Aaron Reynolds writes:
Gordon Willis talks about underexposing The Godfather Part II by six
stops and sometimes more to make it washed out and colourless in the
Vegas sequences, and also talks about underexposing by a couple of stops
as a rule to defeat helpful lab people who try to brighten
A scroll of mail from Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 5 Sep
2001 10:11:39 -0400
Read it? y
Skofteland, Christian wrote:
Can
you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
George Lucas is filming Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones
with digital. I sure
dave o'brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Skofteland, Christian wrote:
Can you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
George Lucas is filming Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones
with digital. I sure hope the movie is better than the title.
Feature motion pictures are shot with negative film. The final release is on what is
called print
film it gives a positive tranparency.
--graywolf
dave o'brien wrote:
Interesting. Is standard movie film closer to print film or slide
film for latitude?
--
Tom Rittenhouse
Graywolf Photo
If you'd like to try motion picture film in your still camera, you can
buy it wound onto 35mm reels and packed in canisters from RGB studios in
Hollywood, California, USA. (You can get their phone number. They're in
the 323 area code.) They'll process it and print it as a positive film
or on
Mark D. wrote:
Are you gonna use the Peizography software and inks or are you gonna work
with the MIS Hextone inks?
I hadn't decided yet. Lyson also sell a set of quadtone inks, again, no software.
The Cone stuff is expensive, because of the software. I hear it's good, though.
My
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've had reasonable results making duotones with deep chocolatey browns
and then printing them just with our colour inkset (after some
tweaking). So far, for regular materials, this seems to be the best
way. I guess I'll have to drop the money on a
Mark D. wrote:
My exploration into digital BW has not been very
satisfactory.
and Aaron responded:
I haven't seen any samples that have wowed me; I had thought that maybe
it was just because the people making the samples didn't know how to
fully take advantage of the materials yet.
Trying to chase the future is futile. Holding back a little gives you
room to breathe, and consider where the future is actually heading.
:-)
Best,
Jostein
who takes pride that he hasn't lusted for the MZ-s yet either...(but
it's getting harder...) :-)
- Original Message -
From: Tom
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron and Mark,
Check out:
http://leicam2.home.texas.net/
You'll notice that George offers his prints for free. I requested some and
he sent them to me. Although small, they're generally really
excellent--the
best look as good as 4x5 contacts.
Very
Hey, someone had to clean up the language G
Norm
John Coyle wrote:
snip It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who
decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling of some words in his famous
dictionary, which was then adopted as standard American spelling.
-
This message is from
-Original Message-
From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Hey Christian, don't start this one again - we had a long
series on this just
recently!
However, I might just remind you that the English language
originated in
England (not the Americas), and that part of it's
: Spelling games (was RE: Slides vs digital)
John Coyle writes:
It was only the somewhat demented Mr. Webster who
decided, quite unilaterally, to alter the spelling
of some words in his famous
dictionary, which was then adopted as standard
American spelling.
Yeah he made a few typos
Mark Roberts wrote:
What Mike spent on his setup is a lot less than some people spend for one camera
or one lens. One should also take note of the fact that a lot of his gear can be
used for printing scans of negatives or slides. I have a similar setup only with
a film scanner instead of the
I use a program called ACDC and print out my
thumbnails (from the D1)from this.I can manipulate the size and
print them out on hi res Epson paper for viewing
at shows.So far reactions have been positive
Dave
Begin Original Message
My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Aaron,
Which inks are you using in the Epson printers?
The 7500 uses the same pigment set as the 2000P. I haven't decided
which monochrome inkset to go with yet for the 1200.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:23:00 -0400, David J Brooks wrote:
I use a program called ACDC and print out my
thumbnails (from the D1)from this.I can manipulate the size and
print them out on hi res Epson paper for viewing
at shows.So far reactions have been positive
I think that's ACDSee, Dave.
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My colour darkroom has been shut down. My black and white darkroom is
still quite active, for two reasons:
1) it's a pain in the ass to do a contact sheet digitally,
2) without a printer that has been converted for monochrome printing,
digital black
I do my BW contact sheets digitally. I scan them on an Agfa Duoscan 2500
T we have at work and print them on an Epson 1200. Just fine for
contacts. But my experiments with printing digital BW photos have been
just so-so. The darkroom is still the best place for that. I have had
good success
-Original Message-
From: Cory or Brenda Waters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more
than ten years ago
in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from
that timeframe
in a week. The CDs work no problem but the
I have, and one day I might actually get one. BUT, I would only use it for snaps
to email, etc. I only shoot color now just for snapshots, the real joy in
photography to me is Plus-X in my 6x7 followed up with a darkroom experience. I
really enjoy the craft side of the art. So, yes, I might buy
-Original Message-
From: Robert Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^)
They are so young, so lacking in experience. They become much more
interesting a few year later -- naked or clothed.
