all ironed out. If you followed your rule
> > > to the letter you wouldn't even have appeared on this group.
> >
> > I call 99% of people not being able to see my images a fairly big
> > problem.
>
> I think that figure may be inaccurate. Plus, how do we go about
> measuring that figure. We cannot just simply ask whether or not people
> can see the image, we would have to also ask if they were able to do
> something that would enable them to see the image.

Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods for viewing
images then that counts as them not being able to see it.  It's pointless
trying to expect them to do anything different - most people won't.

> >
> > > > This J2K case is a perfect example.  Do I bother to download
> > > > extra software and have to spend extra time converting each
> > > > image to view it on my computer, risk the software doing
> > > > something nasty to my machine, and the massive risk that most
> > > > people won't be able to see my images?  Ok, so J2K is a better
> > > > format technically, but I'm not going to use it until it is the
> > > > "norm".
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > Such a good example of technophobia.
> >
> > If that's what you want to call it, but I think it's more commonly
> > used for people who don't take up established technology.
> >
> > Just count how much time has been wasted because of J2K.  All that
> > looking for software, all the postings here etc etc all the
> > conversions back to JPEG because nobody can view it - it's
> > ridiculous!  It's only people like you who insist on using it
> > before it's a properly established format.  Of course have a play
> > about with it by yourself if you have time, but please don't expect
> > everyone else to follow you immediately.
>
> I never expected them too. I never even expected to have to champion
> JPEG2000. I merely used it as a way of preserving image
> characteristics.

So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your image to 8-bit
before viewing it?  Ummm, I think that would be >99% :-)

> And as for it being a waste of time, no, in fact, judging by some of
> the replies it looks like it has been an education for some.

yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:20:26 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:50:08 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>> > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:55:00 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:36:15 -0800, "Chambers"
>> > > > > <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> > > > > > news:b8as40d47rtbrt8ih37iq1imnhvt7dckqo@4ax.com...
>> > > > > > > Don't kid yourself that this is a community. A community
>> > > > > > > happens in "meatspace", face to face, in real buildings
>> > > > > > > with real progress. This is merely a exchange of data.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I will take personal offense at this.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This *is* a community.  The individuals here are more
>> > > > > > intelligent, capable, considerate, helpful and productive
>> > > > > > than any other group I have known.  This community produces
>> > > > > > incredible artwork, as well as the tools to create it.  I
>> > > > > > am proud of the fact that I am allowed a space here in
>> > > > > > these forums*, and I don't appreciate your attitude in this
>> > > > > > respect.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Believe you me, comparing this news server and it contents to
>> > > > > a community is inaccurate to say the least.
>> > > >
>> > > > Look up community in the dictionary "A group of people having
>> > > > common interests" seems to crop up.
>> > >
>> > > Using a dictionary to define such a word is like using the self
>> > > same dictionary to find a recipe for a cake - woefully skimpy on
>> > > detail.
>> >
>> > Haha what a bizarre reply, I suppose you think the "scientific
>> > community" is a city in America somewhere with lots of scientists!
>>
>> ???
>>
>> No, really, using a dictionary as your source is bad form.
>
>Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the English
>dictionary *defines* English words.  How could you possibly argue with the
>dictionary?  Do you have your own version of English?

No, don't be silly. A dictionary is NOT to be used for a tool in a
discussion on the meaning of terms because it cannot do the term
justics.

>
>> > > > > People here post images, binaries, bits of POV code. They
>> > > > > critique images and points of view. Share ideas on POV-Ray
>> > > > > and its satellites of software. Some even discuss off-topic
>> > > > > stuff like on the rest of usenet.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sounds just like a community to me.
>> > >
>> > > No. Sounds like usenet to me.
>> >
>> > Indeed it does, but it *is* also a community (have you still not
>> > looked it up in the dictionary yet?)
>>
>> Again, dictionary usage in such cases is bad form. I know someone who
>> does this all the time at work and he eventually realises that his
>> dictionary is not giving him the full picture.
>
>Please elaborate.

Not to go into great depth but I've often found my reading age greater
than that of my work associates. They gte out the dictionary, only to
find that it provides very little information on the topic at hand.

>
>> > > > > In a real "meatspace" community the depth of interaction
>> > > > > makes the above list of activitys look extremely small. The
>> > > > > true personal touch is where community is really at. This is
>> > > > > merely a digital facimile of a community, and as such does
>> > > > > not go to the nth degree.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Try comparing this place and its sister groups to, say, a
>> > > > > village or a city - both communities of differing scale. That
>> > > > > will ensure that one will see that this is a merely drop in
>> > > > > the ocean of human interaction.
>> > > >
>> > > > How many people in your village/town/city have you spoken to
>> > > > about POV?  I think this community is far better than my
>> > > > "real-life" one for discussing POV.
>> > >
>> > > Quite a few actually: my wife, people at work, friends I know.
>> > > Don't think of POV as something special that only a select few
>> > > talk about - it's just a piece of software people use.
>> >
>> > Indeed, but not very many people, hence this community is far more
>> > productive than the couple of people I know at work who use POV.
>>
>> Well, obviously.
>
>So, "this place" is not just "a drop in the ocean" then?

