 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:25:26 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com>
wrote:
>Dear IMBJR,
>
>I though my previous post was to be the last.
>Well, it isn't. For the reason at the bottom of this mail.
>
>There are also some things that I forgot to mention in this
>discussion until now.
>
>First, some of the images I made over the last decade
>have turned into covers of books (mainly dutch thesis but
>also one pocket). I have always been astounded by the
>liberty the 'art' department of the printers take with
>my material. I can tell you that it is much worse than
>conversion of an image from JPEG2000 into JPEG. I have
>never lost my temper over this, so I have no understanding
>at all for your reaction in that respect.
You surprise me, but then again I'm perhaps not surprised. From what
I've heard about commercial printing - it's no surprise your intent is
ruined.
>> Try telling that to the Palestinians, the Chechians, the this the
>> that.
>Often in your reactions to other people you give the impression
>that you just react to something without any consideration to
>the context as if you have an attention span of less than a single
>sentence. Which is strange because you referred me to the context
>in the reaction before. This remark in itself is in the context
>silly at best (I think it is rude, but that is not the point here).
Definately not the point. As for context, again this shows us why this
place is no community - it has very poor sense of context.
>
>> Sorry. No doughnut.
>Duh, apparently some sort of slang that I do not know of.
Are you seriously telling me you've never heard this expression. Well,
perhaps English is not your native language. Oh well.
>Could be related to 'Close, but no cigar', but something
Yes, that's the doughnut!
>like that does not make sense in the context.
Oh well, perhaps it is difficult to impact my meaning if your idioms
are not up to scratch.
>>>>Strange how you did not get the replies you wanted though, isn't it?
>>>
>>>No, and I do not understand this remark. It feels as if you
>>>try to imply that I wanted you react in a certain way.
>>
>> Your feelings do not betray you.
>>
>Which proves I think that you do _read_ but are unable to
>_understand_ what I say. Seldom had that problem before, so
>I guess it is you.
No. It's both of us. Be more precise. Digging at someone without
realising that you can also see yourself in the mirror is not going to
get your points accepted.
>
>> Perhaps for you, but I live in the real world.
>Strange, I had the idea that I was also living in the
>real world, but if you think otherwise, I reconsider.
Thank you.
>
>> Yawn. That is like teaching of the sucking of the eggs.
>Another of those incomprehensible sayings. I have no
>clue at all what it means.
More idiom: you were trying to teach me something that is
self-evident.
>
>> Tee-hee!
>What is that supposed to mean?
You do not understand written laughter?
>
>Second major point here: at least three incomprehensible
>responses from you.
Don't blame me or yourself. It's obvious I should not have used
Enlgish idioms that you do not understand.
>All probably related to some form
>of slang or local sayings that I am not aware of.
>I just want to take the opportunity to support al those
>that have told you again and again, that this is a
>NG with a very mixed group of users. Apart from the
>things explicitly mentioned in the AUP there are also
>a number of rules to obey that have simply to do with
>what is called 'nettiquete' or basic minimal requirements
>for decent conduct in the community. So in case you did
>not pick it up yet: only use language the receiving
>party can understand.
The trouble with that is that I am unfamilar with your personal
education and culture. Another nail in the coffin of thinking this
place is a community. We all have quite different life outlooks due to
our national differences.
>In most cases that means
>simple sentences, no difficult words outside
>of the topic of the news group and definitely no
>slang. Basically texts that even a french girl or a
>japanese boy with only a couple years of training in
>english can understand.
Dear me, you really want this place that bland. Bang goes any in-depth
conversation then. Goodbye philosophy on off-topic. Good-bye technical
banter on the technical groups.
>
>Third: also mentioned before, and I just want to support it
> >>> Please, put me in your killfile and be done with it.
>which you have used to a number of people here in the group.
>IMHO this is a clear violation of the AUP.
I'm not sure it is. Apparently asking people to leave is, but asking
people to ignore oneself I really don't see as a breach. No one else
has mentioned this. Any help on this, admin, or those who breath the
AUP?
>
>Finally at last, the reason why I wanted to write one
>more letter. I have been thinking very hard on this and
>finally reached a conclusion. Reading you mails is
>no pleasure at all (and as you yourself made clear that
>is also one of the purposes of them).
Pardon? I think you really should have quoted me on that. Such a
statement does not gell with the way I look at it.
>So I either had
>to stop reading these NGs or had to change the settings
>of my news reader. It will probably come as no surprise
>that I decided for the latter. I activated a couple
>of filters to delete everything you send before I
>get a chance to see it.
So you took my advice after all. Good for you.
> I though it was decent to at least
>inform you of this. I have to do it for every NG
>separately and did not do it for all the groups yet.
>They are activated for this group however, so even
>if you reply (which I am sure you will. I would not even
>be surprised if you had started your reply before
>even coming to this point), I will never see it.
>Today has been already one of the more pleasant
>days in the last two weeks reading the news.
Glad to hear it.
>
>I have no doubt that in ten or twenty years time you
>will finally understand what I and many others have
>been trying to tell you and be embarrassed with
>yourself. I hope to meet you again whenever that happens,
That's just plain weird. You really think this place has that level of
significance? After that time period, I doubt I'll even remember
dealing with the folks on this group.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:32:25 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>>>>An interesting idea for sure. Makes one wonder exactly where the
>>>>copyright on the image itself produced lies.
>>>
>>>Obviously the image would be a derivative work of the scene file.
>>
>> Mmm, reallly? When I posed that question I think the answer I was
>> expecting was almost a "duh, it's obvious - you are still the owner".
>
>Sorry. I thought you'd know enough about copyright law that you'd
>understand that the copyright holder owns the copyright on any
>"derivative work" created from his original work.
>
>Or, to rephrase is, "duh, it's obvious - you are still the owner."
Thought as much. As I said, it's sometimes not obvious from a posting
what is going on in the mind of the poster.
>
>I am not a lawyer.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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?
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.
--
...Chambers
http://www.geocities.com/bdchambers79
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:50:08 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:55:00 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:36:15 -0800, "Chambers"
> > > > > <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:b8as40d47rtbrt8ih37iq1imnhvt7dckqo@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > Don't kid yourself that this is a community. A community
> > > > > > > happens in "meatspace", face to face, in real buildings
> > > > > > > with real progress. This is merely a exchange of data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will take personal offense at this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This *is* a community. The individuals here are more
> > > > > > intelligent, capable, considerate, helpful and productive
> > > > > > than any other group I have known. This community produces
> > > > > > incredible artwork, as well as the tools to create it. I
> > > > > > am proud of the fact that I am allowed a space here in
> > > > > > these forums*, and I don't appreciate your attitude in this
> > > > > > respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Believe you me, comparing this news server and it contents to
> > > > > a community is inaccurate to say the least.
> > > >
> > > > Look up community in the dictionary "A group of people having
> > > > common interests" seems to crop up.
> > >
> > > Using a dictionary to define such a word is like using the self
> > > same dictionary to find a recipe for a cake - woefully skimpy on
> > > detail.
> >
> > Haha what a bizarre reply, I suppose you think the "scientific
> > community" is a city in America somewhere with lots of scientists!
>
> ???
>
> No, really, using a dictionary as your source is bad form.
Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the English
dictionary *defines* English words. How could you possibly argue with the
dictionary? Do you have your own version of English?
> > > > > People here post images, binaries, bits of POV code. They
> > > > > critique images and points of view. Share ideas on POV-Ray
> > > > > and its satellites of software. Some even discuss off-topic
> > > > > stuff like on the rest of usenet.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds just like a community to me.
> > >
> > > No. Sounds like usenet to me.
> >
> > Indeed it does, but it *is* also a community (have you still not
> > looked it up in the dictionary yet?)
