The New Must-Have Magazine

[davidb]

Have you all seen this? Darkroom Magazine (http://www.darkroommagazine.com/)

[Helen Bach]

Scott Kelby gets my award for the daftest, most misleading, name for a magazine.

[Dave Parker]

Hmmmmm, seems to be a contradiction there!

Dave

[Greg Lockrey]

Probably couldn't use "Lightroom" for copywrite reasons.

[Jim Rice]

Now THAT'S disappointing.

[Marko]

Now THAT'S disappointing.

Why?

[Jim Rice]

IMHO a publication entitled "Darkroom Magazine" should be about, ummmm...........darkroom stuff. Go figure.

[Marko]

Depends on one's perspective and field of focus, I guess. ;)

There was a long legal battle between the Beatles and the Apple Computer Inc. about the usage of the name "Apple", for example.

Personally, I find it a very clever naming, since the magazine is aimed very specifically at the Lightroom users. I don't see anythng wrong or dissapointing there.

Well, maybe that's because I don't feel threatened by it either. I'm pretty secure in my Photoshop, I don't need no Lightroom. :D

[Gordon Moat]

Reminds me of why I quit NAPP. Unfortunately there is a great mass of people wanting to read just this type of information, though personally I feel these magazines should be in the computer section of the newsstand.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Brian Ellis]

I think it's a depressing sign of the times that apparently most people will see this title and realize it's about Lightroom rather than a traditional darkroom (at least the publisher must assume they will or else he would have selected a different name).

The whole digital situation is causing me to lose interest in photography. There used to be a lot more to photography for me than simply making photographs. I used to really enjoy sitting around with people talking about photography, attending workshops, learning from and socializing with people like John Sexton and Ruth Bernhard, reading photography magazines, learning new techniques for printing, learning about photography equipment, reading about great photographers of the past, almost everything related to "photography" interested me.

Now everything involving "photography" is digital and I have no interest in any of it. I don't care about the latest digital equipment, I have not the slightest interest in the fact that CS3 is in beta testing or that Panasonic and Sony are introducing new digital cameras. I don't even like the fact that those companies make cameras, they should stick to TVs and cell phones and the rest of that home entertainment crap. And it isn't like I'm some neanderthal with fingernails stained from Amidol living in the past. I've been printing digitally for years and I can't argue with the results, there's no question in my mind that I make better digital prints from 4x5 scans than I did in the darkroom. But it's all just an end to a means now, not something I enjoy for itself.

This is about the only place where I find people still interested in traditional photography. Almost everyone I know uses a digital camera exclusively and these are serious photographers who as recently as five years ago wouldn't have thought of giving up film. The camera group that I belong to just threw away the slide projector, everything being shown was digital, it had been years since anyone used the projector. I can't avoid the feeling that all of us in this forum are just a tiny band of dinosaurs doomed to extinction within a relatively few years.

Well sorry for the rant but the notion that a magazine titled "Darkroom" is actually about digital software instead of Dektol just blows my mind.

[Jim Rice]

I'm not quite to the point that Brian is, but i still believe that the publication is misnamed. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate irony as much as the next guy, but for those of us still in pursuit of traditional methods the title of the publication borders on the insulting. Perhaps that was the point. I don't know. Anyways, I would subscribe instantly to a publication called "Darkroom Magazine" that meant it. "If you're pissing in my boot and telling me it's raining, you're still pissing in my boot".

[Robert Brummitt]

I agree with Brian about the use of title of the magazine. It should be "Lightroom user" to be a sister publication to the "Photoshop User" magazine. It's misleading. But, the title maybe a way to get stacked next to the PS User magazine and not into the computer section. It's a bit premature to come out with the magazine while the product it's promoting isn't out to the general public except as a Beta test.
I also agree on the idea of photography is about the journey shared. I have always enjoyed sharing images with fellow photographers, hear their stories and learn from one another. Thats one of the goals I had set out for my group the "Portland Photographers Forum" and I believe its been a success.
I also know the old saying is true as well. The more things change. The more they stay the same. I've noticed in PPF that the general discussion has change abit from developers and papers curves to resolutions and profiling. But the general discussion is always "Wow, How did you do that?" or "Where did you go for such a neat photograph!"
It's that journey shared that we as photographers are in this and I believe we always will. Analog or digital? It matters not.

[skelby]

Hi Everybody:
I've been hearing the same type of questions since we announced the launch of "Darkroom magazine," so I explained how the name came about in my blog earlier this week. You can find the story at http://scottkelby.blogspot.com/, and the post appears on Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007.

