Hi Jose,
on 19 Jun 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>I'm new in the forum, and it seems that the new Pentax *ist (35mm) is not a
>favourite among forum members.
>Can anybody explain me in a few words why?
In addition to Len's and Grawolf's replies: The *ist has mount, that
doesn't support older SM
>> You're not kidding. £579 is widespread,
>> and I've seen a £549 somewhere.
>
>
>
>Wow.
>
>That's about half the list price. Let me see ...
>
>£549 / 1.175 =£467.23
>
>Written down over 4 years, less 22% tax = £364.44.
>
>Now *that* is *great* value for money!
>
>Cotty, can you remember
How about the auto extension tubes? The non-auto ones will work, of course -
but auto ext. tubes behaves like K&M lenses, afaik.
If they won't work, I guess it's time for a new - A, maybe even FA -
version.
Alex
My original question was if any one on this list is entering, not what
format they entering
The rules of this contest states:
"Enteries accepted as B/W photo prints from 13 X 18 to 20 X 25cm of an
image photographed by analogue means (series and transparencies cannot
be accepted)
It
Anything, not only cameras would sell better if it was cheaper. Anything
would sell really well if its advertised. Marketing is not about informing
people that you have a new product that has all the features you need, its
about telling them that if they don't have the features your product has
the
>Hmmm Can any digital print be called a "Photograph"? Perhaps a "Digital
>Image" would be more appropriate!
Oxford Pocket says:
Photograph:
Picture taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film.
With this as a baseline, it would be ultimately wrong to call an inkjet
print fr
Hi,
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 4:27:00 AM, you wrote:
> And while we are at it what about this "digital darkroom" stuff. Why do
> those guys have their computer in the darkroom? Or, if they don't, why
> should we listen to liars anyway. little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said>.
pe
I like that Cotty!!! You have widened the gap that was preniously only
nanometer apart (according to some)!
Well done, Cotty, well done!
Bob Rapp
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: Re:
But what about the images captured by silicon chips but are printed on photographic
paper?
I know a lab that provides such prints.
DagT
> Fra: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I like that Cotty!!! You have widened the gap that was preniously only
> nanometer apart (according to some)!
>
>
Since our need to select a mate using colour vision is no longer vital to
our survival, it may happen that colour vision in humans will disappear
completely; some time in the future. As it is 7% of the male population is
already red/green colour blind. See:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.js
> They're nothing but despicable pretenders.
? Why use so harsh words?
> They print a file from their
> digicam and they call that "photography". It's file printing.
I didn't say "pity I can't submit a print from my digital p&s", I said "pity
I can't submit an inkjet print" (which, it occurs, I
> HOWEVER if we ignore this as spiltting hairs and stick with the Oxford
> definition, and a digital image on an inkjet print therefore cannot be
> called a 'photograph', then what of an inkjet print made from a scan of a
> 35mm negative - still inkjet but now called a photograph?
And that's what
> Or, if they don't, why
> should we listen to liars anyway. little tinsey winsey bit of seriousness in what I said>.
Why "liars"?
Łukasz
> And it's not. The process is photography, but the result is properly
> called a slide and not a photograph. If you look at the Agfa contest
> rules, you'll see they don't take slides either. And I didn't complain,
> I'm not into the business of trying to pass slides as photographs.
For me it's s
Hi,
Bob Walkden wrote:
> there is no such thing as a photograph
Isn't that what Barthes says?
> unless we count the platonic
> shadows of reality dancing on the cave walls, and the language of the cave
> has no concept of the general, only the specific.
Oh. Yes. 8-)
m
Had to fly up to Paris yesterday for a meeting, as I had the morning free I
decided to take in the Henri Cartier Bresson retrospective at the
Biblioteque Nationale.
Only one word to describe it:FABULOUS.
We have probably all seen many of these pictures in print, but seeing the
"real thing" is somet
If there had been enough people on the list, to create viable sub lists, it would have
split long ago over: MF/35mm, SM/KM, AF/MF. I mean, how many little pubs do you think
this rag tag group can sustain?
