Difficult technical question on ISO & light

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Oh I agree, they have a long way to go. They will probably surpass them no
sooner than Jan 2005 though...LOL

"Frank Pittel" <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:76OdnQrH5bLDRBjcRVn-hg@giganews.com...
> While the current crop of digital cameras can hold their own against 35mm
they
> have a long way to go before they can produce the image quality of a well
printed
> 4x5 or larger negative.
>
>
> In rec.photo.darkroom Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> : Antique craftmanship will always hold people in awe. This doesn't mean
it
> : was necessarily better, only people will wonder how the hell somebody
could
> : actually spend that much effort on something despite the primitive
> : technology.
>
> : Despite all the snark, I do agree with larger format chemical film for
> : quality but that will change some day also. The digitals have made so
many
> : more users and with no brains or experience required...LOL
>
> : I believe the 35mm is done. I have a small Pentax unit with 135mm lens
on it
> : that has shot about 8 rolls of film. I got my first $150 digital 1Mp
camera
> : and I have never touched the 35mm again in about 3 years. I never was a
big
> : picture taker but now I am. I can afford it.
>
>
> : "John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
> : news:l0bbo055foagejv1v4ldfg82vrjdfqdmv4@4ax.com...
> : > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:37:14 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > >Don't bother defending. Chemical film addicts will all die someday as
> : well
> : > >as the technology.
> : >
> : > No doubt. That doesn't mean that there will be suitable
> : > replacements. Probably just mediocrity just as we see in most other
> : > crafts these days. Perhaps some consider darkroom practitioners to be
> : > anachronisms but lets see who has the more valued works on the walls
> : > of galleries.
> : >
> : > Regards,
> : >
> : > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> : > Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
> -------------------
> fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
: Oh I agree, they have a long way to go. They will probably surpass them no
: sooner than Jan 2005 though...LOL

Why don't you hold your breath waiting for it.


: "Frank Pittel" <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
: news:76OdnQrH5bLDRBjcRVn-hg@giganews.com...
: > While the current crop of digital cameras can hold their own against 35mm
: they
: > have a long way to go before they can produce the image quality of a well
: printed
: > 4x5 or larger negative.
: >
: >
: > In rec.photo.darkroom Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
: > : Antique craftmanship will always hold people in awe. This doesn't mean
: it
: > : was necessarily better, only people will wonder how the hell somebody
: could
: > : actually spend that much effort on something despite the primitive
: > : technology.
: >
: > : Despite all the snark, I do agree with larger format chemical film for
: > : quality but that will change some day also. The digitals have made so
: many
: > : more users and with no brains or experience required...LOL
: >
: > : I believe the 35mm is done. I have a small Pentax unit with 135mm lens
: on it
: > : that has shot about 8 rolls of film. I got my first $150 digital 1Mp
: camera
: > : and I have never touched the 35mm again in about 3 years. I never was a
: big
: > : picture taker but now I am. I can afford it.
: >
: >
: > : "John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
: > : news:l0bbo055foagejv1v4ldfg82vrjdfqdmv4@4ax.com...
: > : > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:37:14 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
: > : > wrote:
: > : >
: > : > >Don't bother defending. Chemical film addicts will all die someday as
: > : well
: > : > >as the technology.
: > : >
: > : > No doubt. That doesn't mean that there will be suitable
: > : > replacements. Probably just mediocrity just as we see in most other
: > : > crafts these days. Perhaps some consider darkroom practitioners to be
: > : > anachronisms but lets see who has the more valued works on the walls
: > : > of galleries.
: > : >
: > : > Regards,
: > : >
: > : > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
: > : > Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!
: >
: >
: >
: > --
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
: > -------------------
: > fwp@deepthought.com



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:32:56 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>> >John - Owner of
>> >
>> > 5X7 Linhof Technica III
>> > 5X7 Kodak Eastman View #1
>> > Mamiya RB67 - Mamiya C220
>> > Nikon FM2n - Nikkormat FTn
>>
>> Slipping. I'm slipping ! Completely forgot the 4X5 Speed
>> Graphic and my 4X5 Zone VI. Both with roll film backs of course.
>>
>>
>We are really sorry.

