Darkroom: The story behind the name
I was speaking at Macworld Expo this week, and I had some people asking about our launch of Darkroom magazine (the how-to magazine for Adobe Lightroom), and one of the things they asked was "What's the story behind the name?" We chose it for four reasons:
(1) The obvious play on words; since the product's called Lightroom, and it's key component is the Develop module, we thought this name did a good job of combining both.
(2) there are legal reasons we couldn't use Lightroom in our name (so Lightroom User was out).
(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, so we felt it worked on that level.
(4) We just liked it. The first time it was brought up in a brainstorming meeting, everybody said "That's it!" Luckily, we've had a great response on the name so far (most people instantly "get it"), and the initial response to the launch, both from the industry and from NAPP members, has been just incredibly positive. Thanks so much for all your kind words, and I can't get to get that first issue in your hands.
posted by Scott Kelby at 2:19 AM
16 Comments:
Looking forward to it! I understand the confusion - felt it myself, a little - but also understand the use issues with the word "Lightroom."
In the future...will darkroom eventually become available in printed form for those of us who aren't in NAPP yet? That magazine looks too fine to just be available online and I'd love to go to my local bookstore and find it right next to Photoshop User.
Sorry mate, but as a digital user this name is a complete slap in the face to all digital enthusiasts. It seems every time we make some progress towards digital standing on it's own we suffer another huge setback at the hands of digital manufacturers. Everything from the term "digital darkroom" "digital platinum" "digital film" and now a digital magazine called "darkroom". It was my hope that digital would evolve down it's own path and become it's own unique art form, but no you and the corporates are hell bent on doing everything you can to make a fresh new art form simply try to mimic an already established art. Sad and pathetic. I'm sure this comment will not be published but atleast you'll get to see it for an instant.
As a REAL darkroom user, this is a slap in the face. I cannot believe that anyone would think this was a good name for something having nothing to do with actual darkroom work.
Call it what it is - "Computer-based Digital Photo Workflow," NOT Darkroom.
This name is being met with outright hostility on several prominent photography forums and news sites. Not just from traditional users but digital users as well. I urge those behind this project to reconsider the naming and recify a horrible lapse in judgement, it's not too late.
Scott, please don't listen to these "old farts" who are still desperately clinging on to film. They aren't going to buy your magazine anyway, because they don't use digital cameras, and they're complaining about the name of a magazine that isn't even for them.
personally I like the name, and think its a good fit, but then, I shoot digital.
These "film guys" take themselves so seriously, just ignore them, and they'll go away---just like their film dark rooms.
I am a "film guy," as an earlier poster put it. I am also an extensive user of Photoshop, since I scan my film for online uses. IF nudity does not offend, visit www.mcnew.net/portraits for samples of my work.
So, that makes this "film guy" a part of the target readership for this publication. I don't have a religiously negative reaction to the title. But I must say that it is so ill-considered, in light of the magazine it is meant to sell, that it calls into question the intelligence of the editorial staff that chose it.
You all can write off my reactions if you wish. But I bet that, if you vetted the name with a half-dozen professional marketers, you'd get six vehement negative responses.
A name should reflect the content of the publication. This name will confuse people at the newsstand and diminish your publication's penetration of its target audience -- either because digital users will pass it by, thinking it to be the province of irrelevant "film guys," or else because they think the name is monumentally stupid for its intended audience.
Hi gang:
Thanks for all the mean comments. ;-)
Just for the record: it won't cause confusion on the newsstand, because it's not going on the newsstand. It's sent FREE to NAPP members, as part of their membership.
The name was mainly my idea, so I take full responsibility. I think the name is cute, and I never dreamed it would have any negative connotation. The response to the name has been overwhelmingly positive, but I have to say, I'm suprised by the anger in some of the comments. After all, it's just the name of a magazine; if you don't like the name, you don't have to read it.
I kind of thought of it this way:
companies that hand crafted type for hot metal traditional typography were called "Type Foundries." Of course, hot metal type is long gone, but even new companies that never created anything but all digital type still call themselves "Type Foundries." The technology has changed, but they basically do the same thing; they create type.
I feel it's the same thing with the darkroom. The technology has changed (we now use Photoshop and Lightroom), but it basically does the same thing; it develops photos. So, what's the harm? If it were on the newsstand, and someone picked it up thinking it was about a traditional darkroom, in five seconds they'd realize it wasn't, and put it back. No lives are lost, no one is hurt. It's just a free magazine. Let it go.
Sanders McNew posted here in by blog, "...it calls into question the intelligence of the editorial staff that chose it." I guess I'm just not that smart. :)
Thanks for sharing your comments, and just remember: Darkroom is just a name for a magazine; it's not a religion.