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>It does make me wonder, however, when 1/2 of this list is u
This has already happened in Romania where mate selection is done with spec sheets.
BR
"Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since our need to select a mate using colour vision is no longer vital to
>our survival...
__
Mc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If there had been enough people on the list, to create viable sub lists, it would
> have split long ago over: MF/35mm, SM/KM, AF/MF. I mean, how many little pubs do you
> think this rag tag group can sustain?
I dunno, but let's all repair to the local pub and find
Some people on the list always state, that the *ist/*istD is a entry level
camera because the Pentax marketing has said that. They also said the MZ-S
it a pro camera. So let us use our own heads and look at the Pentax line up
and also at other companies where the *ist fit in.
There are five levels
Oxford (or any other dictionary) "defines" a word based on it's common usage(s)
at the time the dictionary was published. Definitions change over time.
Whenever a new Oxford edition comes out, there are news stories of "new" words
that are added.
Any bets that in upcoming editions (and it may tak
Now if that's about cameras, there's no different than elsewhere -
spec sheets weight too much. As for the rest, I at least always
resorted to colour vision. But I'm known as a retro guy who often
ignores the evidence, so could you be more specific!?
Servus, Alin
Blivit4 wrote
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:09:12 -0400, Caveman wrote:
Per Merriam-Webster - Photography : the art or process
of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film)
by the action of radiant energy and especially light.
It would appear that Webster believes a slide is a
photograph.
>
> Butch Black wro
Build quatility (metal mount): 2 (2)
Mount compatiblity to manual lenses 1 (Nikon 4, others none)
Viewfinder 2 (2)
Shutter time, sync speed 3 (2-3)
FPS 3-4 (2-3)
Auto picture mode 2 (picture mode 2)
AF system (cross sensor, on screen display) 4 (2-3)
AF modes (Single, continous)
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
>
> Not likely. It is an unique camera with useful specs.
> Nikon F 100 is not better, it is different.
So you don't find the following F100 features useful?
- Extremely fast and accurate AF with all AF Nikkors
- Even faster AF with AF-S Nikkors (similar to Canon USM)
- 3
frank theriault wrote:
>
> Oxford (or any other dictionary) "defines" a word based on it's common usage(s)
> at the time the dictionary was published. Definitions change over time.
> Whenever a new Oxford edition comes out, there are news stories of "new" words
> that are added.
Yes, and time
AND, that definition would include digital photography as well. The
words "sensitized surface (as a film)" clearly mean "sensitized surface
including but not limited to film". I think a digital sensor would fall
into that category.
-frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Per Merriam-Webster - Photog
On June 19, 2003 07:39 am, frank theriault wrote:
> AND, that definition would include digital photography as well. The
> words "sensitized surface (as a film)" clearly mean "sensitized surface
> including but not limited to film". I think a digital sensor would fall
> into that category.
On June 19, 2003 05:24 am, Bob Walkden wrote:
>
> Besides, 'darkrooms' are only dark for the brief moment while you load
> the film in the tank. Otherwise they are lit normally or by a
> safelight and the light of the enlarger.
Only if you're using a daylight tank for film and doing B&W
Alex.
The Kenko tubes have the AF 'screwdriver' connection. Plus all the electrical
connections.
And they are available in PAF.
Kind regards
Peter
>> If you are consistent with that logic then a slide or transparency is not a
>> photograph unless printed on silver halide photographic paper.
>
>And it's not. The process is photography, but the result is properly
>called a slide and not a photograph. If you look at the Agfa contest
>rules, y
Bob W wrote:
>On cave 'logic', if a slide is a slide and therefore not a photograph,
>and an inkjet print is an inkjet print and therefore not a
>photograph, presumably a silver halide print is a silver halide print,
>and therefore not a photograph, a daguerrotype is a daguerrotype and
>therefore
>Oxford (or any other dictionary) "defines" a word based on it's common
>usage(s)
>at the time the dictionary was published. Definitions change over time.
