Sorry if this additional public reply further irritates some.
It is rather obvious that there are several philosophies about internet
lists at play here, and each have their valid points.
Many active members of lists I have been on are strong believers in the
idea of an internet list being a com
Art,
A suggestion - do what you want here, if the chorus complaining gets too
loud, then consider changing - but even then you don't necessarily have to,
just that feedback is sometimes useful. The only situation where you
absolutely must change is if Tony says to do it differently - then, beca
Is there any possibility that we can drop the whole subject? I think that
we've done 8 vs. 16 bit absolutely to death
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubsc
>
> Sorry if this additional public reply further irritates some.
>
Others may differ, but to me this is the filmscanners list and should
remain focused. Comparisons between digicams and scanned film are
obviously valid, but that's not what was originally asked.
If we can't keep focused then we m
It was my question that was the root cause of this controversy.
Please accept my apologies.
I'm new at this, (both digital images and email lists). I'm a
sculptor whose transparencies are seldom returned by publishers or
authors who request them, so I was considering the possibility of
sending dig
> From: Maaki
>
> The methods that resulted in my stumbling upon this list however,
> have not worked for finding a digital camera list. Even though I have
> had some limited experience with film photography, I realize there
> is a learning curve ahead of me, so if anyone can point me in the
> dir
Maaki wrote:
> In the midst of all this advice was a suggestion to invest in a
> digital camera. So it seemed like a logical place to ask for advice
> on that also. Obviously it was not the right place.
That's perfectly reasonable and you have nothing to apologise for,
conversations don't adhere
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I won't contribute the noise and discuss this further, but no doubt
you'll
> want to have the last word as you seem to do on so many other topics.
>
No doubt at all...
Funny, how its all right for you to start or continue the noise, but
wrong when someone responds to
Hi Maaki,
I recall your original request for filmscanner information, back in May
of this year, which I attempted to answer, and hopefully you were
supplied with some useful information to help you make a decision which
worked for you.
I honestly do not think you need to apologize for anything.
I thought that the original objection to Maaki's post was pretty snarky.
It's obvious that the list police were at work. We've had several comments
discussing the future of film scanning vs. the growing popularity of
high-end digital cameras. A question about a particular camera certainly
doesn't
what most of us here are chasing) then I think it's not
even semi-valid but fully valid...
Golder
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:27 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Was:
Just to muddy the waters, I've used my D100 to 'scan' slides using the ES1
Slide copier that Nikon makes. Not pretending that the quality is brilliant,
but it is quick and easy, and will only get better with improvements in
cameras.
Bob Frost.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
12 matches
Mail list logo
