On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:45:43 -0600, "GreyBeard"
<r.b### [at] sbcglobalnet> wrote:

>
>"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?

Plenty of people do and for many reasons of their own devising. It
happens.

--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message