Shh! don't stir things uyp.
Lon Williamson wrote:
LOL Antonio, he's NOT kidding.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio
And you sir are being abusive.
You haven't seen abuse directed at you yet.
Lon's awake. Somebody get him breakfast.
Shh! don't stir things uyp.
Lon Williamson wrote:
LOL Antonio, he's NOT kidding.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Antonio Aparicio
And you sir are being abusive.
You haven't seen abuse directed at you yet.
On Wed, 19 May 2004, frank theriault wrote:
Rob,
I know you meant well, but now you've gone and ruined it. I had no idea
that Badger is a phone company, and they just want to get me to buy one.
A phone company? From here it looks like the badgerphone.co.uk web site is
a personal web site
In a message dated 5/18/2004 8:59:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's room for both, but will both survive? Hard to say in the long run.
Perhaps the sun will explode before film disappears, or perhaps there will
be an ominous announcement tomorrow putting to rest all
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Yefei He wrote:
I live in Iowa too and I don't raise hogs or corn. I do run
over badgers from time to time:-)
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!
The Kodak kiosks for printing from CF cards and other media are also
very convenient and give folks a little control such as cropping. When
my wife discovered this, she became a much bigger fan of digital. The
point is that digital CURRENTLY gives the average person some control
over their
Ebeneezer Scrooge writes:
Now, they are being told that digital is good enough.
And, they are being told the truth.
The truth is, a 2mp camera is good enough for most consumers.
The truth is, they don't need to be a computer wizard to run the thing.
The truth is, they don't even need
William Robb wrote:
...And the truth is, when enough of them have bought enough digital cameras,
and are no longer feeding Max 400 into their point and shoots, film will go
away.
-
It almost makes me feel it my duty to get a 67II. :)
Seriously folks, I think Mr. Robb is
own where the slide shots
are
consistently sharper than my *istD is my FA 50/2.8 macro, but only when
i
shoot Velvia.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Well they are traditionalists, and they have promised one, (well sort
of). Just remember there's always
Cosina.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/18/2004 8:59:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's room for both, but will both survive? Hard to say in the
What do the Whalers have to do with Schrooge anyway???
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ebeneezer Scrooge writes:
Now, they are being told that digital is good enough.
And, they are being told the truth.
The truth is, a 2mp camera is good enough for most consumers.
The truth is, they don't need to be
Now you are being threatening.
Antonio
On 19 May 2004, at 02:07, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
And you sir are being abusive.
You haven't seen abuse directed at you yet.
William Robb
Belinkoff
[Original Message]
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5/18/2004 6:33:02 AM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
I have found Norman Korens site most illuminating on this subject:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
According to which
Well, right now there is a thread over at rec.photo.equipment.large-format where
they have found out that they can not even scan 4800dpi/48bit 4x5 images into
Photoshop CS because the files are too big. That size scan does not get all the
quality inherent in the film image. By the way, the guy,
I do not doubt that film will disappear from mass-market retailers soon. Many
things have. However the internet makes it profitable to cater to niche markets
that were unprofitable in the past due to low user density in any particular
geographical area. You can still get unpopular sizes of
I am not so sure - have seen a few new film outlets and processors open
up here in Spain recently. C41 looks like it may be around for quite a
while. Digital may be the new thing but there are an awful, awful lot
of film cameras out there that folks will continue to want support for
many years
this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Anders Hultman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:38:49 +0200 (MEST)
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Yefei He
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:48:28 +0100
Try this one too: http://www.badgerphone.co.uk/
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 May 2004 23:14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality
frank said:
ROTFLMBFAO
(the BF stands for Big Fat, in case anyone out there didn't get that)
Somehow I doubt this can be an accurate description, since I understand you
ride a bicycle professionally.
ERN
: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:48:28 +0100
Try this one too: http://www.badgerphone.co.uk/
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 May 2004 23:14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
I'll try to avoid the general opinion and will limit this to my personal
experience...
I do not photograph for a living - but I do take photographs almost every day.
Over the years I have acquired some ;-) cameras with a variety of film formats
(including a Minox and a Plaubel 4x5).
I use many of
I don't think film is quite dead yet - not whilst you have to pay
$1,000s for digital SLRs that will give you comparable results to what
a film SLR can offer for a fraction of the price. Maybe a few years
down the road. Personally I am quite happy to continue with film until
full frame DSLRs
Hi!