>
> Again, dictionary usage in such cases is bad form. I know someone who
> does this all the time at work and he eventually realises that his
> dictionary is not giving him the full picture.
Please elaborate.
> > > > > In a real "meatspace" community the depth of interaction
> > > > > makes the above list of activitys look extremely small. The
> > > > > true personal touch is where community is really at. This is
> > > > > merely a digital facimile of a community, and as such does
> > > > > not go to the nth degree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try comparing this place and its sister groups to, say, a
> > > > > village or a city - both communities of differing scale. That
> > > > > will ensure that one will see that this is a merely drop in
> > > > > the ocean of human interaction.
> > > >
> > > > How many people in your village/town/city have you spoken to
> > > > about POV? I think this community is far better than my
> > > > "real-life" one for discussing POV.
> > >
> > > Quite a few actually: my wife, people at work, friends I know.
> > > Don't think of POV as something special that only a select few
> > > talk about - it's just a piece of software people use.
> >
> > Indeed, but not very many people, hence this community is far more
> > productive than the couple of people I know at work who use POV.
>
> Well, obviously.
So, "this place" is not just "a drop in the ocean" then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
IMBJR wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:58:09 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>
> > IMBJR wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:02:12 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:59:40 -0800, Darren New
> > > > > <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > IMBJR wrote:
> > > > > > > Costs? The software can be sourced freely. Just because
> > > > > > > you've been bitten by software does not mean we all have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And just because I've been bitten by software doesn't mean
> > > > > > I'm lazy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got you in love with that word "lazy", no?
> > > > >
> > > > > But seriously, again I say, just because you've had bad
> > > > > experiences with software in the past is no sign that it will
> > > > > happen again, either for you or others. Shying away from the
> > > > > new because of the old is not going to get you far. Sure we
> > > > > all to a degree do not like progress, but progress is always
> > > > > present.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, but IME it's safest to let other people do the initial
> > > > "progress" and let them face all the problems. I'll take up
> > > > any new technology later after all the problems have been
> > > > ironed out and I don't have to waste my time fiddling about.
> > >
> > > The problems are never all ironed out. If you followed your rule
> > > to the letter you wouldn't even have appeared on this group.
> >
> > I call 99% of people not being able to see my images a fairly big
> > problem.
>
> I think that figure may be inaccurate. Plus, how do we go about
> measuring that figure. We cannot just simply ask whether or not people
> can see the image, we would have to also ask if they were able to do
> something that would enable them to see the image.
Well, I think if people can't see it using their normal methods for viewing
images then that counts as them not being able to see it. It's pointless
trying to expect them to do anything different - most people won't.
> >
> > > > This J2K case is a perfect example. Do I bother to download
> > > > extra software and have to spend extra time converting each
> > > > image to view it on my computer, risk the software doing
> > > > something nasty to my machine, and the massive risk that most
> > > > people won't be able to see my images? Ok, so J2K is a better
> > > > format technically, but I'm not going to use it until it is the
> > > > "norm".
> > >
> > > LOL
> > >
> > > Such a good example of technophobia.
> >
> > If that's what you want to call it, but I think it's more commonly
> > used for people who don't take up established technology.
> >
> > Just count how much time has been wasted because of J2K. All that
> > looking for software, all the postings here etc etc all the
> > conversions back to JPEG because nobody can view it - it's
> > ridiculous! It's only people like you who insist on using it
> > before it's a properly established format. Of course have a play
> > about with it by yourself if you have time, but please don't expect
> > everyone else to follow you immediately.
>
> I never expected them too. I never even expected to have to champion
> JPEG2000. I merely used it as a way of preserving image
> characteristics.
