Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #219 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jeffob2008 <jeffobourdeau@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-03-01 12:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2011-03-03 08:56 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 157 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps
For sale... jeffob2008 <jeffobourdeau@gmail.com> - 2011-03-01 12:08 -0800
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-01 12:21 -0500
Re: For sale... jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2011-03-02 16:53 +1300
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-02 07:44 -0500
Re: For sale... "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2011-03-02 12:54 +0000
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-02 09:03 -0500
Re: For sale... Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-03-02 09:52 -0500
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-02 10:31 -0500
Re: For sale... Bill who putters <b2forewagner@snip.net> - 2011-03-02 18:13 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 11:42 +1100
Re: For sale... Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-03-02 19:52 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 12:01 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 17:58 -0800
Re: For sale... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2011-03-02 23:12 -0500
Re: For sale... Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-03-03 08:20 -0500
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 17:53 -0800
Re: For sale... Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-03-03 08:25 -0500
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 10:15 -0800
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-02 15:38 +0000
Re: For sale... shiva das <shiv@nataraja.invalid> - 2011-03-02 11:14 -0500
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-02 16:48 +0000
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 00:06 +0000
Re: For sale... Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2011-03-02 19:37 -0500
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-03 08:23 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 00:52 +1100
Re: For sale... John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2011-03-06 21:46 -0800
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 16:39 -0800
Re: For sale... AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2011-03-02 20:45 -0500
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 18:04 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 02:37 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 18:51 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 18:34 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-04 13:24 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 18:45 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 03:15 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 00:38 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 10:16 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 04:58 +1100
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-03 08:25 -0500
Re: For sale... AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2011-03-03 10:32 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 18:42 +1100
Re: For sale... AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2011-03-03 10:51 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 04:56 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 12:04 -0800
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-03 11:35 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 03:43 -0800
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-03 12:27 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 04:55 -0800
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-03 14:38 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 10:16 -0800
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-03 16:33 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 11:57 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 04:40 +1100
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-03 17:52 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 12:01 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 05:50 +1100
Re: For sale... Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2011-03-03 13:39 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 16:37 +1100
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 00:39 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 10:16 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 05:00 +1100
Re: For sale... AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2011-03-03 10:54 -0500
Re: For sale... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2011-03-03 14:03 -0500
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-04 13:24 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 02:37 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 18:53 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 18:34 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-04 13:24 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 11:51 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 17:32 -0800
Re: For sale... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2011-03-02 23:18 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 18:15 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 03:12 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 00:36 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-03 10:22 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 05:38 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-04 13:24 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-05 11:56 +1100
Re: For sale... Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-03-05 00:17 -0500
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-05 14:08 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-05 16:25 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-06 09:34 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-06 19:39 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-07 12:53 +1100
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-07 10:29 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-05 16:25 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-06 10:09 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-05 16:25 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-06 10:06 +1100
Re: For sale... Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2011-03-05 18:22 -0600
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-06 19:39 -0800
Re: For sale... Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2011-03-06 19:11 -0600
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-07 10:27 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-07 17:27 -0800
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-07 23:51 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-07 19:08 -0800
Re: For sale... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2011-03-08 02:03 +0000
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-08 10:38 +0000
Re: For sale... "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2011-03-08 12:19 +0000
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-08 12:51 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-09 08:23 -0800
Re: For sale... "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2011-03-09 13:34 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-09 09:55 -0800
Re: For sale... Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> - 2011-03-09 15:13 +0000
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-09 16:04 +0000
Re: For sale... "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2011-03-09 13:44 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-09 09:55 -0800
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-09 08:23 -0800
Re: For sale... "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2011-03-09 14:04 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-09 09:55 -0800