If I understand you correctly, you are faced with two options - either
buy Pentax 67II or invest in DSLR. May I suggest another option (for
which suggestion I hope I am not going to be banned from __Pentax__
list).
Perhaps you could invest in another MF system that either already has
a
Boris,
It is actually an excellent suggestion!
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Hi!
If I understand you correctly, you are faced with two
Hi!
Boris,
It is actually an excellent suggestion!
Oh well blush g... I am a programmer, so that flexibility is
almost always a name of the game for me.
Boris
Tom,
I think there will always be a future for film. 35mm will outlast medium format, but
medium format will still be around for those eliteists like us.
Frankly, you are talking here to a bunch of eliteists who still think 40 year old
Spotmatics with SMC Takumars are great cameras! Me
SLRs won't keep film alive. The PS user is the real consumer, and at the
moment, their trend is to digital.
Them and the one time use cameras
Bill
Using your same logic then if resolution wasn't important we would all
be using APS.
Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 16:56, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio S
ubject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
I have found Norman Korens site most illuminating
Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using your same logic then if resolution wasn't important we would all
be using APS.
His statement was that If resolution was all that important, not that
resolution is entirely UNimportant. You're being deliberately obtuse
now.
--
Mark Roberts
APS was never anything more than a gimic...
Tom C.
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:17:23 +0200
Using your same logic then if resolution wasn't important we would all
Try telling that tom my mom!
On 18 May 2004, at 17:39, Tom C wrote:
APS was never anything more than a gimic...
Tom C.
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:17:23 +0200
Using
*Shakes head* This is the hootenany I was speaking of. You know a couple
years ago people were claiming 30-40 Mega pixels to outdo 35mm film, that
number keeps dropping, but people still claim you need such and such
ludicrous amount of pixels to out do the resolution of film. well, I have
been
Mark, there is no need to get abusive. I was only pointing out the
effect of sensor size on image quality, and in particular how this
correlates with 35mm quality, not making a statement about individual
preferences regarding image resolution.
Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 17:29, Mark Roberts
Conversely, using your logic, if resolution was so important we would all be
using large format! GET A GRIP MAN.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
are on their way out too. Stick in a very small sensor, a little
bit of memory... same thing as a plastic lens and cheap film.
Tom C.
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:00:18
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
*Shakes head* This is the hootenany I was speaking of. You
know a couple years ago people were claiming 30-40 Mega
pixels to outdo 35mm film, that number keeps dropping, but
people still claim you need such and such ludicrous amount
What's her number? :)
Tom C.
From: Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:43:46 +0200
Try telling that tom my mom!
On 18 May 2004, at 17:39, Tom C wrote:
APS was never anything more
, 2004 11:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Using your same logic then if resolution wasn't important we would all
be using APS.
Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 16:56, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Antonio Aparicio S
ubject: Re: Future
And you sir are being abusive.
Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 17:29, Mark Roberts wrote:
Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using your same logic then if resolution wasn't important we would all
be using APS.
His statement was that If resolution was all that important, not that
resolution is
-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Shel I understand your point of view, but probably disagree a bit. I can't
see film going through a slump and then returning to some appreciable level
Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read my message shawn, I was not saying that resolution was the be an
and end all of image quality but rather that Norman on his site
(follow the link I posted) made the point that for digital to match
35mm image resolution you would be looking at a
HAR HAR HAR!! Hahahaha! Actually, thats pretty funny. I'm a fan of chincy
humor though.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Ah but in this test: http
And your contribution is? Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 18:10, Mark Roberts wrote:
Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Read my message shawn, I was not saying that resolution was the be an
and end all of image quality but rather that Norman on his site
(follow the link I posted) made the point
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality
, predicting
the future, one way or another, is, to a degree, folly.
Shel Belinkoff
[Original Message]
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5/18/2004 9:00:18 AM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Shel I understand your point of view, but probably disagree a bit. I
Would everyone please just ignore him until he calms down or goes away
Antonio Aparicio wrote:
And your contribution is? Antonio
I can see it in that light.
Tom C.
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:30:09 -0700
Hi, Tom ...
My comment about film slumping and having a resurgence is based, in part,
on how
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Would everyone please just ignore him until he calms down or goes away
Did that a while ago. Trolls are a part of the net, nothing you can do
except ignore them. ;-)
/Henri
Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Hi, Tom ...
My comment about film slumping and having a resurgence is based, in part,
on how vinyl records and turntables disappeared but have recently come
back
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Hi, Tom ...