All my best,

Scott Kelby
Editor and Publisher, Darkroom Magazine (The how-to magazine for Adobe Lightroom Users)

[Wayne]

3) We fell that today's darkroom is the computer. It's a digital darkroom for sure (couldn't use that name for legal reasons either), but a darkroom nonetheless
--------------------------------

Uh, no it isnt. Do you even know what a darkroom is? I think its despicable and deceptive, which probably pleases you to no end. Its like calling a logging company Old-growth Environmental.


Wayne

[Geary Lyons]

IMO, the choice of the name is consistent with the lack of creativity prevalent on the site. It is apparent that Photoshop = Photography, rather than a tool to support the craft. Sad, but I guess it is what one would expect.

I’m not a digiphobe. I use photoshop, but this naming travesty is truly pathetic.

I am going to my “Lightroom”, turn the lights out and print and then to my “Photoshop” to buy film!

Cheers,
Geary

[Marko]

I'm not quite to the point that Brian is, but i still believe that the publication is misnamed. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate irony as much as the next guy, but for those of us still in pursuit of traditional methods the title of the publication borders on the insulting.

I still fail to understand why on Earth would a name of the magazine be insulting to any of you?

A magazine whose main and only area of interest is something you seem to proudly confess to have no interest in...

Get real.

[Gordon Moat]

I still think the title is misleading, or simply plain wrong. Maybe since an SLR is now often called a D-SLR, a simpler and more logical (more accurate) name would have been D-Darkroom. What surprises me is that yet another title jumps into the heap of magazines already professing to be the ultimate guides to digital imaging. Surprised to see Scott Kelby actually posting here, and I wish you luck with your publication, though the title choice seems substantially less clear than your previous articles, books, and lectures.

With over twelve years working with computers and imaging (including SDSU), I never really had any desire to work in a dark computer room, nor at a dark desk. In fact, even when I worked for other companies, the rooms and desks were well lit. Often there might be a colour temperature controlled viewing booth, but never a dark place upon which to perform imaging alterations. Digital Darkroom is only a term of the un-educated masses who don't understand what a graphics professional (or photographer) actually does with a computer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Jim Rice]

Marko, Because it implies an irrelevance to the traditional darkroom. It's as if I had built a magazine entitled "Photoshop fixes" and had nothing but recipes for pecan pies. I personally like pecan pies very much. Is that a justification?

[naturephoto1]

Perhaps Digital Darkroom Magazine would have been a better title. ;)

Rich

[Jim Rice]

Richard is my kinda guy :P

[Marko]

I still think the title is misleading, or simply plain wrong. Maybe since an SLR is now often called a D-SLR, a simpler and more logical (more accurate) name would have been D-Darkroom.

...

Digital Darkroom is only a term of the un-educated masses who don't understand what a graphics professional (or photographer) actually does with a computer.

Funny that the very terms Darkroom and Camera themselves were usurped by early photographers and represent a very uneducated, even bastardized ripoff of the term Camera Obscura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura)...

Now seriously - Misleading? To whom? Wrong? Why??

Uneducated masses who don't understand what a photographer does with a computer? Oh, come on, FCOL, how many photographers on this very board seem to be completely computer ignorant and even proud of it?

:rolleyes:

[naturephoto1]

Marko,

There is about 150 years of photographic history prior to digital becoming the major way of capturing an image to consider. :eek:

Rich

[Dave Parker]

Well it is unfortunate, I feel we are going to see more and more of this stuff happening in the future, the current generation of D-Photographers, don't seem to realize why it is bothersome to those of us that have spent a major portion of our life learning the skills of a traditional photographer and are proud of it, I am not threatened by it, but I am disappointed in the choice to call it "Darkroom" which other than lowering the lights to work in front of the computer screen really has no relation to traditional dark room skills.

Dave

[PViapiano]

What does Lightroom do that PS can't?

FYI, I don't like the title either...

The digital photography revolution reminds me of the "desktop graphics" revolution of 10 years ago. All of a sudden the market was flooded with the worst DIY crap you ever saw. Ever visit the forums at DPReview.com? Occasionally you see something of interest but usually it's the worst god-awful photos you'll most likely ever see from folks who are just chasing the upgrade cycle.

You know, the music biz (my biz) is just the same. You see player after player racing to get the latest guitars, pedals, amps, etc in search of the golden bullet that will make them play better. It's hilarious...in photography and music (and most everything else in life) the only way to get better is to practice...as Lance Armstrong says, "It's not about the bike."

[Jim Rice]

If this represents the the ethos of the educated (and by extension, the enlightened) then please consider me among the unwashed......thank you.

[Gordon Moat]

If this represents the the ethos of the educated (and by extension, the enlightened) then please consider me among the unwashed......thank you.

:D

Nice!

I was going to reply to the post Marko wrote, though just as easy to use this one. My comments in the reply were an expectation that Scott Kelby might actually check back in here, and read more of our postings. Hopefully this does not come across as hyper-critical, but there is a wide range of enthusiasts who want a taste of what they think a professional might be doing for work. The problem is that many of these ultra involved PhotoShop exercises, staying up on the latest software, or even really unusual large format techniques, might not relate at all to what a professional might actually be doing, or that might be able to be billed out to someone . . . now before anyone jumps all over that, I don't feel like typing out a book of explanations (usual disclaimers apply here) . . . besides, my posts are long winded enough already.
:rolleyes:

There is an entire realm of amateurs and enthusiasts that have far more time on their hands than the average professional (print graphics or photographer) can bill anyone. Catering to just such an audience has been the steady dumbing down of successive versions of PhotoShop, the introduction of other software choices, and the proliferation of workshops. In fact there are tours of workshops with somewhat familiar names appearing at many places together (Scott Kelby being one of the usual suspects). Ideally when software is introduced, a professional would decide whether it would save time, thus making him/her more productive, garner new clients, due to some previously unavailable feature (though that could be a fad or gimick), or to remain compatible with service providers (printing shops, stock agencies, et al). Amateurs sometimes have the advantage of not needing the expense to be justified in greater productivity, or often have the luxury of not needing to bill out their time behind a computer.

The comment about Desktop Publishing was also relevant, in the rememberance of night schools that pumped out thousands of these people. Many outside the industry notice when things are done poorly, and are less often aware of well done work, so the worst is what garners more public comments. Digital Photography in some ways is the new night school, the next Desktop Publishing. Those with actual industry experience, or who learned their professions at a university, often do a better job and avoid the latest gimick. Unfortunately for publishers of magazines, and organizers of workshops, few of the actual professionals attend these things, or buy more than the occaissional magazine.

I made an early comment about NAPP. At one point in the past, NAPP moved away from what professionals did for their work, or how productivity could be improved; and they moved towards a software journal espousing the latest, and the cutting edge of technology. Then the tutorials became oversimplified and (my opinion) gimicky. I felt NAPP no longer had professional relevance; and I wonder whether this new publication will be any different.

I don't want to come across as criticizing people outside the industry who want to learn these things. Just be aware that there is more to a profession than learning the tools; something probably obvious to those in the business, and maybe missed by those outside it (this could be stated for many professions).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Marko]

Geez, all this just because of a name! Good thing this happens on a computer board - I'd hate to see this amount of paper being wasted if it were an old fashioned magazine! An analog one, so to speak :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's Sunday and there are better things to do than this. I'm out.

[naturephoto1]

Geez, all this just because of a name! Good thing this happens on a computer board - I'd hate to see this amount of paper being wasted if it were an old fashioned magazine! An analog one, so to speak :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's Sunday and there are better things to do than this. I'm out.

Unless you are not in the US it is Saturday last I checked. :eek: :D

Rich

[Jim Rice]

I've always respected you Gordon (as I have Marko), but huh?

[Dave Parker]

Hmm,

Still Saturday here as well, Now I am confused ....really!

[Jim Rice]

Gotta get in line, Dave :p

[Helen Bach]

We feel that today's Saturday is Sunday. It's a digital Sunday for sure.

[Jim Rice]

I feel much better now:P

[Marko]

Unless you are not in the US it is Saturday last I checked. :eek: :D

Rich

LOL, yes, I am and yes it is. I have yet to replace my desk calendar. :D


There is about 150 years of photographic history prior to digital becoming the major way of capturing an image to consider.

I know that too, and nodoby is threatening to take that away. I'm here because I feel like doing film as well as digital.

My point is that it's all photography to me and I really do not see any harm in a digital photography magazine using a photographic term that's been a synonim for developing images for so long. It's just that they are using software for it instead of chemical concoctions.

It's called a paradigm, just like the terms Desktop or File or most everything else in GUI. No sense in losing one's sleep over it, now is there?

:)

[Marko]

We feel that today's Saturday is Sunday. It's a digital Sunday for sure.

Cute comment and probably well deserved, but also kinda mislplaced - you see, I'm still using an old-fashioned paper calendar. I ran out of dates on Dec. 31. Would've never happened with digital... ;)

[Helen Bach]

"Cute comment and probably well deserved, but also kinda mislplaced..."

Marko, it wasn't aimed at you, or anyone in particular. It wasn't intended to be sarcastic. Sorry if it came over that way.

Best,
Helen

[paul stimac]

Well sorry for the rant but the notion that a magazine titled "Darkroom" is actually about digital software instead of Dektol just blows my mind.

Is it possible that this name will backfire?

[Marko]

"Cute comment and probably well deserved, but also kinda mislplaced..."

Marko, it wasn't aimed at you, or anyone in particular. It wasn't intended to be sarcastic. Sorry if it came over that way.

