"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
news:mh94501snk2nr67ljq0srs9uo2s742h5k9@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:36:35 -0800, "Chambers"
> <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> >"IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> >news:ap4450hf21kev8g9fhkmj1ges36c450tuu@4ax.com...
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> But there's where the fun stops. It continues once we step into the
> >> digital world.
> >
> >On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:22:58 -0700, Patrick Elliott
> ><sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> I may as well use a normal camera and get 30 or more photos
> >> and have the advantage of negatives I can losslessly blow up to 100
times
> >> the normal photograph size.
> >
> >This post, which sparked the sub-thread, is clearly referring to an
analog
> >(ie non-digital) method.  That's why referrence to a scanner was
> >unnecessary; the scanner would never be a part of the process, and the
image
> >would never be converted to a digital format.
>
> LOL
>
> I think you will find plenty of people who do scan their photos.

?

What does that have to do with anything?

BTW, when reading these NG's, do you hide all read messages?  It seems you
lose track of the context very quickly.  I find it useful not to hide
previous posts, as I often refer back to them to get the full context.

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

Post a reply to this message