>Whenever a new Oxford edition comes out, there are news stories of "new"
words
>that are added.
>
>Any bets that in upcoming editions (and it
Yes, of course - I was talking about the Pentax tubes, as I really think
they should be compatible with *ist, at least with *istD. I guess Pentax
should upgrade them (at least as A variants), because some people will want
to use them with *ist cameras; and I'm more than reasonable asking that
(inst
It'll be a rare event for most *ists to be moved off an autoexposure mode in
favour of manual exposure. We here are representatives of a rare breed of
photographer who like to take control back from the camera. That single
dial might get wound off its bearings in the hands of one of us, but I hav
Entry level doesn't necessarily mean cheapest. That presumes that a first
time 35mm slr buyer always 'enters' the category by acquiring the cheapest
camera. That may be true of students and other people of limited means, but
in reality many first time buyers are free to spend as much as they see
Hi Anthony,
on 19 Jun 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>It'll be a rare event for most *ists to be moved off an autoexposure mode in
>favour of manual exposure. We here are representatives of a rare breed of
>photographer who like to take control back from the camera. That single
>dial might get wo
Hi,
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 2:16:52 PM, you wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>>On cave 'logic', if a slide is a slide and therefore not a photograph,
>>and an inkjet print is an inkjet print and therefore not a
>>photograph, presumably a silver halide print is a silver halide print,
>>and therefore not a
Andre,
Nice to hear about your interest in music photography. Maybe we can keep in touch some
way and share experiences.
Should we found a subdivision: Pentax Music Photographers? :)
I looked at your picture of David. It's good. (Personally I think I would have cropped
some maybe 10% from the le
>I woke up one morning to what felt like 400 messages. I think this group
>could support 2x the number of lists that any sane person could handle
>reading.
There's a sane person subscribing? Who!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:42:39 -0400
From: Matt Bevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Don't forget the user interface - this is one clear
strike against the
> *ist, having only one dial to control shutter,
aperture
>
I have read this a couple of time on this list, but it
is is wrong. The *ist has se
Do the Kenko AF tubes correct the transmitted aperture value with
the extension tube's factor? - otherwise it messes with
multisegment metering and it's pretty much useless.
Anyway, for this very reason, the "A" variety of tubes doesn't make
any sense and we probably won't see it f
A "slide" is only a mechanism for viewing.
It is more pricisely termed a "reversal".
On the film plane it's flipped horizontally and vertically,
completely reverse of what your eye sees.
It is a optical-chemical production.
Imaging is probably a better broad term to use than photog
I finally decided to order a PZ-1p from KEH to either replace or
complement the PZ-1 I've been using for a while.
I know most of the differences and I'll download the manual, but I
also wanted to seek out some other sources of information to start
learning the differences between the cameras.
Hi alexanderkrohe,
on 19 Jun 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
>> *ist, having only one dial to control shutter,
>aperture
>>
>I have read this a couple of time on this list, but it
>is is wrong. The *ist has separate dials for shutter
>and aperture (unlike the MZ/ZX7)
No, the *ist has only one dial.
Nope, it's only one dial. *istD has 2, instead.
But this is not an issue if you don't use manual mode :) Except that I
really don't like the *ist wheel (and I'm talking about construction; *istD
should be much better).
- Original Message -
From: "alexanderkrohe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[
On 19 Jun 2003 at 17:27, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
> Nope, it's only one dial. *istD has 2, instead.
> But this is not an issue if you don't use manual mode :) Except that I
> really don't like the *ist wheel (and I'm talking about construction; *istD
> should be much better).
So when all t
whickersworld wrote:
Obviously the shrink advised you to vent your frustration upon pdml
as the cheap alternative to having to get the F100 and afferent
lenses.
;o)
Now seriously, of your long list you can retain the points related
to speed (AF, shutter, etc.) However, these are not
Hi,
Cotty wrote:
>
> There's a sane person subscribing? Who!
