"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.

The discussion *is* about chemical photography, which is why a scanner is
completely unnecessary.  Using chemical prints, you can blow up negatives
even 100x at a very high quality, all without any digital equipment.  A
scanner, as you say, is only needed to get the image into the digital realm,
but the point was you could have much higher quality without entering the
digital realm.

(At least, that's how I read the discussion - someone feel free to correct
me if I'm wrong).

-- 
...Chambers
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79

Post a reply to this message