Productive only in a tiny aspect of human behaviour.

>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:23:05 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:52:06 -0800, "Chambers"
>> <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>
>> > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> > news:mh94501snk2nr67ljq0srs9uo2s742h5k9@4ax.com...
>> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:36:35 -0800, "Chambers"
>> > > <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> > > > news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
>> > > > > > A
>> > > > > > scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into
>> > > > > > the digital realm, but the point was you could have much
>> > > > > > higher quality without entering the digital realm.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step
>> > > > > into the digital world.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
>> > > > <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> > > > > I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
>> > > > > and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up
>> > > > > to 100 times the normal photograph size.
>> > > >
>> > > > This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring
>> > > > to an analog (ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to
>> > > > a scanner was unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of
>> > > > the process, and the image would never be converted to a
>> > > > digital format.
>> > >
>> > > LOL
>> > >
>> > > I think you will find plenty of people who do scan their photos.
>> >
>> > ?
>> >
>> > What does that have to do with anything?
>>
>> Saying something would never be scanned is erroneous because people
>> scan their photos all the time.
>
>Oh do keep up please!

Now you've lost it! LOL

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:26:34 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>> > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:02:12 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:59:40 -0800, Darren New
>> > > > > <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > > > > > Costs? The software can be sourced freely. Just because
>> > > > > > > you've been bitten by software does not mean we all have.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > And just because I've been bitten by software doesn't mean
>> > > > > > I'm lazy.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've got you in love with that word "lazy", no?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > But seriously, again I say, just because you've had bad
>> > > > > experiences with software in the past is no sign that it will
>> > > > > happen again, either for you or others. Shying away from the
>> > > > > new because of the old is not going to get you far. Sure we
>> > > > > all to a degree do not like progress, but progress is always
>> > > > > present.
>> > > >
>> > > > Indeed, but IME it's safest to let other people do the initial
>> > > > "progress" and let them face all the problems.  I'll take up
>> > > > any new technology later after all the problems have been
>> > > > ironed out and I don't have to waste my time fiddling about.
>> > >
>> > > The problems are never all ironed out. If you followed your rule
>> > > to the letter you wouldn't even have appeared on this group.
>> >
>> > I call 99% of people not being able to see my images a fairly big
>> > problem.
>>
>> I think that figure may be inaccurate. Plus, how do we go about
>> measuring that figure. We cannot just simply ask whether or not people
>> can see the image, we would have to also ask if they were able to do
>> something that would enable them to see the image.
>
>Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods for viewing
>images then that counts as them not being able to see it.  It's pointless
>trying to expect them to do anything different - most people won't.

Don't make such bold assumptions as to how many will. Try not to think
of you as an example of how others will react.

>
>> >
>> > > > This J2K case is a perfect example.  Do I bother to download
>> > > > extra software and have to spend extra time converting each
>> > > > image to view it on my computer, risk the software doing
>> > > > something nasty to my machine, and the massive risk that most
>> > > > people won't be able to see my images?  Ok, so J2K is a better
>> > > > format technically, but I'm not going to use it until it is the
>> > > > "norm".
>> > >
>> > > LOL
>> > >
>> > > Such a good example of technophobia.
>> >
>> > If that's what you want to call it, but I think it's more commonly
>> > used for people who don't take up established technology.
>> >
>> > Just count how much time has been wasted because of J2K.  All that
>> > looking for software, all the postings here etc etc all the
>> > conversions back to JPEG because nobody can view it - it's
>> > ridiculous!  It's only people like you who insist on using it
>> > before it's a properly established format.  Of course have a play
>> > about with it by yourself if you have time, but please don't expect
>> > everyone else to follow you immediately.
>>
>> I never expected them too. I never even expected to have to champion
>> JPEG2000. I merely used it as a way of preserving image
>> characteristics.
>
>So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your image to 8-bit
>before viewing it?  Ummm, I think that would be >99% :-)

LOL Keep up.
There's more than just 16-bit JPEG2000 images available from me down.

Your obsession with actual figures is worrying. It's as if you have
some higher knowledge of what takes place here. But you do not.

>
>> And as for it being a waste of time, no, in fact, judging by some of
>> the replies it looks like it has been an education for some.
>
>yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!

Don't be silly. Re-read what people have been saying. Some have
actually made the effort to learn more and try and use the software.

>

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message