Who's on first base. Etc., Etc., Etc.
the fat, stupid one
Exactly - that's why I said the user interface supports it's entry
level status. The single dial doesn't work for people who don't use
autoexposure.
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 09:36 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
It'll be a rare event for most *ists to be moved off an autoexposure
mode in
favour
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
But this is not an issue if you don't use manual mode :)
Or if you don't use exposure compensation in Av or Tv
On 19 Jun 2003 at 17:43, Alin Flaider wrote:
>
> whickersworld wrote:
>
> Obviously the shrink advised you to vent your frustration upon pdml
> as the cheap alternative to having to get the F100 and afferent
> lenses.
> ;o)
> Now seriously, of your long list you can retain the points
On June 19, 2003 10:51 am, Matt Bevers wrote:
> Exactly - that's why I said the user interface supports it's entry
> level status. The single dial doesn't work for people who don't use
> autoexposure.
How does that make sense? Nothing is stopping you from using the aperture
ring other t
On June 19, 2003 09:29 am, Anthony Farr wrote:
>
> Pentax don't plan to sell most *ists to present Pentax owners, but to
> people who've never before owned a 35mm SLR. That's what makes it 'entry
> level'. If you or I or anyone else on this list bought an *ist, that would
> not be an 'entry' purc
i use my digital camera all the time with only one dial for controlling both aperture
and shutter speed. i either shoot fully programmed mode or aperture priority mode.
with the dial, i can vary the combination in favor of higher shutter speed or higher
aperture while maintaining constant exposu
After that I am officially discontinuing my participation in this (and
if I'm lucky enough to remember) and all future *ist market position
threads.
Excuse me while I go rip the meter out of my MX and paint it black so I
can finally start taking some professional photos (or do we call them
sli
On 19 Jun 2003 at 10:55, Nick Zentena wrote:
> How does that make sense? Nothing is stopping you from using the aperture ring
> other then losing in camera metering.
Talk about feature laden.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://memb
Rob wrote:
RS> The Leica/Voigt lenses which were mentioned earlier by John fit neither an F100
RS> or MZ-S and obviously aren't AF or Auto anything, makes me wonder :-)
Nah, we are all creatures of multiple personalities, we must
satisfy each one's cravings. ;o)
Servus, Alin
On June 19, 2003 11:03 am, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2003 at 10:55, Nick Zentena wrote:
> > How does that make sense? Nothing is stopping you from using the
> > aperture ring other then losing in camera metering.
>
> Talk about feature laden.
>
Haven't you heard. Feature ric
I'm not sure which market you mean isn't very big today. What I am sure of
is that there are more potential 35mm SLR buyers in the world today who have
not used Pentax, than who have, and more are being born all the time. I
also feel certain that there are more camera buyers who have not owned or
Go to www.popphoto.com and look under their camera test archive. I think
the PZ-1p was tested.
DG
At 10:30 AM 6/19/03 -0400, you wrote:
I finally decided to order a PZ-1p from KEH to either replace or
complement the PZ-1 I've been using for a while.
I know most of the differences and I'll d
> There is no depth of field, even at moderate magnification. The
> difference between 'in-focus' and 'out-of-focus' at 1000X is less
> than 1,5 um. For example when the binocular tube is in good focus
> the camera tube is so far out of focus that almost no detail can
> be seen and the difference i
> But there are erythrocytes of course (red blood cells or RBCs),
> polymorphonuclear leucocytes (or neutrophiles), lymphocytes,
> eosinophiles, platelets, one giant platelet and several clusters
> and one vacuolated neutrophile.
What, no ~basophils~? <>very big grin>
Fred
A photograph is an image produced by reflected light off of some object
focused through a lens onto a light sensitive material.
As such a digital image produced in such a manner is indeed a photograph.
There have been many different media used to make photographs over the
years, digital is just an
Hello Everybody,
Can anyone spare the extremely tiny Ball Bearing and
Spring that go by under the Camera Mode changer
assembly that wraps around the shutter release button
on the Super Program /Super A ?
I am willing to trade camera (super program)parts for
it or give cash.