You're concern is ..... concerning.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Yes. I do not take "photographs" I take pictures, Thousands of them for a
few pennies each week.

My pictures have no grain and I don't have to pollute the environment with
chemicals to print them. I can get a new copy in 1-2 minutes of any picture
I have. I don't live in a darkroom and I don't have to send my negs via
expensive insured carrier to get a pic developed. I can send you a picture
in 2 minutes online.

What are you doing online? Shouldn't we be snail mailing each other? It will
be better quality...and that how "photographers" have to live...

LOL

Have a great one John!

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:hgdbo05a2b6ma7ffq037h35c42v90njdt8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:37:20 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> wrote:
>
> > I never was a big
> >picture taker but now I am. I can afford it.
>
> You see right there is the difference. You are a "picture
> taker". I am a photographer.
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:34:01 -0600, in article
<0cbbo057q9t5ak1tvmethfpuifq07cpl3s@4ax.com>, John <use_net@puresilver.org>
wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:40:17 GMT, Gregory W Blank
><gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
>
>> Stupid in your opinion, does not qualify them as such.
>
> I do wish people would stop denigrating each other. We may
>disagree on a lot of things but I think that we can all agree that
>respect is the one thing that should not be lost. If that is not the
>case then I suggest that those who feel differently stop wasting their
>time with us "stupidos".
>
>
>Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org

Gosh, I could not say that any better. There are a plethora of younger adults,
and older ones, participating in this thread. But for goodness sake anyone
reading it would assume that everyone here is about 16 years old, bristling
with testosterone, never been laid, and that "winning" this silly little
"debate" will determine which drone gets to mate with the queen.

C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best humanity
has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than commonly
assumed.

To anyone who lays down an insult here, I say you are not winning your
argument. I don't really care what reason or rationale, if any, that you lay
down with the insult. You have lost. Your ability to insult proves nothing,
except that which you likely don't want proven.

SP

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:46:15 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

>C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best humanity
>has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than commonly
>assumed.

Well to some of us it is but we hold out hope that it will
realize it's many challenges and rise to meet them.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"Susan Perkins" <deleted@> wrote in message
news:418605c7$0$7795$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:34:01 -0600, in article
> <0cbbo057q9t5ak1tvmethfpuifq07cpl3s@4ax.com>, John
<use_net@puresilver.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:40:17 GMT, Gregory W Blank
> ><gblank@despamit.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Stupid in your opinion, does not qualify them as such.
> >
> > I do wish people would stop denigrating each other. We may
> >disagree on a lot of things but I think that we can all agree that
> >respect is the one thing that should not be lost. If that is not the
> >case then I suggest that those who feel differently stop wasting their
> >time with us "stupidos".
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
>
> Gosh, I could not say that any better. There are a plethora of younger
adults,
> and older ones, participating in this thread. But for goodness sake
anyone
> reading it would assume that everyone here is about 16 years old,
bristling
> with testosterone, never been laid, and that "winning" this silly little
> "debate" will determine which drone gets to mate with the queen.
>
> C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best
humanity
> has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than commonly
> assumed.
>
> To anyone who lays down an insult here, I say you are not winning your
> argument. I don't really care what reason or rationale, if any, that you
lay
> down with the insult. You have lost. Your ability to insult proves
nothing,
> except that which you likely don't want proven.
>
> SP

Susan,
May I be the first to welcome you to the wonderful world of NG's. ;-) It is
sad that there are people here who can only *win* (in their not so humble
opinion) by hurling insults. Maybe we could start a NG for intelligent,
civil people like ourselves? 🙂
Happy Trails!
me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:46:15 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> >C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best humanity
> >has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than commonly
> >assumed.
>
> Well to some of us it is but we hold out hope that it will
> realize it's many challenges and rise to meet them.

