IMBJR wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:52:06 -0800, "Chambers"
> <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> > "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?
>
> Saying something would never be scanned is erroneous because people
> scan their photos all the time.

Oh do keep up please!

Post a reply to this message