Thanks,
Ryan
__
My Oxford American Dictionary says, "a picture formed by means of the
chemical action of light or other radiation on a light-sensitive surface".
That is a verbatim quote.
It says nothing about film, nor about the need for chemical processing. And
the conversion of light to electrons is indeed a ch
VanTil rocks!
:)
Collin
**
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:52:01 +0100
From: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I can do you a nice price on a 12-week correspondence course from the
Bart Sontag Academy of Deconstruc
A? Jokes are a little hard to explain. Especially so when you delete the
first part.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "£ukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Agf
Hi,
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 4:53:03 PM, you wrote:
> A photograph is an image produced by reflected light off of some object
> focused through a lens onto a light sensitive material.
the important aspect to stress is that it is the action of light that
directly causes the medium itself to captu
I haven't kept up to date on what has been released lately.
Any suggestions on a 70-300 zoom AF, consumer price level but with good resolution at
the long end?
Anyone on the list wanting to sell?
Thanks,
Lasse
> A? Jokes are a little hard to explain. Especially so when you delete
the
> first part.
You think? ;-) Sorry - rough day today.
Regards,
Łukasz
Hi,
Hmm. Must be one of those English vs. American language things. I'll
bet if you both look you'll find that the English one says 'tomato'
and the American one says 'tomato'. The English 'potato', the Yankee
'potato'.
--
Cheers,
Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thursda
Will probably put an advert locally, but thought I might ask here too.
I am looking for cheap prime lenses, any focal lenghts, multicoated. (Well k-mount
zooms too, if price is right.)
My cheap AF zooms and old manual lenses are clogging up or breaking etc. I'd
desperately need som useable lenses
Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen, though.
Len
---
> -Original Message-
> From: Dr E D F Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: The future of colour film
>
>
> Since our need to select a mate using
>From Matt
>Don't forget the user interface - this is one clear strike against the
>*ist, having only one dial to control shutter, aperture and exposure
>compensation. Now, I haven't used a single dial camera for the
>requisite 6 months, but I have used my brother's Rebel 2000 a fair
>amount, and
Bob Walkden wrote:
Not so. You bandy the word photograph about just as much as the rest
of us, without specifying which type of photograph you mean.
When people want to use "photograph" for "inkjet prints". Then you have
to invent a new term for "photograph" as to differentiate it from
"inkjet p
> I haven't kept up to date on what has been
released lately.
> Any suggestions on a 70-300 zoom AF, consumer price level but with good resolution at
the
long end?
> Anyone on the list wanting to sell?
>
> Thanks,
> Lasse
I have a Sigma 100-300 AF lens in g
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, whickersworld wrote:
> So you don't find the following F100 features useful?
>
> - Extremely fast and accurate AF with all AF Nikkors
>
> - Even faster AF with AF-S Nikkors (similar to Canon USM)
>
> - 3D matrix metering with multiple segments
>
> - Support for VR (vibrati
In a message dated 6/19/2003 2:01:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> > Thanks guys, but "super quality" has since long been, and will be for some
> > time to come way beyond my budget capacity, so to speak... Furthermore, for
> > the shooting I'm thinking of, I will definite
Sigma 70-300 DL
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Lasse Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 19. kesäkuuta 2003 18:24
Aihe: Which 300 zoom should I b
> When people want to use "photograph" for "inkjet prints".
So for you a photograph is a wet print and nothing else? That's pretty
limiting. A photograph is (and always was) a general term 0 that's why you
have a "wet print" or "inkjet print" that further explain the technique used
to produce a pa
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
If someone would like to have top
specified body, with good choice of ultrasonic driven and with IS (VR)
stabilisation - then of course F100 is clear choice.
Canon EOS 1v. The F100 is for cheapskates that don't want to support the
company through buying new lenses.
che
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote:
When people want to use "photograph" for "inkjet prints".
So for you a photograph is a wet print and nothing else?
For me a photograph is what the dictionary says it is. That's the only
sane way to decide what a word means.