Bob
good point
Christian Skofteland
Humm. Does the term neoluddite come to mind. Yepper, it surely does.
You think things are going too fast? When I feel that way I think of my dad. When he
was born
automobiles (you could hardly call them cars) were a curiosity, the first airplane had
not yet
flown. Before he knew it the
Mike Johnston wrote:
by 2012 the river would be twelve feet long
In January the temperature was 2 degrees C. In August it was 25 degrees C.
If the temperature continues to rise at this rate then I would give the
polar ice caps no more than 5 months. We're all doomed, doomed I say!
Regards
Jim
Reminds me of a guy I met in business about 12 years ago. His specialty was twilight
industries, those
dying out. He ended up buying all the machines to press vinyl (albums) that he could,
he was at that
time the only company doing it in the US and cornered the (then small) market. Now he
is
Christian Skofteland writes:
-Original Message-
From: Cory or Brenda Waters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more
than ten years ago
in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from
that timeframe
in a week. The CDs work no
Dave wrote:
If you know of something suitable let me know :)
Dave,
Check out:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10.html
That's not exactly it, but it's a pretty nice camera. BTW it's smaller than
it looks in pictures, and it's almost affordable.
--Mike
-
This message is from the
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
Dave wrote:
If you know of something suitable let me know :)
Dave,
Check out:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10.html
That's not exactly it, but it's a pretty nice camera. BTW it's smaller than
it looks in pictures, and it's almost
Hey Christian, don't start this one again - we had a long series on this just
recently!
However, I might just remind you that the English language originated in
England (not the Americas), and that part of it's vocabulary comes from the
French. Therefore, French 'couleur' = English 'colour',
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
That's really not all that much, given that you'd be discovering a whole new
way of making images and starting to learn about the most revolutionary
development in photography since Godowsky and Mannes invented Kodachrome in
1936. Let's face it, this
]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
So just how rich are you? Much of what stays and goes is driven by cost.
When film is less utilized, the price to produce will go up and the price to
develop will go up. After a while
If it's not Jar-Jar it will be some other lame character
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: David A. Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even
: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 7:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote:
I really do not understand the comparison. Slides offer the highest
resolution available in colour film. Start comparing digital to say 3200
negative film
My feeling is that film will always have the edge in resolution, since CCDs
and other light sensors are electrical components with a certain minimum size,
while film works on a molecular scale. I'm sure everyone has noticed that
film continues to improve. The cost/availability factor is another
- Original Message -
From: Lewis, Gerald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(snip)
Movie film is on positive transparency film...
(snip)
Not so. As a general rule only amateurs and pre-video news gatherers
used transparency films. Feature films are shot on colour negative and
printed on
I agree, I would also buy that 6 Mpix MZ-S lookalike, we have all
seen the prototype of, for a reasonable price :-)
But it will take a long while before it can come level with the
good old slide emulsions, if ever in our lifetime.
Not within our lifetime???
Try within a few years. Sooner if
Pat,
I'll keep buying film as long it's there.
:-)
And I don't think film will die easily. Even if everybody wants
their images to go digital in some way.
Placing a CCD in a tabletop scanner is dead cheap compared to
fitting one to a camera. Tech developments are bound to improve
both type
Skofteland, Christian wrote:
Can
you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
Actually, with the very best we've got today, if he had shot with DV
after doing the same testing he would with film stocks, I'd bet we
couldn't tell the difference.
Funny story from a
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
So just how rich are you? Much of what stays and goes is driven by cost.
When film is less utilized, the price to produce will go up and the price
to
develop will go up. After
How real do people turn...? Silly question, sorry...:-)
IMHO, the advance of digital photography is related to other
issues than _just_ the advance of affordable technology.
[enter rambling mode...]
A great number of people will have a lot of pleasure in producing
images digitally, view them
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly
starting to
happen is an indicator.
I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR
users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR
At 05:15 PM 9/4/01 +0800, you wrote:
Trouble is I've never played a (vinyl) record that didn't have the odd
crackle or snap. If you can ignore that - then yes, it sounds surprisingly
good. Film on the hand has no such artefacts (to my amateur eyes ;-)) so it
should be able to put up a good
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Mike Johnston wrote:
Christian wrote:
I don't think I'm alone on this one. If it were to get prohibitively
expensive due to decreased demand then I guess I, along with just about
every Nature/Wildlife photographer out there, would be SOL.