Re: For sale... "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2011-03-09 19:34 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-09 15:20 -0800
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-07 17:27 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-07 12:56 +1100
Re: For sale... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2011-03-07 06:34 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-07 17:27 -0800
Re: For sale... John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2011-03-07 17:39 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-08 20:31 +0000
Re: For sale... Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2011-03-07 22:23 -0600
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-08 20:31 +0000
Re: For sale... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2011-03-03 13:22 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 06:06 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-04 13:24 -0800
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-05 11:35 +1100
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-05 09:54 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-06 15:26 +1100
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 18:34 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-04 13:24 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-04 19:12 +0000
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-04 15:08 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-05 03:36 +0000
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-05 15:41 +1100
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-05 14:08 +0000
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-06 09:29 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-05 16:25 -0800
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-06 03:02 +0000
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-06 14:59 +1100
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-05 11:36 +1100
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 02:37 +0000
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 18:55 +1100
Re: For sale... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2011-03-03 13:56 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-04 06:26 +1100
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 07:40 -0800
Re: For sale... Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-03-02 12:59 -0500
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 10:05 -0800
Re: For sale... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 07:22 -0800
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-02 10:34 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 04:44 +1100
Re: For sale... Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 10:17 -0800
Re: For sale... Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-03-02 13:24 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 08:34 +1100
Re: For sale... Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-03-02 16:36 -0800
Re: For sale... Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2011-03-03 08:41 -0500
Re: For sale... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2011-03-03 00:29 +0000
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-03 08:47 -0500
Re: For sale... Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2011-03-02 15:53 -0500
Re: For sale... dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2011-03-03 08:56 +1100
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-02 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <timstreater-C6FEFC.16480602032011@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #253 |
In article <shiv-24814B.11144702032011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, shiva das <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote: > In article <timstreater-E14429.15382902032011@news.individual.net>, > Tim Streater <timstreater@waitrose.com> wrote: > > > In article <IeSdnVKujp41xPPQnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@earthlink.com>, > > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <4d6e4e46$0$26851$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com>, > > > Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I keep meaning to load a roll of Ektachrome into it and taking some > > > > pictures. Do they still make Ektachrome? > > > > > > > They have stopped making Ektachrome 64, 100 and 200. IIRC that pretty > > > much kills off most of the speeds. > > > > Is that it for colour slide film then? > > Fuji: Provia 100 and 400; Sensia 100; Velvia 50 and 100; T64 64 ISO > Tungsten balanced > > Kodak: E100G, E100VS; Elite Chrome 100 and 200; E200 > > Some of these emulsions are also available in 120/200 and sheet film. Humph. That's almost surprising. I would have expected that once Kodak shut up shop on KodaChrome, that would have been it. <furtle> Hmm, looks like only 100ASA available there in Elite Chrome, too. -- Tim "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 00:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ikmm1f$9iu$1@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245 |
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <4d6e4e46$0$26851$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com>, > Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I keep meaning to load a roll of Ektachrome into it and taking some >> pictures. Do they still make Ektachrome? >> > They have stopped making Ektachrome 64, 100 and 200. IIRC that pretty > much kills off most of the speeds. They still make my old fave, the > Tri-X B&W. I worked for awhile as a photog/reporter on a police and fire > beat. That was the most forgiving film and made me look a lot better > than I was (g). I used Tri-X for 18 years as yearbook advisor/main photographer and so did my staffers, who were trained to use real cameras. I retired before digital got going, and that's what I use nowadays, but it still can't do some of the things our old Minolta SLRs and Tri-x could. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-02 19:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Nv2dnYbryNZWf_PQnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #272 |
In article <ikmm1f$9iu$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > I used Tri-X for 18 years as yearbook advisor/main photographer and so did > my staffers, who were trained to use real cameras. I retired before > digital got going, and that's what I use nowadays, but it still can't do > some of the things our old Minolta SLRs and Tri-x could. Especially with B&W, which has always facinated me more than color. Going to art fairs, the use of B&W is yet another art that is being lost. -- "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on." ---PJ O'Rourke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4d6f966b$0$29760$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #276 |
In article <Nv2dnYbryNZWf_PQnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Especially with B&W, which has always facinated me more than color.
> Going to art fairs, the use of B&W is yet another art that is being
> lost.
Yah. There's a couple of the local double-double photographers around
here (small town Ontario) who occasionally get all artsy and and "black
and white" and I look at it, and there's no black and there's no white,
just lack-of-colour that they've removed with Photoshop. I don't know
how to describe it better than that, I was never a scientific
photographer, like you lot.
I had a darkroom once, though. I had two enlargers, both given my by my
father who loved taking these really bad pictures ("quick, someone stand
in front of the ducks") and gave really bad advice ("you should have put
the sun on the other side of the mountain"). But the enlargers were
interesting. One he had built himself using a lens that he'd stolen from
the periscope of a Japanese submarine in 1945. It never really worked
for me. Or for him, either, for that matter. The other he'd actually
bought in Hong Kong before that war, and I used it for a long time. I
don't know where that stuff went.
--
If you could teach a cat to dance,
you'd never have to leave the house.
