On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:24:16 -0800, "Chambers"
<bdc### [at] yahoocom> 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.
>
>The discussion *is* about chemical photography, which is why a scanner is
>completely unnecessary.  

Only if one stays in the traditional field, but there are many who
want to distribute their photos or generally improve/change them.

>Using chemical prints, you can blow up negatives
>even 100x at a very high quality, all without any digital equipment.  

I know. I got myself an all-purpose scanner that has a little gizmo
for negatives. Of course, perhaps, one should have got a dedicated
negatives scanner for that, but I needed a scanner for other uses as
well.

>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.

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

Post a reply to this message