On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:23:05 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:

>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!

Now you've lost it! LOL

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

Post a reply to this message