-- Pat Sajak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-04 00:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dorayme-C535BC.00522404032011@hello.network> |
| In reply to | #313 |
In article <4d6f966b$0$29760$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > and there's no black and there's no white, > just lack-of-colour that they've removed with Photoshop. I don't know > how to describe it better than that, You are right. Making good B&W with digital - from camera to print - is quite a different ball game and one that many us wrestle with. The world of film, paper, enlargers, developers was highly developed over many many decades, even centuries. In time I am sure there will develop clearer lines on how best to go about this with digital and printers and inks. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-06 21:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <il1rf5$h3b$1@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #322 |
On 3/3/11 PDT 5:52 AM, dorayme wrote: > In article > <4d6f966b$0$29760$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com>, > Warren Oates<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > >> and there's no black and there's no white, >> just lack-of-colour that they've removed with Photoshop. I don't know >> how to describe it better than that, > > You are right. Making good B&W with digital - from camera to > print - is quite a different ball game and one that many us > wrestle with. The world of film, paper, enlargers, developers was > highly developed over many many decades, even centuries. In time > I am sure there will develop clearer lines on how best to go > about this with digital and printers and inks. What is it you find lacking? Contrast? Silvery tones a la silver-gelatin prints? It's pretty much 'solved', though not widely available as it's expensive, painstaking and requires artistry. The latter two were pretty much a part of wet printing; still are. -- John McWilliams
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-02 16:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <020320111639244487%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #272 |
In article <ikmm1f$9iu$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > I used Tri-X for 18 years as yearbook advisor/main photographer and so did > my staffers, who were trained to use real cameras. digital cameras are very real. > I retired before > digital got going, and that's what I use nowadays, but it still can't do > some of the things our old Minolta SLRs and Tri-x could. oh yes it can, and quite a bit more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-02 20:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ikmrri$59t$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #277 |
On Mar/2/2011 7:3924 PM, nospam wrote: > In article<ikmm1f$9iu$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Erilar > <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > >> I used Tri-X for 18 years as yearbook advisor/main photographer and so did >> my staffers, who were trained to use real cameras. > > digital cameras are very real. > >> I retired before >> digital got going, and that's what I use nowadays, but it still can't do >> some of the things our old Minolta SLRs and Tri-x could. > > oh yes it can, and quite a bit more. I don't suppose it counts as "more," but I lack the hand-eye coordination to envision a picture, find it in the view-finder, and get it onto film. But a digital camera shows me exactly what the picture will look like, i. e., what I see on the screen is what I get. For untalented me, that is a technological advance. Professional level photographers may have no idea of the frustrations I experienced during decades of my analog film inadequacies. -- ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-02 18:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <020320111804502068%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #283 |
In article <ikmrri$59t$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote: > I don't suppose it counts as "more," but I lack the hand-eye > coordination to envision a picture, find it in the view-finder, and get > it onto film. But a digital camera shows me exactly what the picture > will look like, i. e., what I see on the screen is what I get. For > untalented me, that is a technological advance. Professional level > photographers may have no idea of the frustrations I experienced during > decades of my analog film inadequacies. did you use a film slr? those showed you exactly what you got. digital slrs are exactly the same. however, point and shoot film cameras had a separate optical viewfinder which never quite matched what the film saw. live view on digital fixed that problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ikmut4$f1o$1@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #287 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ikmrri$59t$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3 > <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> I don't suppose it counts as "more," but I lack the hand-eye >> coordination to envision a picture, find it in the view-finder, and get >> it onto film. But a digital camera shows me exactly what the picture >> will look like, i. e., what I see on the screen is what I get. For >> untalented me, that is a technological advance. Professional level >> photographers may have no idea of the frustrations I experienced during >> decades of my analog film inadequacies. > > did you use a film slr? those showed you exactly what you got. digital > slrs are exactly the same. > > however, point and shoot film cameras had a separate optical viewfinder > which never quite matched what the film saw. live view on digital fixed > that problem. Ah, when I mention "real" cameras I once used, I mean only SLR 8-) -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-02 18:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <020320111851420776%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #288 |
In article <ikmut4$f1o$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > Ah, when I mention "real" cameras I once used, I mean only SLR 8-) and your point is what? there have been digital slrs for about 15 years or so. they work exactly like film slrs did, except no film.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ikomuu$v1e$3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #291 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ikmut4$f1o$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Erilar > <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > >> Ah, when I mention "real" cameras I once used, I mean only SLR 8-) > > and your point is what? > > there have been digital slrs for about 15 years or so. they work > exactly like film slrs did, except no film. Not on a small high school's yearbook budget, particularly when that budget had NO $$ support from the school, and back then they were NOT as fast as a decent SLR. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-04 13:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <040320111324135417%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #354 |