half of humanity is voting for dubya...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

me wrote:
>
> "Susan Perkins" <deleted@> wrote in message

> > To anyone who lays down an insult here, I say you are not winning your
> > argument. I don't really care what reason or rationale, if any, that you
> lay
> > down with the insult. You have lost. Your ability to insult proves
> nothing,
> > except that which you likely don't want proven.
> >
> > SP
>
> Susan,
> May I be the first to welcome you to the wonderful world of NG's. ;-) It is
> sad that there are people here who can only *win* (in their not so humble
> opinion) by hurling insults. Maybe we could start a NG for intelligent,
> civil people like ourselves? 🙂

I haven't found her "arguments" particularly intelligent.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:45:37 -0700, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
wrote:

>> Well to some of us it is but we hold out hope that it will
>> realize it's many challenges and rise to meet them.
>
>half of humanity is voting for dubya...

Tom, we have to have hope. We have to .....

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:45:37 -0700, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Well to some of us it is but we hold out hope that it will
> >> realize it's many challenges and rise to meet them.
> >
> >half of humanity is voting for dubya...
>
> Tom, we have to have hope. We have to .....
>


Well, Washington lost to Green Bay Sunday...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.darkroom Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
: We are really sorry.

What are you sorry for?? Are you sorry that John is making quality photographs
while the best you can hope for is "good enough as long as the print isn't larger then
4x6"??
: "John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
: news:6unco01dp0ooq7inidlejln3vu2cd255uo@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:19:47 -0600, John <use_net@puresilver.org>
: > wrote:
: >
: > >On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:32:53 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
: > >wrote:
: > >
: > >>What happens when you knock your camera onto the floor and the case pops
: > >>open and the film falls into the community sewage disposal?
: > >
: > > What happens when your batteries go dead ? Nothing. Guess what
: > >happens when mine go dead. Let me help. My camera doesn't have ANY
: > >batteries !
: > >
: > >John - Owner of
: > >
: > > 5X7 Linhof Technica III
: > > 5X7 Kodak Eastman View #1
: > > Mamiya RB67 - Mamiya C220
: > > Nikon FM2n - Nikkormat FTn
: >
: > Slipping. I'm slipping ! Completely forgot the 4X5 Speed
: > Graphic and my 4X5 Zone VI. Both with roll film backs of course.
: >
: >
: > Regards,
: >
: > John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
: > Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Just?n K?se <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote:
> In Message-ID:<o7c7o09emnoiqem2km3nhrr2cn45tsil6i@4ax.com> posted on
> Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:23:06 -0500, John wrote:
>
> >Once you
> >negate the medium you have negated the craft.
>
> Curious;
> would you make a similar differentiation between primitive methods such
> as applying dyes to the immovable wall of a cave, and portable media
> such as papyrus?

yeah, the only true art is made on cave-walls! and dare not to think of
wearing anything not made of animal skins! its the only true way! down
with papyrus-wielding modernists!

😛 😛 😛 😛

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:15:35 -0600, in article
<pvkbo0hbiff1teq8r5mvjpdqr0l23198p7@4ax.com>, John <use_net@puresilver.org>
wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:58:24 +1100, usenet@imagenoir.com wrote:
>
>>A regular backup procedure prevents all these problems. Backups are not
>>rocket science, they're just common sense.
>
> Nor are they fool proof or complete unless you update your
>backups as files are copied to your hard drive or you're using a
>RAID5.
>
>Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
> Please remove the "_" when replying via email

I would like to know exactly what *is* "fool proof", please. <g> A "fire
proof" safe? Doubtful. Off site storage? Doubtful. A cave? Let's make sure
we stop all tectonic plates from any further movement, okay? A museum? Better
make sure all thieves have been locked up.

The standard you are holding up (fool proof) is unobtainable . . . in *any*
medium, be it digital or wet. This is a temporal world, and you cannot create
an image that is "forever" in this world. So your point would be? Quite
frankly, digital backup works quite well if one is prepared to invest the
necessary cash to do it right (no different than many things in life), and is
for the most part, reasonably fool proof. Like anything, one needs to look
into it a bit so as not to fool . . . oneself. <g>

SP

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:02:19 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

>The standard you are holding up (fool proof) is unobtainable . . . in *any*
>medium, be it digital or wet. This is a temporal world, and you cannot create
>an image that is "forever" in this world. So your point would be?