I just don't believe
Hi, Alexandre.
You missed my point...
It's easy for computer literals to convert between media. We
eagerly await the future for another chance to convert our images
to brave new technology...:-)
My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of
sitting down before one of them silly
Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
Sadly, the numbers
- Original Message -
From: Alexandre A. P. Suaide
Maybe we can have an idea. I don't know the prices but how
much expensive
is a super-8 film today when compared to 30 years ago. We
should remember
to take into account the inflaction of this period. Maybe the
price will
be almost
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
. If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I
could see this being the thing that turns the masses to
digital
So, where do we obtain books on creating
our own paper emulsions for paper glass?
That seems about the only way the craft will survive
the next 2 decades. (and I'm serious!)
Here's the future that I dread:
Clubs of people in their 50s learning to mix chemicals for paper and plates. They
William Robb wrote:
I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR
users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who
is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs
by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market
that is driving
Absolutely! That was my point. According to Bruce Dayton
(elsewhere in this thread) this is already happening.
So if the memorycards of today's digital cameras fits tomorrow's
digital labs, all will be well...?
...or?
Bit sceptical still...
Jostein
-- Original Message
William Robb wrote :
What I find really stupid is all the talk about film being
replaced by digital.
Which was the point I was making in the first place! Granted I did not use
the words stupid or moronic because I'm new to this forum and didn't
want to offend anyone. ;^)
Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
So, where do we obtain books on creating
our own paper emulsions for paper glass?
That seems about
---
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact
There is one other aspect which may, for just a few folks, impede the total
triumph of digital over slide film - even after the resolution, cost, and
all other functional limitations are removed (which will of course happen
very soon indeed): namely, the questionable authenticity of a digital
of elitism and makes this group just that much less interesting.
Jerry in Houston
-Original Message-
From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:24 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
Collin Brendemuehl wrote
Robert Wetmore wrote:
snip
Very interesting and thoughtful views.
I'll not buy a digital camera any time soon - I have no interest in simply
the outward appearances of images.
I think the notion that film/chemical images are more than just outward
appearances of images in a way that digital
My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of
sitting down before one of them silly PC-boxes just to get an
image on a piece of paper, that's not convenient technology in
_most_ people's eyes.
Jostein, I couldn't agree more! That's why I make it a lot easier on
myself and sit
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The really ironic part of this scenario is that computers
themselves are among the worst polluters now. They are a
manufactured object, which eats up natural resources and energy
resources to produce, then they eat up more energy resources in
use, and then
Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to
happen is an indicator.
Maybe, maybe not, because you can't extrapolate saturation. Mark Twain wrote
a funny essay in which he calculated the rate at which the Mississippi river
was getting shorter, as the result of
: Slides vs. digital
Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting
to
happen is an indicator.
Maybe, maybe not, because you can't extrapolate saturation. Mark Twain
wrote
a funny essay in which he calculated the rate at which the Mississippi
river
was getting shorter
...And now I have a slightly different tack to take than in my last message.
How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED digital?
I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance?
One of the common themes I encounter ceaselessly on the digicam forums is a
great
]]On Behalf Of
Mike Johnston
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 7:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
...And now I have a slightly different tack to take
than in my last message.
How many of you who are railing against digital have
actually TRIED digital?
I mean recently
.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
Snip
How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED
digital?
I mean recently
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Bruce Dayton wrote:
It has all the basic problems of a PS (Slow AF, delay on shutter
firing, single lens)
Just as a FYI, in case you didn't know, you can get screw-on adapters that
expand the capabilities of the lens. Nikon makes a fisheye, wide-angle,
and two telephoto
was: Re: Slides vs digital
Message-ID: 3B95548E.22924.A74341@localhost
In-reply-to: 004401c135b8$e0db2f40$d7bbfea9@markd
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4 Sep 2001, at 20:14, Mark D. wrote:
From: tom [EMAIL
Jostein wrote:
There's no digital medium (or print) with a lifetime
expectancy longer than a negative.
Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more than ten years ago
in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from that timeframe
in a week. The CDs work no problem but
Skofteland, Christian wrote:
What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^)
They are so young, so lacking in experience. They become much more
interesting a few year later -- naked or clothed.
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
William Robb wrote:
...advantage lies with the incumbent technology, as it has a long
and well proven track record of reliablilty.
I guess that is true, that must be why the good old reliable horse and
buggy still dominates transportation, and the new-fangled and imperfect
automobile has
: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
Gary J. Sibio wrote:
Vinyl actually produces better sound than CDs assuming it isn't damaged.