That's pretty
limiting. A photograph is (and a
Quoting Lasse Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Any suggestions on a 70-300 zoom AF, consumer price
> level but with good resolution at the long end?
Here's a suggestion, and some reasoning to go behind it .
Particularly since you metioned "consumer price level", I'd have to suggest the
very eco
Hey Evan,
I tried to email the group, but I got "permanent fatal errors" from the email
account that I had for you in my address book (buddhaunderthetree... or
something like that). I guess it's outdated. Anyhow, get back to me when you
can. We're trying to solidify things for this weekend.
I made a mistake...
> and these three all taken at the long end, (300mm or higher) wide open.
actually, only the first two were with this lens, the last one (which actually
doesn't look as sharp / well focused) was with a prime.
Lasse Karlsson wrote:
I haven't kept up to date on what has been released lately.
Any suggestions on a 70-300 zoom AF, consumer price level but with good resolution at
the long end?
Anyone on the list wanting to sell?
Hi Lasse:
I have an SMC Pentax-FA 80-320 mm. 4.5-5.6 in mint condition that I
d
It certainly seems to be able to sustain you!!
Feroze
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
> If there had been enough people on the list, to cr
photodigigraphs?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: digigraphers
> But what about the images captured by silicon chips but are printed on
photographic paper?
>
> I know a lab that provides such
Of course not! Simple photo-electric cells don't record images, do they?
I was replying to a post of Ken's, in which the definition of photography that he
proferred, was:
"Photography : the art or process
> of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film)
> by the action of radiant energy
Hi,
Thursday, June 19, 2003, 8:40:23 PM, you wrote:
> Bob Walkden wrote:
>> Not so. You bandy the word photograph about just as much as the rest
>> of us, without specifying which type of photograph you mean.
> When people want to use "photograph" for "inkjet prints". Then you have
> to invent
Bob Walkden wrote:
Bob Walkden wrote:
what do you do when different dictionaries give mutually-incompatible
definitions of the same word?
You take the one from the dictionary that's accepted as *the* reference.
But could you please give some examples.
In this very thread you have cited one that
Hi, Cotty,
Kripes, I don't know! I just read Bob's posts about Pre-Hegelian Post-Modernist
Deconstructionalist Marxist Thesis/Synthesis Dialectic Platonic Cave Shadow
Wave-Particle Dualism in Light Theory.
My head's swimming. Did I make a good point or something?
-knarf/frank
Cotty wrote:
>
Caveman. He's the only sane person here.
It's the rest of us who are nuts.
-frank
Cotty wrote:
> There's a sane person subscribing? Who!
>
> Cheers,
> Cotty
>
> ___/\__
> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _
> Fre
>From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> >Hmmm Can any digital print be called a "Photograph"? Perhaps a
>"Digital
>> >Image" would be more appropriate!
>>
>> Oxford Pocket says:
>>
>> Photograph:
>> Picture taken by means of a chemical action of light on sensitive film.
>My Oxford American Dic
But kangaroos and opossums are not mammals, but marsupials :-)
Bill
> It's you who is mangling the language, by trying to co-opt the generic
> term so that it can only be used for one specific type. Claiming that
> slides are not photographs, for example, is simply ludicrous. It's
> like saying y
marsupials are an order of mammals: marsupalia
christian
Hey! I got to use my biology degree!
On Thursday 19 June 2003 17:49, Bill Owens wrote:
> But kangaroos and opossums are not mammals, but marsupials :-)
>
> Bill
>
> > It's you who is mangling the language, by trying to co-opt the generic
>
Photodigigraphs is too long of a word. How about photographs.
Jim A.
> From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 06:29:19 -0400
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: digigraphers
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 20
I agree, it is too long - so fall back on Cotty's original definition (you
out there Cavy) of photographs and digigraphs.
Bob Rapp
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Apilado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: digigraphers
> Photodig
I see no problem with calling an inkjet print an inkjet print. What
objective argument exists for having to call it otherwise.
caveman
It still is a photograph, presented in the form of an inkjet print.
Andre
--
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo