[pure-silver] Re: stopbath kills fixer
- From: "Dave Valvo" <Dvalvo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:18:14 -0500
Richard, in the days of Jones and Condit and Mees and James, Kodak was very
free with information. At that time only Agfa was a major competitor and
they were very respectable. When Fuji came along and began taking all the
Kodak tours and secretly photographing production operations all free
sharing of information STOPPED!
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Rudman" <ps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: stopbath kills fixer
> Oh Richard, well said.
> I am just catching up on emails as I have been away. I so much agree with
> you. I too come from a culture of knowledge is there to be shared for the
> benefit of all. Just think how much more advanced medical research (for
> example) would be if all research was pooled from its discovery. Only now
> with the internet would that be possible - although of course it won't be!
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Knoppow
> Sent: 25 January 2005 01:35
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: stopbath kills fixer
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryuji Suzuki" <rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 10:33 AM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: stopbath kills fixer
>
>
> > Are you soliciting information here so that you can
> > paraphrase them in
> > another forum?
> > --
> > Ryuji Suzuki
>
> And claim it as original research?
> Practically everything I write or have written to photo
> forums is from books somewhere and is usually paraphrased
> from books or articles I've read. This all gets blended in
> my mind into some sort of understanding, which I am quite
> willing to share with anyone who finds it useful.
> One might argue that, given the provision that _my_
> understanding is, in fact, correct, that my posting of
> information saves those who are too lazy from having to do
> their own research. There is probably some truth to this.
> However, the same point can be made about any published
> material. Books like Mees's famous _Theory of the
> Photogaphic Process_ are really collections of the condensed
> research of many others. Much, if not most, of the material
> in that book, as well as others, comes from published
> journal articles, which, in theory at least, were available
> at the time of printing, to readers. Why should they not
> have to do the research required to collect and read all
> this matrial? One can take this further but I think the
> point has been made.
> IMO a large part of true science is the free promulgation
> of new knowledge. The results of research carried on for
> strictly commercial application may not fall into the
> catagory of pure science, it is rather applied science. The
> promulgation of knowlege from such research is frequently
> limited because there is some perceived commercial value
> from it. Of so, it must be kept secret and not published
> except in a protected form, i.e., a patent, or else kept as
> a trade-secret. Both kinds of knowlege exist in photography.
> For instance, Kodak published an enormous amount of research
> in peer-reviewed journals and also in more popular forms.
> However, a great deal of the practical knowledge of how
> exactly to manufacture products was kept very secret. If one
> posseses knowlege gained for the purpose of commercial
> exploitation its probably best not to even hint at its
> existence until it can either be employed or protected in
> some way. This must apply to original or unique knowlege, it
> can not, in principle, apply to established or common
> knowledge.
> In science as in jouralism the claiming of other's work
> as one's own _original_ work is considered a very serious
> breach of ethics, and can even be criminal. However, the use
> of well estabilished knowledge, or the use of other's work
> with proper attribution, is quite acceptable, and, in fact,
> necessary.
> This is an informal forum. Most e-mail and Usenet groups
> are informal. They do not have the same strigent rules of
> publication that a scholarly journal must have. It is the
> purpose of such a forum to provide a means for open exchange
> of ideas and experiences and their free discussion. Ideally,
> some teaching takes place and some knowlege is gained. Those
> taking part expect both and must be willing to be both
> teachers within the limits of their knowlege and students
> beyond it.
> Knowledge may be considered a possesion. However, it
> differs from most possesions that sharing it does not lessen
> the quantity one has. In fact, the act of imparting it may
> well increase it.
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
============================================================================
> =================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
>
>
============================================================================
=================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