Best,
Helen

No problem, Hellen, I love a good sarcasm as much as anybody. And this was a good comeback. :)

[Jim Rice]

And I swear I didn't mean to be pissy, I swear.

[adrian tyler]

is this "the lounge"?

judging by the animosity this publication (or rather its title) seem to be generating, perhaps we could come up with a few suggestions, how about:

"darkroom pinko commie"

or

"darkskinned terrorist"

ok ok i'm sorry... i just don't miss my stinkin' darkroom.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

It's been my observation that the names used to describe some contemporary things are often "stolen" from a well established process from the past in an attempt to provide some continuity or help those unfamiliar with the latest stuff connect with it. Often though, it's done purely for marketing purposes.

I think what disturbs many of us (I know it bugs me) is when someone with nothing older than the experience of working with something like Photoshop, talks about unsharp masking, as an example, as though the developers of Photoshop invented it. Many things done in the traditional wet darkroom for decades have been translated into software-based procedures and in some cases the photo-mechanical process names follow along. The cognicenti realize this and the rest think they have stumbled upon something new.

"Electronic Cinematography" seems to have spawned a new generation of movie makers many of whom have had zero experience exposing motion picture film or working with an experienced motion picture crew. They use terminology and acquire accessory equipment that, in their minds, make them feel and appear like they are making films, but a good many of them have had nothing more than video experience and seldom have had any experience in traditional photography, which is a fundimental requirement in my view.

Even verbage used in specifications of equipment has been borrowed from past technology. This gives me much greater reason for concern because with this alteration, there is the danger of redefining basic science in the minds of those not inclined to do their own investigation. The example that annoys me the most is "Resolution". In the electronic camera industry, pixel density has become the new definition of resolution. Trouble is no one says that in their literature. If you examine the long established definition of resolution and the measurement methods involved in establishing that specification, the numbers are simply not as impressive as saying x.x megapixels. Did we ever count the number of individual grain particles on a piece of film and claim that as resolution? Doesn't the lens play some role in all of this? The marketing folks want to talk megapixels because raw numbers are the thing that customers can hang their hat on and help to drive sales. They are not interested in lp/mm or MTF curves and such, because that requires an understanding of the technical that most buyers of this technology are unwilling to learn.

So yes Brian, "Darkroom" magazine rubs me the wrong way too. e-Darkroom or d-Darkroom would be a more appropriate title I suppose and it would prevent the inevitable disappointment of those expecting the wet stuff.

About 35 years ago I had the pleasure of filming Punxatawny Phil being extracted from his tree stump at Gobblers Knob. After the ceremony, we were invited to the home of Dr. Sam Light, then president of the Punxatawny Ground Hog Club, where we were served up some goodies prepared by his wife, Elaine Light, author of Gourmet Cooking With The Groundhog. We asked how her book was doing and she claimed that half the comments she got from folks who hadn't yet read the book expressed revulsion at the idea of cooking with Groundhog meat, but that many who had bought and read the book sent letters expressing disappoinment that there were no receipes in it for cooking with Groundhog meat. You just can't please them all.

[Marko]

Robert, I can certainly see where you're coming from, but in all honesty, arguments like yours were used at every technology juncture in history. Including the invention of photography itself, when all the painters went balistic over the intrusion.

But the real irony here is that the very term Darkroom was originally also usurped by photographers because it simply fit the description and because they did not have a better term.

And now, when a very specialized photographic magazine uses the term everybody gets a conniption fit because it isn't their kind of photography!

[Dave Parker]

Marko,

By the very fact that it has required a darkroom or darkspace for the 150 years that traditional photography has been around to ply the trade(Polaroid not withstanding) and the fact it does not require a "darkroom" to ply the digital photography trade, and many seem bent on trying to merge the two different mediums by cross over use of the terms, seems to be where the problem comes, being a digital photographer does not require darkness, being a traditional photographer, still requires the dark for part of the process, I have no problem with digital photography, but I have a problem with the melding of the two in this manner...because it is in fact misleading. And no, I am not having a conniption fit, I use both types of photography in my business...

Dave

[Marko]

Dave,

You actually raise several good points here. I understand where you are coming from but I believe that I have good reason to respectfully disagree.

My main point is that the very term Darkroom originated much earlier and was "borrowed" by the early photographers from traditional painters. Painting was around much longer than 150 years prior to that. They didn't invent it either - see one of my previous posts for the link to the explanation. It is a paradigm too good to be confined to a single, narrow art discipline. Or just a narrower part of a single discipline, but that's my next point.

As for melding of "traditional" and "digital" photography, I don't see a problem in that either. As a matter of fact, every single technolgy is bound to become "traditional" if it a) were used for more than a single generation and b) is still around when the new technology is introduced. To illustrate this point, what you consider "traditional" photography has been around mere 150 years. A blink of an eye, really, compared to the amount of time really traditional art disciplines such as painting or sculpting have existed. And even that is not the real traditional photography in the way daguerreotype was.

