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.

>
>BTW, when reading these NG's, do you hide all read messages?  It seems you
>lose track of the context very quickly.  I find it useful not to hide
>previous posts, as I often refer back to them to get the full context.

No I see them. You are just losing track.

As has been pointed out elsewhere - this IS about chemical photography
and people DO scan their photos.

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

Post a reply to this message