Forum Follies

The take away is more than one, you say. What do forums do… they seem to wonder what they do well; paticularly after they’ve been running a long time. Even the simple questions lead to toxic shock.

Summary: You can’t talk about the meaning, nor the nature of photography. You also can’t see it on the internet, therefore, you are wasting your time and their bandwidth showing pictures on the web. Further, talking tech is pretty much wasted since you can’t tell what the pictures will look like. Even worse, you don’t know if the person offering their instruction is capable of anything other than web boasting. The circle seems complete. Actually, it seems like a spiral. Smaller and smaller.

So, you can offer to buy and sell. That, at least is about as far as we’ve gotten. Except, how do you trust in this circle. After all we can’t know if the words or the pictures of the items are correct either. Do we?

crits are tough. they do require shared language. not necessarily what can be brought from experience as an insurance inspector.

Note Mr Katz’s sig asserts his presence on the forum has been since 2008. Membership claims have meaning beyond the factoid they’d seem to have.

They hold desire, and need to belong. Why else would he return.

trust the print, if you have seen it.

web should display what print showed from trusted source

only way to know is to know ahead.

shades of communication theory and post-modern death

perhaps they are headed to a post-forum internet.

Which leads me to a wayback time. Laura Gilpin asked CCA to match a color litho that had been made of her “Rainbow” — it, of course couldn’t be done as a type-C. It would have been very difficult to do as a dye-transfer. One form doesn’t complete an image, nor does it make it less useful.

Gilpin: Rainbow. Amon Carter attempts to show the print. Greyscale on side provides uniform meter for those who try.

“The proof print we sent you of the rainbow more closely matches your original than the litho does.” [12/68]

Even her original wasn’t what she wanted after seeing what a lithographer could/had done with the image.

Apologize to the Bully

it happens.

Why do you say sorry to the one making loud, insistent claims, while also being the one with no known claim to qualification? They make many small mistakes; repeat rumors as though they were found on Stone Tablets.

Why you believe them? Because they are loud, everywhere and persistent. They are so persistent that they are given space by moderators of forums. Forums that make claims of their own. They hold the vessel of the true past. Of course, they don’t.

Small mistakes repeated are errors of base knowledge. Edit errors are rarely repeated by those with commitment to their accuracy; by those who value their own knowledge.

The Roger Ailes method: make a statement claiming, or crediting someone else with the statement. Makes it seem less like something you made up. This is a common form of internet forum conversation. “I heard that” — but can’t, or won’t say, out of politeness, or perhaps non-disclosure…let it trail off into their assumption. The listener/reader will fill in with their own sense of meaning, wanting to seem in the know, and important too.

A Few Small Examples.

without knowing how coatings are made, stored, sold, we have another answer.

The name was wrong. So is the method of ‘branding’

and comes the title of today — the person who caught the flaw is sorry to have called out teacher.

This is ultimate gold to a bully. You monitor yourself. You made the error, not them.

All foreign companies sound the same: Foma, Forte, Fotokemika.

DuPont took over Schleussner in 1962 and continued making the same products using the Adox brand name. In 1972 Dupont sold some of the German coating plant and licensed the formulae to Fotokemika who used the trade name EFKE, that’s when the original Adox brand name ceased for films & papers. Film boxes carried the Made under License from DuPont.

Often made “typo” — mistaking the 500K vs. the horizon daylight value for viewing chromes: 5000K

The point that DW was trying for was:”good color meter” — we are meant to believe that is what he owns.

We will envy him his ownership, so we will value his knowledge.

Expanded Reading: Color

5000K is “soft daylight” — a standard to match prints to slides.

D50 has a correlated color temperature of 5000K, D65 has a CCT of 6500K. The difference is the D illuminants are exact colors as defined spectrally, not a range of colors.

Avoid saying K without specifying it is a correlated value. D50 is exact.

Looking at the CIE, note the CCT lines run up and down (magenta to green). A color temp can be anywhere along that line.

Look at one kelvin value on one line. Your color temp meter can tell you 6500K and the color could be anywhere on that line. That’s the variation

Use the hobby boards when you are bored, not when you are curious.