So, what % of people do you think are going to downgrade your image to 8-bit
before viewing it? Ummm, I think that would be >99% :-)
> And as for it being a waste of time, no, in fact, judging by some of
> the replies it looks like it has been an education for some.
yeah, they've learnt that it isn't worth using at the moment!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:20:26 -0000, "scott" <spa### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>IMBJR wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:50:08 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>>
>> > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:55:00 -0000, "scott" <sco### [at] spamcom>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > IMBJR wrote:
>> > > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:36:15 -0800, "Chambers"
>> > > > > <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > "IMBJR" <no### [at] spamhere> wrote in message
>> > > > > > news:b8as40d47rtbrt8ih37iq1imnhvt7dckqo@4ax.com...
>> > > > > > > Don't kid yourself that this is a community. A community
>> > > > > > > happens in "meatspace", face to face, in real buildings
>> > > > > > > with real progress. This is merely a exchange of data.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I will take personal offense at this.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This *is* a community. The individuals here are more
>> > > > > > intelligent, capable, considerate, helpful and productive
>> > > > > > than any other group I have known. This community produces
>> > > > > > incredible artwork, as well as the tools to create it. I
>> > > > > > am proud of the fact that I am allowed a space here in
>> > > > > > these forums*, and I don't appreciate your attitude in this
>> > > > > > respect.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Believe you me, comparing this news server and it contents to
>> > > > > a community is inaccurate to say the least.
>> > > >
>> > > > Look up community in the dictionary "A group of people having
>> > > > common interests" seems to crop up.
>> > >
>> > > Using a dictionary to define such a word is like using the self
>> > > same dictionary to find a recipe for a cake - woefully skimpy on
>> > > detail.
>> >
>> > Haha what a bizarre reply, I suppose you think the "scientific
>> > community" is a city in America somewhere with lots of scientists!
>>
>> ???
>>
>> No, really, using a dictionary as your source is bad form.
>
>Well I feel sorry for you if you think differently, but the English
>dictionary *defines* English words. How could you possibly argue with the
>dictionary? Do you have your own version of English?
No, don't be silly. A dictionary is NOT to be used for a tool in a
discussion on the meaning of terms because it cannot do the term
justics.
>
>> > > > > People here post images, binaries, bits of POV code. They
>> > > > > critique images and points of view. Share ideas on POV-Ray
>> > > > > and its satellites of software. Some even discuss off-topic
>> > > > > stuff like on the rest of usenet.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sounds just like a community to me.
>> > >
>> > > No. Sounds like usenet to me.
>> >
>> > Indeed it does, but it *is* also a community (have you still not
>> > looked it up in the dictionary yet?)
>>
>> Again, dictionary usage in such cases is bad form. I know someone who
>> does this all the time at work and he eventually realises that his
>> dictionary is not giving him the full picture.
>
>Please elaborate.
Not to go into great depth but I've often found my reading age greater
than that of my work associates. They gte out the dictionary, only to
find that it provides very little information on the topic at hand.
>
>> > > > > In a real "meatspace" community the depth of interaction
>> > > > > makes the above list of activitys look extremely small. The
>> > > > > true personal touch is where community is really at. This is
>> > > > > merely a digital facimile of a community, and as such does
>> > > > > not go to the nth degree.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Try comparing this place and its sister groups to, say, a
>> > > > > village or a city - both communities of differing scale. That
>> > > > > will ensure that one will see that this is a merely drop in
>> > > > > the ocean of human interaction.
>> > > >
>> > > > How many people in your village/town/city have you spoken to
>> > > > about POV? I think this community is far better than my
>> > > > "real-life" one for discussing POV.
>> > >
>> > > Quite a few actually: my wife, people at work, friends I know.
>> > > Don't think of POV as something special that only a select few
>> > > talk about - it's just a piece of software people use.
>> >
>> > Indeed, but not very many people, hence this community is far more
>> > productive than the couple of people I know at work who use POV.
>>
>> Well, obviously.
>
>So, "this place" is not just "a drop in the ocean" then?
Productive only in a tiny aspect of human behaviour.
>
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