There needs to be something so simple that any "fool" can make
backups consistently and easily. I once recommended the use of Maxtors
One-Touch Backup external USB drives. Unfortunately the person that I
was dealing with wasn't really capable of using the drive and it's
backup software."It's too complicated." My faith in humanity slipped a
notch.

>Quite frankly, digital backup works quite well if one is prepared to invest the
>necessary cash to do it right (no different than many things in life), and is
>for the most part, reasonably fool proof. Like anything, one needs to look
>into it a bit so as not to fool . . . oneself. <g>

Agreed. I use Ghost and removable internal hard drives along
with my DVD+R's.. Had one drive fail during backup that corrupted my
backup. Spent days doing data recovery for a few files that _had_ to
be recovered. I now use 2 drives and backup on Wednesday's and
Sunday's.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:44:25 -0500, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>Yes. I do not take "photographs" I take pictures, Thousands of them for a
>few pennies each week.

Cheap batteries ?

>My pictures have no grain and I don't have to pollute the environment with
>chemicals to print them.

Well...... now that you've opened that can of worms !!!

Show me one chemical used by any pro lab today that is toxic.

Now, take a walk through Taiwan. The most toxic environment in
the entire world because they have no EPA, no OSHA and no recycling.
It is truly Hell on Earth.

So how much cyanide and arsenic do you think is used to make
the circuitry and CCD/CMOS in a digicam ?

> I can get a new copy in 1-2 minutes of any picture
>I have. I don't live in a darkroom and I don't have to send my negs via
>expensive insured carrier to get a pic developed. I can send you a picture
>in 2 minutes online.

An image. The correct term for something that is not printed
onto photographic printing paper is "image".

>What are you doing online? Shouldn't we be snail mailing each other? It will
>be better quality...and that how "photographers" have to live...

Yeah but you couldn't read my writing ;>))

>LOL
>
>Have a great one John!

You as well Bob.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[ME]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

"John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:q09do0t0g5dag6ri7vgjmpf6dkd97gbdj7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:46:32 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm with you Frank. With digital you record everything and discard
nothing.
> >It does make hard drive manufacturers happy! ;-)
>
> http://www.bestbargainpc.com/hii40seata1e.html
>
> Just get four of those monsters and run them in a 0+1 RAID.

If I took snaps like digital dullards do I'd have to! ;-)
Happy Trails!
me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:43:15 -0600, in article <41847B71.C2FDBA89@aol.com>, Tom
Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>Susan Perkins wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:52:46 -0600, in article <4182AD9B.B7007F9A@aol.com>, Tom
>> Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Ken Alverson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:41823255.BC08FE81@aol.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Photography produces a photograph. And a photograph is an
>> >> > image written on photosensitive materials by the direct
>> >> > action of light. Digital imaging is electronic and about
>> >> > as "photographic" as your television cameraman broadcasting
>> >> > to your T.V. set. Again, no photograph.
>> >>
>> >> Photograph, from the greek "photo-" meaning light and "-graph" meaning
>> >> recording. Whether the recording was made photochemically and stored on
>> >> physical media or photoelectrically and stored on digital media is really
>> >> inconsequential to its status as a photograph.
>> >>
>> >> Ken
>> >
>> >
>> >No. it means (literally) light writing, i.e., as in physically
>> >drawing with light.
>> >
>> >Digital sensors produce data.
>>
>> Yes, they produce data based on a light signature.
>
>Give it a rest. You clearlty haven't a clue. And in
>photoelectric effects there is no "light signature."
>There are photoelectrons and a voltage.
>
>>That is to say, their data
>
>> is completely, 100 percent, dependent on light for generation. Without light,
>> no data.
>
>>The result is clearly "light writing" (or photography) to anyone
>> except those who would argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a
>> pin.
>
>No photograph is produced. Electrons, voltage, and
>according to the ISO which organization "writes" all
>the standards your liitle digital P&S functions on, A
>_signal_ that _represents_ a still picture.
>
>Go chew on the ISO.
>
>I'll stick with my 4x5 that no digital resolution can
>ever match. A little thing called the Nyquist limitation
>that applies to all electronic signals will forever
>limit digital resolution, not to mention photodectors
>simple cannot get as small as a silver halide molecule.
>Not physically possible and still generate a signal.
>
>Now, go back to your pinhead argument...