My comment about film slumping and having a resurgence is based, in part,
on how vinyl records and turntables
IOW, what does IOWA mean, other than a place for hog farmers and big corn fields?
Hi, Tom ...
snip IOWA, snip
Shel Belinkoff
Collin (of course Badgers take precedence) Brendemuehl
---
'Tautology is'
,
digital and film cameras are very similar. So film cameras will not have
that advantage IMO.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Hi, Tom ...
My comment
From: Shawn K.
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:53:51 -0700
Conversely, using your logic, if resolution was so important we would all be
using large format! GET A GRIP MAN.
-Shawn
These are words only expressable by
Gladly...
keith whaley
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Would everyone please just ignore him until he calms down or goes away
Antonio Aparicio wrote:
And your contribution is? Antonio
Steven Desjardins mused:
I remember when folks were estimating 20-30 MP for full equivalency. . .
So do I. Maybe it's because I was one of those folks. I came up with
that figure based on my own experience with scanning Provia Velvia;
there was obviously more real resolution available from
.
Shel Belinkoff
[Original Message]
From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5/18/2004 9:48:58 AM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Mornin' Shel
You may have a point when it comes to enthusiasts like many on the list.
However, for the average consumer digital
/ocesideharbor2.htm
there is clearly more detail in the film scan - I can see a bird in the
sky which just gets lost in the digital image!
-Original Message-
From: Shawn K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 May 2004 15:34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Your comment assumes that it's not superior to digital ... which it
arguably is.
Shel Belinkoff
[Original Message]
From: Shawn K. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5/18/2004 9:50:24 AM
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Well, part of the reason for that is continued
15:34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
*Shakes head* This is the hootenany I was speaking of. You
know a couple years ago people were claiming 30-40 Mega
pixels to outdo 35mm film, that number keeps dropping, but
people still claim you need such and such ludicrous
What exactly is it that I am supposed to have done wrong here? I feel
quite calm and have no intention of going away. Is this how you
normally treat people on this list who have a minority view on an
issue?
Antonio
On 18 May 2004, at 18:33, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
Would everyone please just
C.
From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:09:14 +0200
Hello Tom
The journey from film towards digital photgraphy has begun. No one knows how
long it will last. I guess
On 18/5/04, BOB S, discombobulated, offered:
Digital photography still has issues to address. Being computer literate
is the first hurdle. Owning a computer is the second. Long term storage
is the third.
Some manufacturers realise this and are providing a simple camera-to-
printer solution
://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 2:55 AM
Subject: Future Practicality of Film
I realize this list has a number of clairvoyants and unlicensed
psychologists
On 18/5/04, SHEL THE WISE OWL, discombobulated, offered:
Now, is it practical to buy new camera gear? Indeed it is. Unless you're
a professional, or on a very limited budget, the idea here is to have fun
making photographs. So, buy the camera you want, shoot film until it goes
out of
Using your same logic then if resolution wasn't important we would all
be using APS.
His statement was that If resolution was all that important, not that
resolution is entirely UNimportant. You're being deliberately obtuse
now.
This is brewing nicely. Computer, run scenario Dobo-Alpha.
, scooters, mopeds etc.
arround.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 18. maj 2004 20:28
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Hi Jens,
Thanks for your response. You
Can't argue with this logic. OK... Anyone think Pentax will introduce a
digital back for the 67II?
Tom C.
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:37:10 -0400
One of the most
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Mark Cassino wrote:
No matter what digital camera you purchase, a better one will be coming
along. Today's 6 megapixel DSLR's a nice, but digital will only get better
and, if other digital revolutions can be used as a guide, they will get a
LOT better a LOT faster. If a
Practicality of Film
Can't argue with this logic. OK... Anyone think Pentax will introduce a
digital back for the 67II?
Tom C.
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:37:10 -0400
Well, I would say digital is a seller's wet dream come ture. Let's say you had
bought a new Linhof Super Technica IV in 1959-60 or so. Now, would you ever have
had a real reason to buy another one unless you used it so much you actually
wore it out?
Whereas, like your computer, next year your
On Tue, 18 May 2004, graywolf wrote:
As I have mentioned before, I used to do a lot of event photography.
