energypolice wrote:I was very tired and found it very hard to keep up with your many questions over the last three days working about 6 hours a day.
Where does that leave those amongst us who work 10 to 14 hours daily, every day?
Some of the questions I do not understand, because it is over my head, and it would still take more time, for me to look up the meaning of those words.
That's fine. Or you could ask here; we have surprisingly intelligent bunch of people around here, who are, in the main, all here to try to help you.
But you've got to be willing to be helped, and you need to maintain an open mind.
And you need to remember that you have two ears but only one mouth. Thus you should be listening more, and perhaps consider the points of view that are on offer from those who may have a tad more knowledge than you.
My goal in life is to be 100% truthful in all I do, so I changed the word on my website from “shelf” to “drawers” because that is where I put the film cameras, and that is the truth, and hope to be like Rush Limbough, who I listen to everyday on the radio. He is 98.5% accurate in what he says, which is excellent in today’s world.
Not a really good start in being 100% truthful, I'm afraid. As has been pointed out, you've mis-spelled his name.
And from where did that 98.5% come? My understanding is that he's closer to about 12%, but of course he's only mostly stating his opinion, which may be neither correct, nor incorrect, but may eiher agree with, or differ from, any opinion that any other person might hold.
So I seriously question that any percentage on this is of any real value.
I hope to answer your questions by stating again what I believe, and why I will stick to it.
I look forward to reading your answers. I note though that none at all are proferred in this response.
When I started photography back in the black and white photo days, I would load the film into the camera, then aim and shoot the picture. After the last picture was taken on that roll of film, it was removed from the camera and processed in the dark-room with chemicals to develop the negative. Then I would print from the negative after it was dry, onto photo paper. The finished product was called a “photograph”, and it was impossible to produce a photograph without a negative,
So much for your 100% truthfulness then.
I can recall a prcess called Cibachrome, which I've only used some hundereds of times, that permitted me to make colour prints directly from slides.
No negatives were introduced into that process.
And yes, they most certainly were photographs. You might care to look
here,
here or
here for some more information on this.
but today with a digital personal computer you can make an image and call it a “photograph”. This should not be true if it was not made in the camera, but on a personal computer operated by a person.
But an image that has been made in a camera is still made in that camera, regardless of whether or not it's had any PP applied. And that's true of both film and digital, I'm afraid.
And in a darkroom, one can apply dodging and burning (and many other techniques) to an image before processing the final print. Are those images, derived from film, no longer photographs?
The main reason why I will stick with this belief is, that a photograph made by a digital camera today, cannot be used in a court of law to prove a case,
Oops. That 100% is really slipping badly now.
Nikon actually produce an enforcement kit that permits digital images made with their digital cameras to be used by enforcement agencies in courts of law. While I don't know if Canon produce something similar, my expectation is that because this is such a significant market for them, they will probably have something similar.
but a film camera’s image can be used if the negative or slide can be produced. I am not sure about this being a fact, because I do not know all the laws, so I could be incorrect, therefore please correct me if I am wrong.
Consider yourself so corrected.
Perhaps you might do well to just stick with those subjects about which you may be knowledgable, and then perhaps you should be also prepared to take on board the comments of those who might be more knowledgable in those area's where you could, if you listen, learn something?
I will say again, when a photograph is produced by a digital camera, the camera does the post-processing, and the picture is printed directly from the digital camera or transferred to a personal computer, and then it is printed without any deliberate alterations by the personal computer operator, that is when it will be deemed a TRUE photograph.
So, what if I can show you two images of the exact same subject, taken at about the same time, under the same lighting conditions, but where they each look toitally different? No post processing on the computer save for resizing for the web.
Which of those would you say was the TRUE photograph? Surely, one must not be if the other one is?
When the same process is done at the personal computer stage and any changes are made to the image deliberately, this has now become Digital Art in my opinion.
And you're welcome to your opinion. I'm glad it's just an opinion, because were it anything else, it would probably be considered to be wrong.