Whenever new technologies were introduced, they aroused the ire of the traditionalists of the time and they also inspired inovators to experiment with both new and old. After certain amount of time, the new would become traditional and the traditional would become historical. Or alternative in this case.

But we are not even talking different art disciplines here, only different craft technologies. It's still the same camera, same lens same everything, even the light sensitive medium used for capturing the image.

What we are actually witnessing is the process of chemical photography changing status from traditional to alternative and digital photography moving into the mainstream. I would consider it exiciting rather than disturbing, as it is something not every generation gets to see firsthand.

[adrian tyler]

marko is suggesting it but there is something fundamental here that does not seem to be part of anyone's equasion, and that is how can anything as new a photography really have this so called tradition, and who would be so bold as to put a parenthesis in the history and say "this is it"?

surely the exciting fact at its inception was that it was a method to capture images, not how it captured images. the rest of this argument must be to do with nostalgia? or perhaps fear?, but i don't see how it has any relevacy to photography itself?

[Dave Parker]

Awe, but there in comes another issue Marko, even though the term was used by traditional painters, you still were not required to have a darkroom to paint.

I myself am not excited about digital photography, I just use it as another tool for a portion of my business, but for the most part, I am not excited about film photography either, it is a tool for a part of my business..

And I think another part of the equation is what is the definition of art, there are still many in the world that don't even consider traditional photography as an art form, I have often times been told I am not an artist by a gallery owner, but I am a documenter,.

The guy has the right to call his magazine what ever he likes, the masses will determine if it is popular, or even needed. I do know that if I saw a new magazine on the rack, called "Darkroom" and grabbed it in passing only to find out its focus was digital photography when I got the chance to read it, I would be very disappointed..which has happened in the past, as I am well know for picking several magazines based on titles when in the book store, only to find out the title was deceptive to the actual content of the magazine.

Dave

[Gordon Moat]

When a chip got placed behind a lens, the result was (and still is) called a digital camera. With more SLRs becoming common and affordable with imaging chips in them, the term D-SLR became more common. When someone wants to know if you have such an imaging device, the question asked is: Do you have a digital camera, to distinguish that from: Do you have a camera?

So tell someone you are a photographer, and some questions might come up. One might be the type of camera. Another might be whether you have a studio. Then a different question might be: Do you have a darkroom? So if we let Scott Kelby define language usage for us, those with a computer loaded with PhotoShop, or the latest copy of Adobe Lightroom, can then answer yes. So when is a darkroom not a darkroom?
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[David G. Gagnon]

He could have gootten around Copyright infringement and not misleading or disappointing traditionalists by calling it "Undarkroom".:rolleyes:

DG

[Marko]

The guy has the right to call his magazine what ever he likes, the masses will determine if it is popular, or even needed. I do know that if I saw a new magazine on the rack, called "Darkroom" and grabbed it in passing only to find out its focus was digital photography when I got the chance to read it, I would be very disappointed..which has happened in the past, as I am well know for picking several magazines based on titles when in the book store, only to find out the title was deceptive to the actual content of the magazine.

But you see, it is your expectations that are deceiving you, not his title.

I am not saying that you are wrong, however, and neither is he. Both of you are using a term much older than your perspective areas of interest in the very context of those areas.

Chances are that Darkroom the magazine will be sold mainly through subscription, and much less through bookstores, as it is aimed at a very particular, narrowly defined audience.

In a word, if you don't know what the magazine is all about, than it's not for you anyway. Just like View Camera, although with a circulation likely at least an order of magnitude greater.

[Marko]

When a chip got placed behind a lens, the result was (and still is) called a digital camera. With more SLRs becoming common and affordable with imaging chips in them, the term D-SLR became more common. When someone wants to know if you have such an imaging device, the question asked is: Do you have a digital camera, to distinguish that from: Do you have a camera?

Funny how times change, isn't it? There was a time when the word "camera" conjured up images of huge things with bellows using glass plates and explosive powder as a flash. :)


So if we let Scott Kelby define language usage for us, those with a computer loaded with PhotoShop, or the latest copy of Adobe Lightroom, can then answer yes. So when is a darkroom not a darkroom?
:confused:

Scott Kelby can define language usage for you no more than you can do it for him. If you are not using Lightroom, as I am given to understand, than why should you care how those who do call their work environment?

