"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:uij150dp4fgpu4c9n1603gnnft5fjrveu7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 18:08:36 -0600, "GreyBeard"
> <r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet> wrote:
>
> >
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:abuu40pefkqd07a7uk8fqvat1ndcua1vbt@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> The scanner they use for the negatives? You *are* referring to
> >> chemical prints aren't you?
> >>
> >Perchance you should learn the terminology before inserting foot in open
> >mouth.  I'm afraid photography was around in a more advanced state long
> >before digital was anything but a term for counting on ones fingers.
>
> Excuse me, but I sincerely did think were were talking about chemical
> photography here and therefore a scanner would eventually come into
> play to get into the digital realm.
>
I rather think that if digital is the final outcome, I might be wasting a
lot of money using Tech Pan 4 X 5 negatives.  I use nothing faster than ASA
100, why would I downgrade my images?

Post a reply to this message