You get overtones with vinyl that you don't get with CDs. Film will
continue as long as it remains superior to digital
Bob R. wrote:
In order for digital to match conventional processes, the dynamic range must
be increased and then the linear range must be translated to the standard
S curve to give the gradations available to conventional film and print
material. Think here of a d-max of greater that 6.0 and
Skofteland, Christian wrote:
I (and I'm sure most people on this list) do not agree.
Print film, slide film, any film will not go away.
He didn't say that.
Digital imaging will
never replace a photograph.
This statement makes no sense.
There is no substitution for the color
.
Jerry in Houston
-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
There is no substitution for the color saturation and contrast of high
quality color transparency film
Nenad Djurdjevic writes:
As far as I know digital technology has no answer to slides. Does anyone know if
digital technology can produce high resolution slides that can be projected? (and I
don't mean via one of those projection TV systems).
Hi, yesterday I was with a lab guy, and he told
, it is only a matter of time before it comes down to the consumer
level.
Jerry in Houston
-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
There is no substitution
I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at
the theater
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
Think
Sorry, it was in the original post you responded to...sorry
Jerry
-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
Hey! You misquoted, I didn't say that.
tv
Lewis, Gerald wrote
]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
Think of this next time you see one of those high tech computer generated
digital movie spectaculars. I think they qualify as having high quality
color saturation and contrast. That capability is certainly there for
digital, it is only a matter of time before
: RE: Slides vs digital
I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at
the theater
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Lewis, Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:30 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
Even if the digital images are transferred to film, if the resulting color
saturation and contrast looks like film, then the digital image must have
been that good in the first place for film to capture it.
Furthermore, all-digital projection
Crikey, dont start them on this one, we have already had vinyl/CD and
cinema film/digital - lets not do video/DVD/film too!
-Original Message-
From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 September 2001 17:12
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
, September 04, 2001 12:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say
that
video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture
and documentary industry.
And that's one replacement that I can
Only until digital becomes tenable from a cost standpoint (which will be
a few--very few--years).
I'll bet still chemical photography survives much longer than motion picture
film. As Bill Casselberry pointed out, the resolution needed for motion
pictures is lower than for stills. The material
I think that there may be some confusion here. May I add to it?
And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say
that
video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion picture
and documentary industry.
And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never
At 12:50 AM 9/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
At 10:18 AM 9/3/01 +0100, you wrote:
For your information, vinyl sales grew at a faster rate than CDs last
year! There are now upgraded versions of CD with higher sampling rates
to try and emulate vinyl more closely. If CDs were so perfect then SACD
and
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote:
I really do not understand the comparison. Slides offer the highest
resolution available in colour film. Start comparing digital to say 3200
negative film.
Don't read it here - go try it yourself. Digital is as
good as 35mm film - right now - for
Mike Johnston wrote:
Hehee! Who said this? Somebody who hasn't printed digital yet, obviously.
You can control the contrast and saturation of a digiprint to degrees not
even conceivable on film.
(snip)
And it's even better when you start with film and digitize it on a
high-end scanner.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars
movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put
onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment)
displayed it digitally, so what the viewers
: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:14 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
I believe even THAT digital wizardry is put on film before we watch it at
the theater
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: Lewis
At 06:18 PM 9/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:55:12 +1000, you wrote:
Forget the technical arguments about pixel count vs
resolution vs everything else.
Yes, please...I have to laugh a bit when I read or hear people using
suspect mathematics to prove that digital can't produce
Mark D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Furthermore, all-digital projection *is* coming. The most recent Star Wars
movie was shot directly onto computer, then edited and assembled and put
onto film for distribution. But a few places (with high-dollar equipment)
displayed it
yes, motion picture industry is a very valid point somehow we all have been
missing so far.
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs digital
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:52:33 +0100
I think that there may be some confusion
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200...
Hey Tom,
Can you explain this to me. I have a hard time understanding why one would
want a grainless 11X14 shot at 3200. When I think of of ISO 3200, I think
nightime and grainy. What shooting condition are you
At 08:14 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, you wrote:
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imagine a completely grainless 11x14 shot at 3200...
Hey Tom,
Can you explain this to me. I have a hard time understanding why one would
want a grainless 11X14 shot at 3200.
For the same reasons you'd ever want a grainless
- Original Message -
From: David A. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: Slides vs digital
Rob Brigham writes:
non sequiter snipped
Most of the population use a plastic point shoot which they
use for nothing
I don't think we all agree. Slides are hanging on, but by percentage it is
much smaller than prints. I routinely produce slide shows using one of
those LCD projectors. The average viewer is more than happy with the
quality. I believe that projection of slides is near the end of it's life,
95 matches
Mail list logo