[Dave Parker]

Marko,

yes it is my expectations, but it is also my money...when I purchase something based on my expectations and choose to spend my money on those expectations, then I become disappointed when those expectations have not been met, just as with view camera, I would expect a majority of the magazine to be devoted to a view camera, if I was to pick up a copy of view camera magazine, and it was about a 35mm camera, I would be disappointed and probably would not purchase it again, because that would be a deceptive title for marketing the magazine..hey, I wish the guy well, we all have the chance to make it big, but I just wish he would have been a little more forthcoming in what his magazine is about...I know with my business, I am very upfront and honest with my screens, based on the name, you know what your getting, it is not acid etched, it is ground..it is a blurring of the lines that I don't happen to care for, . One area I have difficulties with my own business, is if you look at my logo, it is confusing to many, so I am actually considering redesigning my logo so it leaves no room for confusion....as my wife said, even the digital crowd might have difficulty BECAUSE it is called "Darkroom" and never even take the time to look at it.

Dave

[Dave Parker]

Marko,

I DO use the beta of Lightroom and I still find the title of his magazine to be deceptive.

Dave

[Gordon Moat]

Funny how times change, isn't it? There was a time when the word "camera" conjured up images of huge things with bellows using glass plates and explosive powder as a flash. :)



Even before that was camera lucida and camera obscura. A nice book relating somewhat to this is Vermeer's Camera.




Scott Kelby can define language usage for you no more than you can do it for him. If you are not using Lightroom, as I am given to understand, than why should you care how those who do call their work environment?

I downloaded and used the beta, but decided I did not like it. Adobe might get it to a very nice point on a second or third version, since I think it shows potential. My first PhotoShop usage was version 2.0, though even after version 2.5, it still took until version 3.0 until I was impressed that it was a useful tool (PhotoShop 3.0 introduced the use of Layers). So yeah . . . I have used this stuff. As I stated previously, I was a member of NAPP too. When I no longer was learning anything of value from PhotoShop User magazine, and NAPP went towards trying to impress amateurs on the cutting edge of technology, then I cancelled my membership.

Funny enough, I know substantially more about the digital darkroom than I do about a wet darkroom. I have never owned my own wet darkroom, though I did E-6 processing in my mom's kitchen (she never liked that). I did use a darkroom extensively in college, and rented a darkroom a few times after graduating. So is it ironic that I am more digital (computer oriented) than traditional, yet still find the terminology very misleading?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Turner Reich]

I have a lot of film that I am not using and you can have it really cheap. I mean cheap. The film is in perfect condition and has been refrigerated. It's the film on top of old milk.

[Dave Parker]

I have a lot of film that I am not using and you can have it really cheap. I mean cheap. The film is in perfect condition and has been refrigerated. It's the film on top of old milk.

Turner,

Are you on drugs???? :D

You better share! :eek:

Dave

[Marko]

Marko,

I DO use the beta of Lightroom and I still find the title of his magazine to be deceptive.

Dave


Well, I don't and I still don't.

All it takes is one look at the title, as they have it on their website.

"Darkroom
The How-to Magazine for Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom™ Users"

Sounds very straight-forward to me. Now, having said that, I have not seen the magazine on the actual rack yet, so I can't really tell how clear or confusing it really might be. Have you?

[Marko]

Funny enough, I know substantially more about the digital darkroom than I do about a wet darkroom. I have never owned my own wet darkroom, though I did E-6 processing in my mom's kitchen (she never liked that). I did use a darkroom extensively in college, and rented a darkroom a few times after graduating. So is it ironic that I am more digital (computer oriented) than traditional, yet still find the terminology very misleading?

Funny that, I used wet darkroom extensively throughout my highschool, exclusively b&w, even used to mix my own concoctions. That was three decades before the emergence of digital cameras both serious and cheap enough for me to consider getting back into the hobby. So, now that I'm back, I'm also getting back into chemical stuff too, although exclusively LF this time. How's that for an irony? :)

I guess you could call me a fence-straddler, but I still have no problem whatsover with terminology being used flexibly and intelligently, in the actual context. It's not really brain surgery or rocket science, is it? In fact, I think I find it "so easy that even cavemen could understand it"... :D

[Dave Parker]

Well, I don't and I still don't.

All it takes is one look at the title, as they have it on their website.

"Darkroom
The How-to Magazine for Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom™ Users"

Sounds very straight-forward to me. Now, having said that, I have not seen the magazine on the actual rack yet, so I can't really tell how clear or confusing it really might be. Have you?

Nope have not seen on the rack and look forward to the day I do..until such time as it is on the rack, everything thing we are talking about is pure speculation. As a person that worked in and owned a magazine publishing company in another industry, as well as helping out on one of the current offerings in this business, it all comes down to perception..time will tell.

I however do hope the editor is paying attention to these conversations, as it would help him in the future marketing of his magazine, and I know personally how difficult that can be.