If that is your thing then you can almost not afford not to go
digital. However, strange as it may be, 80+% of the folks on this
list seem to be landscape/nature photographers. Why in
Most likely because of the immediacy of getting the image back and the fact
that no one uses their cameras exclusively for one genre. Also because
we've all wanted to try a Pentax DSLR... it's newfangled. But I know what
you meant.
35mm because of price/convenience.
If you're right I'd be
Smile, compares crops of 2nd generation digitalized slides to corps of 1st
generation digital. Kodak said 14mp was comparable to 35mm color negatives back
when 2mp was the best anyone (them) had done so far. I have seen nothing that
contradicts that yet. That would mean you would need about
, but
they don't look any better printed out and that what matters most.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Smile, compares crops of 2nd generation digitalized
Practicality of Film
Smile, compares crops of 2nd generation digitalized slides to corps of 1st
generation digital. Kodak said 14mp was comparable to 35mm color negatives
back
when 2mp was the best anyone (them) had done so far. I have seen nothing
that
contradicts that yet. That would mean you would need
On 18/5/04, THE CHESHIRE COT, discombobulated, offered:
I have phases still to come, which one day i am looking forward to. One
of those is walking off into the woods with a large format camera and
half a dozen plates, and coming back with a very large grin.
I would, under similar
are
consistently sharper than my *istD is my FA 50/2.8 macro, but only when i
shoot Velvia.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
And, of course, the 6 MP cameras
:
being able to immediately see if the shot came out, and being able to delete
it if it didn't.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
There is no question
: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
SLRs won't keep film alive. The PS user is the real consumer, and at the
moment, their trend is to digital.
The film SLR camera is also in danger of becoming extinct.
to confuse the digital sensors, but
can't fool film.
Yefei
-Original Message-
From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Ah but in this test: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Film for amatures is quite cheep today, because of the huge sale to
professionals. They will stop buying film within the next 2-5 years, if
not
earlier. This means film will soon be so
Hi Collin,
I live in Iowa too and I don't raise hogs or corn. I do run
over badgers from time to time:-)
Yefei
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:49:46 -0400
From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Message-Id: [EMAIL
Practicality of Film
I enjoy nature/landscape photography, but I don't make huge prints.
6mp is more than enough resolution. I probably wouldn't carry MF or
LF stuff with me anyway because that is more equipment to carry while
backpacking.
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Imagine my surprise when my input (and others I am sure) became the
Advanced
Photo System format.
---
So what was the rationale behind it? I can understand the consumer side,
see the thumbnails
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Frankly, you are talking here to a bunch of eliteists who still think 40
year old Spotmatics with SMC Takumars are great cameras! Me among them. :-)
The problem with eliteists is that they seem
On 5/18/04 9:50 PM, KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even
discussing the demise of APS (as well as 35mm for that matter) is not moot
Is NOW moot.
Ken
On May 18, 2004, at 5:43 PM, graywolf wrote:
I wonder sometimes if any of these folks who say digital is so good
have ever even seen an original 8x10 tranny on the light table.
Sure. I've seen hundreds of them, dating back to the time my dad was a
color photo engraver for Life Magazine. He
Practicality of Film
Smile, compares crops of 2nd generation digitalized slides to corps of
1st
generation digital. Kodak said 14mp was comparable to 35mm color
negatives
back
when 2mp was the best anyone (them) had done so far. I have seen
nothing
that
contradicts that yet. That would mean you would need
Well, Bill, I've gotta disagree with you. Just read the membership roll of
magnum and see all those photogs who use 35mm cameras. Y'gotta admit.
I've been fooled all these years. I thought those jamokes were serious.
And then there are many, may documentarians that still use 35mm, and
Ebeneezer Scrooge writes:
Now, they are being told that digital is good enough.
And, they are being told the truth.
The truth is, a 2mp camera is good enough for most consumers.
The truth is, they don't need to be a computer wizard to run the thing.
The truth is, they don't even need a
computer illiterate you know.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
Your saying that MF scans don't look any better than 35mm scans when
printed? That's
: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:50:55 -0400
To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film (APS)
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:51:02 -0400
On 5/18/04 8:37 PM, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but was anyone
seriously into photography going
Film is not going away folks. Those who say it is are those who have bought
into the digital hype in a big way. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with
digital cameras. But there are lots of us out there who do not really want, need
or care to go digital, and if we go digital it might simply be
pocket change compared to lenses.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future Practicality of Film
Film is not going away folks. Those who say it is are those who have bought
94 matches
Mail list logo
