Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:47 AM Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) Lets all put away the thesauri and make up words, I personally like subterfudge, (put definition here). frank theriault wrote: --- Norm Bau

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:47:59 -0400, Peter J. Alling wrote: > subterfudge, (put definition here). EEEK! TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

rofl! Good one Mark.. Ryan - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:01 AM Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) > frank theriault

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

On 27/7/04, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, offered: >>Mark, have you ever heard of 'The Meaning of Liff' [sic] >> >>>2/ref=sr_1_10_2/026-1923725-3733232> >> >>You'd love it. > >Got it years ago :) Thought you might, LO

Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film

ouch! William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jostein" Subject: Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film It's like having you brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a Canon D60...:-) Why would anyone wrap a lemon around a lemon? William Robb

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

:47 AM Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) > Lets all put away the thesauri and make up words, I personally like > subterfudge, (put definition here). > > frank theriault wrote: > > >--- Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Vouja De - The feeling that you haven't been Anywhere at all,Ever! D > -Original Message- > From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 9:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not part

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

On 27/7/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, offered: >Lets all put away the thesauri and make up words, I personally like >subterfudge, (put definition here). Ballicles to you sir. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps __

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lets all put away the thesauri and make up words, I > personally like > subterfudge, (put definition here). Hell, I don't know what any of these words mean. I just think they sound cool... -frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Tom C wrote: Redundant, superfluous. I like to use them in the same sentence. Isn't repeating yourself like that a bit tautologous? S

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Lets all put away the thesauri and make up words, I personally like subterfudge, (put definition here). frank theriault wrote: --- Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obtuse. Love that one. Norm Subterfuge. -frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

How unnecessary... Tom C wrote: Redundant, superfluous. I like to use them in the same sentence. Tom C. From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re:

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Hey, it was my word, and she liked it, let her go on... Cotty wrote: On 23/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: Kismet! I love that word! I have this list of words that I just love. You know words that just sound so cool when you say them? Some of my favourites are: epipha

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Oops.. Must have been a bit hasty in my post browsing. Harry Seidler was apparently born in Vienna, but moved to Australia. He's got some nice designs (a student architect friend of mine has taught me to appreciate the mastery of the floor of a building he designed here, which protrudes over the ed

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

I've got know, what is a tittynope? Opposite of Dolly Parton? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California No. It is an adjective describing a few of the women I have dated in my life. Butch

OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Tom reminded me... The tintinabulation of the bells. Regards, Bob S. Tom C. wrote: That's a soliloquy if I've ever heard one.

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Google doesn't recognize it, so it doesn't exist... > > keith whaley > > Steve Larson wrote: > > > I've got know, what is a tittynope? Opposite of > Dolly Parton? > > Hi, What are you guys so worried about? Apparently, I'm being held up as a gaz

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

t; Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital > vs Film) > > > Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > > > Ok, so here is the list, as it stands currently, and it is > alphabetized too, > > lol: > > > > aglet, antipodean, azure

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Keith Whaley wrote: Doug Franklin wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:48:59 +1000, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: What an articulate bunch we are... We'd be _far_ less articulate if you'd lock up out thesauruses... Sighhh. That should be "OUR" thesauruses... keith keith whaley Superannuated. TTYL, Do

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Doug Franklin wrote: On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:48:59 +1000, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: What an articulate bunch we are... We'd be _far_ less articulate if you'd lock up out thesauruses... keith whaley Superannuated. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

This guy's going on my Kill List. Wink. Bob W wrote: "Had you truly duffified the lexicon, mayhaps reading boustrophedonically for incremental velocity, and left it dwizzen as any dudman, you would have disinterred more than a yeepsen of prolixity. Nevertheless, as we yaffle our mundivagant liplabo

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

And I thought that dealing with eructations would make you go blind Cotty wrote: On 23/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: eructations I had those once. The scarring is fearsome. Cheers, Cotty

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- Ryan Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PS. Tom, there's actually a building coming up here > designed by Harry > Seidler called The Riparian. Supposedly going to be > the tallest building in > Brissie when it's finished.. Ryan While I'm sure Tom is interested in your story, "riparian" is a

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- Ryan Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Balderdash is heaps of fun, one of the few games > better if played with > anal-retentive word freaks. Hey, Ryan (and Tom C., too), Howdya like to play Balderdash with Bob W.? Could you imagine?... cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is th

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

designed by Harry Seidler called The Riparian. Supposedly going to be the tallest building in Brissie when it's finished.. - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:59 AM Subject

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

uppose it was the most 'fun' way of keeping track of who's ahead). Great game, you oughta get it! Ryan - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:35 AM Subject: RE: OT

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

for that matter so does osculation and interdigitation. Herb - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:22 PM Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Fi

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Redundant, >superfluous. I like to use them in the >> same sentence. > >Persnickity. Niggardly (that's a good one, because >it's taken the wrong way so often). Riparian (I won a >game of Balderdash once because o

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Bob W wrote: >"Had you truly duffified the lexicon, mayhaps reading boustrophedonically >for incremental velocity, and left it dwizzen as any dudman, you would >have disinterred more than a yeepsen of prolixity. Nevertheless, as we >yaffle our mundivagant liplabour like grimgribbers (sorry, Frank

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Bob W wrote: "Had you truly duffified the lexicon, mayhaps reading boustrophedonically for incremental velocity, and left it dwizzen as any dudman, you would have disinterred more than a yeepsen of prolixity. Nevertheless, as we yaffle our mundivagant liplabour like grimgribbers (sorry, Frank - I