Dave

[Marko]

Nope have not seen on the rack and look forward to the day I do..until such time as it is on the rack, everything thing we are talking about is pure speculation. As a person that worked in and owned a magazine publishing company in another industry, as well as helping out on one of the current offerings in this business, it all comes down to perception..time will tell.

I however do hope the editor is paying attention to these conversations, as it would help him in the future marketing of his magazine, and I know personally how difficult that can be.

Dave

As someone who spent most of my working life in publishing, mostly magazines and web, I agree with the perception part.

The editor is obviously paying attention to these conversations, or at least he did initially, but I am not so sure that the discussions here would have much more value to him than would those on APUG. Don't forget the fact that his primary audience is not general photographic public, not even narrowly digital, but primarily the Lightroom users. If there is a way to narrow the target audience even more, I don't know what it might be.

And in this context, I don't see the title the least bit confusing, much less deceiving. At least no more than the names Photoshop or Lightroom themselves.

[Jim Rice]

I suppose my greatest difficulty with this is that there isn't a "Darkroom Magazine" about traditional darkroom work.

[Mark Stahlke]

I suppose my greatest difficulty with this is that there isn't a "Darkroom Magazine" about traditional darkroom work.

If I start one up, I'll call it "Software". A title like that is sure to attract my target audiance. :rolleyes:

[Dave Parker]

Marko,

Just by chance, you don't have a stake in this magazine do you?

And what does apug have to do with this thread?

This magazine has NOTHING to do with the general perceptions of darkroom work that is generally accepted by this generation of photoraphers,

This Digital vs. traditional is getting to be real old, as the perception is the most important thing, calling a digital magazine "Darkroom" is nothing more than a way to get people to look at something that will be considered a deception, with no more importance than what the film photography people have known all along.

Digital has a place, but they need to find that place and stop this leeching off the film industry.
Dave

[Marko]

Marko,

Just by chance, you don't have a stake in this magazine do you?

Of course not. If I did, I would have disclosed it right upfront.

And why exactly did you feel the need to ask this question, if I may ask?


And what does apug have to do with this thread?

This magazine has NOTHING to do with the general perceptions of darkroom work that is generally accepted by this generation of photoraphers

Really? I'm not sure which generation of photographers you have in mind, but you must have noticed that a whole string of wet darkroom companies have gone out of business lately. Companies like Jobo, Durst, Agfa... Not to mention Kodak which seems to be on the way too.


This Digital vs. traditional is getting to be real old, as the perception is the most important thing, calling a digital magazine "Darkroom" is nothing more than a way to get people to look at something that will be considered a deception, with no more importance than what the film photography people have known all along.

Digital has a place, but they need to find that place and stop this leeching off the film industry.
Dave

Deception? Why?? Do you really seriously think that it is digital that needs to resort to deception to attract people these days? The way I see it, digital is doing quite well without conspiracies as the one you seem to suggest.

And companies like Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei, Nikon, Minolta, and many others seem to agree with my assesment. They must have, otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of business too.

[Dave Parker]

Of course not. If I did, I would have disclosed it right upfront.

And why exactly did you feel the need to ask this question, if I may ask?



Really? I'm not sure which generation of photographers you have in mind, but you must have noticed that a whole string of wet darkroom companies have gone out of business lately. Companies like Jobo, Durst, Agfa... Not to mention Kodak which seems to be on the way too.



Deception? Why?? Do you really seriously think that it is digital that needs to resort to deception to attract people these days? The way I see it, digital is doing quite well without conspiracies as the one you seem to suggest.

And companies like Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei, Nikon, Minolta, and many others seem to agree with my assesment. They must have, otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of business too.


What ever Marko..

I Have said my piece, I have expressed my beliefs and I am not going to change my mind.

Dave

[naturephoto1]

And companies like Mamiya, Bronica, Rollei, Nikon, Minolta, and many others seem to agree with my assesment. They must have, otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of business too.



Marko,

Mamiya, Rollei, and Nikon are still making film and/or digital cameras, they are not out of business. The parent for Mamiya cameras may have sold the camera division, but they still exist.

Rich

[Marko]

What ever Marko..

I Have said my piece, I have expressed my beliefs and I am not going to change my mind.

Dave

That's cool, Dave, so did I. To each his own.

[Marko]

Marko,

Mamiya, Rollei, and Nikon are still making film and/or digital cameras, they are not out of business. The parent for Mamiya cameras may have sold the camera division, but they still exist.

Rich

I stand corrected then. Although to my knowledge, Nikon stopped making film cameras recently, as well as LF lenses, and so did Rollei. That was my argument here. As for Mamiya, if they're still in business, what do they do, exactly?

[Oren Grad]

I stand corrected then. Although to my knowledge, Nikon stopped making film cameras recently, as well as LF lenses, and so did Rollei. That was my argument here. As for Mamiya, if they're still in business, what do they do, exactly?