-Scott
Editor, Publisher, and guy solely responsible for the name, so go ahead and let me have it---I must deserve it
This magazine will have historical significance. It will allow art historians to reflect upon the exact time in which digital imaging chose to emulate another art form rather than stand on it's own merit. A very tragic time indeed for those like myself who have a passion for digital imaging. Who are these arrogant companies & publishers to think they have a right to dictate the direction of my art form? Who are they to force us to remain in the shadow of traditional? This is an outrage. What is next? Will I be forced to call my ink jet prints "Gelatin Silver Prints"? After all they are basically the same thing but using newer technology so who cares. I am absolutely stupefied and for the most part in shock that this has happened.
Dictionary.com all 3 meanings:
dark·room /ˈdɑrkˌrum, -ˌrʊm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dahrk-room, -room] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Photography.
a room in which film or the like is made, handled, or developed and from which the actinic rays of light are excluded.
[Origin: 1835–45; dark + room]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
dark·room (därk'rōōm', -rm') Pronunciation Key
n. A room in which photographic materials are processed, either in complete darkness or with a safelight.
noun
a room in which photographs are developed
--------------------
another entry
mis·lead /mɪsˈlid/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-leed] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -led, -lead·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray.
2. to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgment.
–verb (used without object)
3. to be misleading; tend to deceive: vague directions that often mislead.
[Origin: bef. 1050; ME misleden, OE mislǣdan. See mis-1, lead1]
—Related forms
mis·lead·er, noun
—Synonyms 1. misguide, misdirect. 2. delude, deceive.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mis·lead·ing /mɪsˈlidɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-lee-ding] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
deceptive; tending to mislead.
Darkroom is a term that originates from Camera Obscura and as such predates photography by several centuries.
It is also too good a paradigm to be confined to a narrow, outdated process of crafting photographic prints.
All the anger coming from the chemical photography forums is simply misdirected frutstration with the fact that chemical photography is rapidly moving into the alternative, historic status, while digital is becoming mainstream form of photography. It mostly comes from people who failed to adjust to this transition and now stand to lose monetarily.
I wouldn't worry about those unable to grasp the finer points of such a title, as they are most likely not the target audience of this magazine anyway.
I am not sure who this Marko is and why he believes he is speaking for everyone. Furthermore he has completely ignored the fact that this is not ranting from traditionalists. 70% of the ranting is coming from the digital camp showing annoyance for being grouped yet again with traditional terms. I tend to agree the name is silly, and this Marko character is out of touch with the digital community at large. I suspect he is on the board of "Darkroom" Magazine and working hard to garner acceptance of these unfortunate events.
Wow, I too am outraged, amazed and stupefied at the name....controversy. Get over it, it's a name. It's not "forcing anyone to remain in the shadow of traditional blah blah blah". It's not some kind of commentary on "your" artform. If anything it's a symbol of how digital has become the new darkroom, after centuries of film-based photography.
And maybe it's just me, but if you're going to post such mean-spirited messages, man-up and stop hiding behind "anonymous"
I for one am excited about the magazine! Not confused at all-- NAPP = Photoshop = digital photography = new magazine relating to photography = Darkroom! I like tying tradition and modern together. I don't understand all the anger.
Sorry Dave but I'm going to go anonymous here. Why? Not because I’m going to say something mean to you or Scott but because it appears these folks here have nothing better to do with their time then complain about the simple name of a magazine. Who knows what they’ll do to me if I post my name.
Anyway, can’t we all just get along? Seriously folks – it’s the name of a magazine. It’s not foreign policy or a debate of whether Scientology is better than Catholicism - it’s a freakin’ name for crying out loud!
To all of you still using film. I suppose I understand your turmoil. Your format will be gone within a few years or it will be so costly that you’ll either stop shooting or switch to digital. But to all of you digital shooters out there I just can’t see why you’re wasting your time on bitching about a name of the magazine. If there has been any one proponent of digital, and essentially a hero if you will, for digital it’s Scott Kelby. He wants to see digital succeed as much (or more) then the next guy. Why not compare what we go through in post-processing to the darkroom? It’s the best, easiest way to grasp what it really is. In fact, judging from the people I’ve come into contact with who were film shooters, I think it promotes the art form to those that may be a little intimidated by it. It shows them that the essence of film and the darkroom is not gone – it’s just morphed into something else as many things do over time.
In the end, you’re all entitled to your opinion but be nice about it. You seem to feel that since you’re on the web and behind the name “anonymous” that you’re invincible. Ever think that the rude comments you make can actually by hurtful? Do you not offer people online the same courtesy you’d offer them if they were standing right in front of you? Have you ever met Scott? He’s one of nicest guys you could meet and I highly doubt he had some insidious plot behind the name. If you were face to face with him I’m positive you would you offer him the courtesy of a candid but respectful debate about a topic you’re both passionate about? Why not do the same here?
Don’t forget the big picture here. We all love photography so why not embrace the magazine as the killer resource I’m sure it will be. Sometimes people need to learn not to sweat the small stuff.
Scott,
The magazine sounds great, whatever you call it.
Once Lightroom "proper" is out, will there be Lightroom specific content at NAPP, like the tutorials in the currently free Learning Centre?
Post a Comment
<< Home