In article <ikomuu$v1e$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote: > >> Ah, when I mention "real" cameras I once used, I mean only SLR 8-) > > > > and your point is what? > > > > there have been digital slrs for about 15 years or so. they work > > exactly like film slrs did, except no film. > > Not on a small high school's yearbook budget, particularly when that budget > had NO $$ support from the school, and back then they were NOT as fast as a > decent SLR. the first digital slr that i know of was the kodak dcs100 in the early 1990s which was a retrofitted nikon f3, a camera that was once nikon's top of the line and no doubt faster than anything a high school could afford. later digital slrs were retrofitted nikon f5 and canon eos-1n bodies, also top of the line (at the time). however, the prices were well above any high school's budget (five digits, to the left of the decimal). now you an get a new digital slr in the $400 range, less for used, and it's faster and more capable than what your high school used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 18:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dorayme-590744.18454703032011@hello.network> |
| In reply to | #287 |
In article <020320111804502068%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <ikmrri$59t$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3 > <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > I don't suppose it counts as "more," but I lack the hand-eye > > coordination to envision a picture, find it in the view-finder, and get > > it onto film. But a digital camera shows me exactly what the picture > > will look like, i. e., what I see on the screen is what I get. For > > untalented me, that is a technological advance. Professional level > > photographers may have no idea of the frustrations I experienced during > > decades of my analog film inadequacies. > > did you use a film slr? those showed you exactly what you got. digital > slrs are exactly the same. They are not in relation to on the spot manually changing settings, good quality manual film camera were always simple in this regard. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 03:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <030320110315016805%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #302 |
In article <dorayme-590744.18454703032011@hello.network>, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > I don't suppose it counts as "more," but I lack the hand-eye > > > coordination to envision a picture, find it in the view-finder, and get > > > it onto film. But a digital camera shows me exactly what the picture > > > will look like, i. e., what I see on the screen is what I get. For > > > untalented me, that is a technological advance. Professional level > > > photographers may have no idea of the frustrations I experienced during > > > decades of my analog film inadequacies. > > > > did you use a film slr? those showed you exactly what you got. digital > > slrs are exactly the same. > > They are not in relation to on the spot manually changing > settings, good quality manual film camera were always simple in > this regard. all digital slr cameras can be set to fully manual and many point&shoots too. it's just as simple, however, the automatic modes are even simpler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-04 00:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dorayme-9F6476.00380604032011@hello.network> |
| In reply to | #306 |
In article <030320110315016805%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > all digital slr cameras can be set to fully manual ...it's just as simple, No, it is not in general. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 10:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <030320111016071154%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #317 |
In article <dorayme-9F6476.00380604032011@hello.network>, dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > all digital slr cameras can be set to fully manual ...it's just as simple, > > No, it is not in general. wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-04 04:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dorayme-C561C7.04583104032011@hello.network> |
| In reply to | #332 |
In article <030320111016071154%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <dorayme-9F6476.00380604032011@hello.network>, dorayme > <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > all digital slr cameras can be set to fully manual ...it's just as simple, > > > > No, it is not in general. > > wrong. Keep it up, your mere assertions carry so much weight with me. -- dorayme
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 08:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4d6f96e0$0$29760$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #287 |
In article <020320111804502068%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > however, point and shoot film cameras had a separate optical viewfinder > which never quite matched what the film saw. There's a movie about that. -- If you could teach a cat to dance, you'd never have to leave the house. -- Pat Sajak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-03-03 10:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ikoc9m$7uo$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #287 |
On Mar/2/2011 9:0450 PM, nospam wrote: > In article<ikmrri$59t$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3 > <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> I don't suppose it counts as "more," but I lack the hand-eye >> coordination to envision a picture, find it in the view-finder, and get >> it onto film. But a digital camera shows me exactly what the picture >> will look like, i. e., what I see on the screen is what I get. For >> untalented me, that is a technological advance. Professional level >> photographers may have no idea of the frustrations I experienced during >> decades of my analog film inadequacies. > > did you use a film slr? those showed you exactly what you got. digital > slrs are exactly the same. I used film slr's until about eight years ago. I have never owned a digital slr, as I am happy with digital point-and-shoot and video cameras. > > however, point and shoot film cameras had a separate optical viewfinder > which never quite matched what the film saw. live view on digital fixed > that problem. Amen. -- ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps
csiph-web