Marko, Nikon is still selling the F6, and also the FM10 made for them by Cosina.

In addition to the ZD "medium format" DSLR offered outside the US, Mamiya is still offering their full line of film cameras, although I'm sure that sales are vanishingly small at this point, and that the line will in due course be pared down to the latest models that easily "switch hit" between film and digital backs.

Franke & Heidecke is still offering Rollei film cameras, though their efforts right now are likely concentrated on the forthcoming Hy6 platform.

All three have current websites, so there is no secret about any of it.

[Marko]

Oren,

Like I said, I gladly stand corrected. :) I'd be the last person here to take delight in the demise of all those other companies, as I enjoy both digital and chemical photography myself.

That does not diminsh my point, however, that digital certainly does not need deception or some other equally nefarious conspiracy to lure users over from film at this point in time, as was suggested by some here.

The other point being that the spectacle of grown-up people beating themselves into an indignant frenzy over a name of a magazine that most if not all of the participants won't even read by their own admission is at least a bit over the top.

[Oren Grad]

Like I said, I gladly stand corrected. :)

No sweat, just wanted to keep my Orenopaedic credentials burnished in case Tim's looking in... ;)

[Marko]

No sweat, just wanted to keep my Orenopaedic credentials burnished in case Tim's looking in... ;)

Always appreciated :)

[Nigel Smith]

it's a crap name and I won't be buying a copy.

[Dave Parker]

it's a crap name and I won't be buying a copy.

Now that is funny Nigel.....

Cut to the chase and say it the way it is, I love it!

:D

Dave

[RichSBV]

I clicked on this thread without realizing that it was in the digi side... Then I read some of the posts just for the heck of it.

Anyone who thinks the name of this mag isn't offensive and misleading is just as clueless as whoever thought up the name. Any magazine that starts out with a lie for a title can sit on the shelves, or trashcan as it would be more appropriate.

[Marko]

Well, apparently none of you indignant critics bothered reading Scott's invitation to read his blog for the reasons behind the name. If you did, you would have realized that the magazine will not be available to the general public but exclusively as a free download for NAPP members.

What this means it that all of the splean-venting was in vain and you will not need to express your disgust by not buying the magazine. It also means that the magazine will not be left to rot on the shelves and the publisher will not be devastated as a result.

Perhaps reading a book or watching a move or reading a magazine, etc, before criticizing it isn't such a bad idea after all?

:rolleyes:

[John Kasaian]

Oh boy oh boy! I can't wait until they do an article on Elwood enlargers! Golly gee whiz is this ever going to be a great magazine! :rolleyes:

[JBrunner]

It is a stupid title, because it has nothing to do with a darkroom.

If I started a magazine about darkrooms and called it "Digital Post Processing" that would be stupid too.

I'm not overly worked up about it, because it is amusing, in a pathetic sort of way, and like all things digital, it will only be around for about two years. :D

[Marko]

It is a stupid title, because it has nothing to do with a darkroom.

If I started a magazine about darkrooms and called it "Digital Post Processing" that would be stupid too.

Something like this (http://www.digitaltruth.com/) maybe?

Great resource, by the way, nevermind the nonsensical title.

[JBrunner]

Something like this (http://www.digitaltruth.com/) maybe?


Yes, something like that. Not precisely, as the phrase "DigitalTruth" has no traditional meaning in the way "Darkroom" does, but thats close.

Gotta love that MDC.

[Marko]

Yes, something like that. Not precisely, as the phrase "DigitalTruth" has no traditional meaning in the way "Darkroom" does, but thats close.

Actually, DigitalTrugth has no meaning at all that I can see. Just a silly, capriciously chosen name, but who cares? It would make no difference whatsoever if they chose to call it "The Dancing Hyppo" or "Two White Mice" or something equally silly.

It is the content that matters and theirs is good for those of us who have an interest in it. The rest will just shrug and move on.

[Robert Brummitt]

Something like this (http://www.digitaltruth.com/) maybe?

Great resource, by the way, nevermind the nonsensical title.

OOOO! I like this site. Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to add this to my links list.
:o

[JBrunner]

Actually, DigitalTrugth has no meaning at all that I can see. Just a silly, capriciously chosen name, but who cares? It would make no difference whatsoever if they chose to call it "The Dancing Hyppo" or "Two White Mice" or something equally silly.

It is the content that matters and theirs is good for those of us who have an interest in it. The rest will just shrug and move on.

Yes, we agree, much different than "Darkroom"

[Steven Nestler]

Is Scott Kelby part of the Bush administration? His logic reeks of "truthiness."

[Doug Howk]

We're living in an Orwellian world wherein words are used to deceive. This magazine's title reeks of Newspeak's flipping of meaning ( a darkroom is really a lightroom - get real).