I don't argue with insulting people. Usually, I find their arguments at about
the same level as their personalities: somewhat underdeveloped.

SP

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:10:45 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

>I don't argue with insulting people. Usually, I find their arguments at about
>the same level as their personalities: somewhat underdeveloped.

I just pity those that have so little respect for themselves
that they throw such tantrums. Like children they are simply crying
out for attention.


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

John wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:10:45 +0900, Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> >I don't argue with insulting people. Usually, I find their arguments at about
> >the same level as their personalities: somewhat underdeveloped.
>
> I just pity those that have so little respect for themselves
> that they throw such tantrums. Like children they are simply crying
> out for attention.


I guess it would make a difference if she actually _had_ an argument.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Tom Phillips wrote:

> Nyquist is a law of physics...

It is a sampling theorem. It applies to sampling in phase
with the frequency being sampled. Digital image detail in
general is not in phase with pixels and Nyquist does not apply.
Thus one needs higher sampling density than Nyquist sampling
to get all the detail. Take a look at:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html

Roger Clark

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

In article <418605c7$0$7795$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:

> Gosh, I could not say that any better. There are a plethora of younger adults,
> and older ones, participating in this thread. But for goodness sake anyone
> reading it would assume that everyone here is about 16 years old, bristling
> with testosterone, never been laid, and that "winning" this silly little
> "debate" will determine which drone gets to mate with the queen.

He he.

Are you the queen? I'll show you some of my testosterone if you say yes. ;-)


> C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best humanity
> has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than commonly
> assumed.

That's why the humour of this group is impotent!!! :-D

> To anyone who lays down an insult here, I say you are not winning your
> argument. I don't really care what reason or rationale, if any, that you lay
> down with the insult. You have lost. Your ability to insult proves nothing,
> except that which you likely don't want proven.
> SP

Probably true :^)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gregory W Blank wrote:
>
> In article <418605c7$0$7795$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
>
> > Gosh, I could not say that any better. There are a plethora of younger adults,
> > and older ones, participating in this thread. But for goodness sake anyone
> > reading it would assume that everyone here is about 16 years old, bristling
> > with testosterone, never been laid, and that "winning" this silly little
> > "debate" will determine which drone gets to mate with the queen.
>
> He he.
>
> Are you the queen? I'll show you some of my testosterone if you say yes. ;-)

down greg...

> > C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best humanity
> > has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than commonly
> > assumed.
>
> That's why the humour of this group is impotent!!! :-D

Ah, which groups exactly? Some "stupido" did crosspost this.

> > To anyone who lays down an insult here, I say you are not winning your
> > argument. I don't really care what reason or rationale, if any, that you lay
> > down with the insult. You have lost. Your ability to insult proves nothing,
> > except that which you likely don't want proven.
> > SP
>
> Probably true :^)

Far be it from me to disagree with Greg and John D. (wide <grin>)
but "stupid" isn't so much an insult as pointing out someone is
failing to use what intelligence God gave them. Stupidity is the
failure to think, i.e., a _deliberate_ ignoring of the facts and
arguing or acting against them.

Withness dubya...course with him I usually employ HL Mencken's
favorite adjective.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

First of all I would like to know who the ignorant ass is that hurled
insults?

Second we are only dicussing techniques and technology in a cute battle of
wits. We all have our own ways of doing things and we may or we may not
change. It's no big deal if the chemical film people are all antique
collectors. They laid the groundwork for us digital guys to be perfect as we
all are and shouldn't be treated as idiots anymore than any person driving a
Model A Ford and trying to tell everybody how it runs so well.


