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.


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

Post a reply to this message