LOL

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4186BE20.6DE39D8F@aol.com...
>
>
> Gregory W Blank wrote:
> >
> > In article <418605c7$0$7795$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
> >
> > > Gosh, I could not say that any better. There are a plethora of
younger adults,
> > > and older ones, participating in this thread. But for goodness sake
anyone
> > > reading it would assume that everyone here is about 16 years old,
bristling
> > > with testosterone, never been laid, and that "winning" this silly
little
> > > "debate" will determine which drone gets to mate with the queen.
> >
> > He he.
> >
> > Are you the queen? I'll show you some of my testosterone if you say yes.
;-)
>
> down greg...
>
> > > C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best
humanity
> > > has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than
commonly
> > > assumed.
> >
> > That's why the humour of this group is impotent!!! :-D
>
> Ah, which groups exactly? Some "stupido" did crosspost this.
>
> > > To anyone who lays down an insult here, I say you are not winning your
> > > argument. I don't really care what reason or rationale, if any, that
you lay
> > > down with the insult. You have lost. Your ability to insult proves
nothing,
> > > except that which you likely don't want proven.
> > > SP
> >
> > Probably true :^)
>
> Far be it from me to disagree with Greg and John D. (wide <grin>)
> but "stupid" isn't so much an insult as pointing out someone is
> failing to use what intelligence God gave them. Stupidity is the
> failure to think, i.e., a _deliberate_ ignoring of the facts and
> arguing or acting against them.
>
> Withness dubya...course with him I usually employ HL Mencken's
> favorite adjective.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (More info?)

Gymmy Bob wrote:
>
> First of all I would like to know who the ignorant ass is that hurled
> insults?
>
> Second we are only dicussing techniques and technology in a cute battle of
> wits. We all have our own ways of doing things and we may or we may not
> change. It's no big deal if the chemical film people are all antique
> collectors. They laid the groundwork for us digital guys to be perfect as we
> all are and shouldn't be treated as idiots anymore than any person driving a
> Model A Ford and trying to tell everybody how it runs so well.
>
> LOL

If the LOL fits...

Only a completely _uniformed_ idiot wouldn't know the highly
advanced technical state of silve halide engineering.

Digital can't even come close...

>
> "Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:4186BE20.6DE39D8F@aol.com...
> >
> >
> > Gregory W Blank wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <418605c7$0$7795$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > Susan Perkins <deleted@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gosh, I could not say that any better. There are a plethora of
> younger adults,
> > > > and older ones, participating in this thread. But for goodness sake
> anyone
> > > > reading it would assume that everyone here is about 16 years old,
> bristling
> > > > with testosterone, never been laid, and that "winning" this silly
> little
> > > > "debate" will determine which drone gets to mate with the queen.
> > >
> > > He he.
> > >
> > > Are you the queen? I'll show you some of my testosterone if you say yes.
> ;-)
> >
> > down greg...
> >
> > > > C'mon people. This is not civilized discourse. If this is the best
> humanity
> > > > has to offer, humanity is in a real bad way, much worse off than
> commonly
> > > > assumed.
> > >
> > > That's why the humour of this group is impotent!!! :-D
> >
> > Ah, which groups exactly? Some "stupido" did crosspost this.
> >
> > > > To anyone who lays down an insult here, I say you are not winning your
> > > > argument. I don't really care what reason or rationale, if any, that
> you lay
> > > > down with the insult. You have lost. Your ability to insult proves
> nothing,
> > > > except that which you likely don't want proven.
> > > > SP
> > >
> > > Probably true :^)
> >
> > Far be it from me to disagree with Greg and John D. (wide <grin>)
> > but "stupid" isn't so much an insult as pointing out someone is
> > failing to use what intelligence God gave them. Stupidity is the
> > failure to think, i.e., a _deliberate_ ignoring of the facts and
> > arguing or acting against them.
> >
> > Withness dubya...course with him I usually employ HL Mencken's
> > favorite adjective.