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

The used spelling was indented. :-) nitesoJ - Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:43 AM Subject: RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) > Did

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

On 23/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: >eructations I had those once. The scarring is fearsome. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

On 22/7/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, offered: >Actually, I think Cotty has Word a Day Toilet Paper. >Some days he uses, like 10 or 15 big new words. Other >days, none. Depends what he ate the day before... > > > >cheers, >frank LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

On 22/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >Cotty, > >You must subcscribe to Merriam-Websters Word-a-Day? Bromide was today's >word. > > > >Tom C. Au contraire mon frere. I take my guidance from the archives of one Anthony Hancock. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

nstance, i feign innocence... hehe...) tan. -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) Gee... I always try to stay away from words th

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

ve Word Finder for this ridiculously verbose > paragraph. lol! > > hey, "verbose", there's another cool word... > > tan. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 7:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTEC

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

That's a soliloquy if I've ever heard one. Tom C. From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

That's no fair... you just woke up fresh, and I've been at work for 7 hours now. :) Tom C. From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re:

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

's another cool word... tan. -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 7:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) I wish the remuneration I received for my photography was

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Petulance. frank theriault wrote: Subterfuge.

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

tling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank, > > Balderdash is my favorite game. I ~love~ Balderdash, but I'm quite horrible at it. I always lose, and at this point I don't even try to win. I try to make up funny

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

g that failing Cotty's word of the day toilet paper, he could emit a number of eructations that sound like never before invented words hehe. tan. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 6:16 AM To: pentax list Subject: Re: OT: T

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank, > > Balderdash is my favorite game. I ~love~ Balderdash, but I'm quite horrible at it. I always lose, and at this point I don't even try to win. I try to make up funny definitions. The, the person whose turn it is laughs out loud when reading my de

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

I wish the remuneration I received for my photography was reciprocal to the effort. Tom C. From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Don't be that! Tom C. Obtuse. Love that one. Norm frank theriault wrote: --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Redundant, superfluous. I like to use them in the same sentence. Persnickity. Niggardly (that's a good one, because it's taken the wrong way so often). Riparian (I won a game of Bal

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cotty, > > You must subcscribe to Merriam-Websters Word-a-Day? > Bromide was today's > word. > Actually, I think Cotty has Word a Day Toilet Paper. Some days he uses, like 10 or 15 big new words. Other days, none. Depends what he ate the day before...

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Frank, Balderdash is my favorite game. Tom C. From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:59:44 -0400 (EDT) --- Tom C <[EMAIL

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obtuse. Love that one. > Norm > Subterfuge. -frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Cotty, You must subcscribe to Merriam-Websters Word-a-Day? Bromide was today's word. Tom C. From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

my favorite: antipodean Christian

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Obtuse. Love that one. Norm frank theriault wrote: --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Redundant, superfluous. I like to use them in the same sentence. Persnickity. Niggardly (that's a good one, because it's taken the wrong way so often). Riparian (I won a game of Balderdash once beca

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

--- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Redundant, superfluous. I like to use them in the > same sentence. Persnickity. Niggardly (that's a good one, because it's taken the wrong way so often). Riparian (I won a game of Balderdash once because of that one). Gregarious. Ubiquitous. Tomfoolery

RE: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

Redundant, superfluous. I like to use them in the same sentence. Tom C. From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film) Date: Fri, 23 J

Re: OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

On 23/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: >Kismet! I love that word! I have this list of words that I just love. You >know words that just sound so cool when you say them? Some of my favourites >are: epiphany, azure, charisma, procrastinate, salubrious, titillate, >sensuali

OT: Tans prattling again (RE: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film)

: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 1:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film For the shear kismet. William Robb wrote: >- Original Message - >From: "Jostein" >Subject: Re: not particularly

Re: Digital vs Film

In theory. Sorry, no way I could resist that straight line. -- William Robb wrote: He's a physisist. They know how to blow things up don't they? WW -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film

For the shear kismet. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jostein" Subject: Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film It's like having you brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a Canon D60...:-) Why would anyone wrap a lemon around a lemon? William Robb

Re: Digital vs Film

Cotty wrote: On 21/7/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, offered: I was going to offer to do the job for her for the cost of a ticket, but Cotty kind of scares me... I scare myself. Hey we all get our kicks somehow. That's bad, I just look in the mirror and feel kind of disapointed...

Re: Digital vs Film

An economist might try to reason you to death. A physicist understands kinetic energy. Cotty wrote: On 22/7/04, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, offered: there's one in every crowd... you are totally asking for it buddy... (anyone know of a good hitman in london?) My rates are reasonable.

Re: Sv: Re: Digital vs Film

>> yeah but he's a physicist - what's he going to do, *reason* me to death? If I only had a pound for every obscure Monty Python relation here on PDML... ;-) * * * (spoiler: King Arthur and the Green Knight) Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek

Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film

- Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Why would anyone wrap a lemon around a lemon? > > At least it's a lemon that you can later add Gin to, and maybe some tonic > and IS cubes LOL. One needs the IS cubes to relieve the Pain tax on the head... nitesoJ (almost s

Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film

On 22/7/04, William Robb, discombobulated, offered: >> It's like having you brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped >> round a Canon D60...:-) >> > >Why would anyone wrap a lemon around a lemon? At least it's a lemon that you can later add Gin to, and maybe some tonic and IS cubes

Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film

- Original Message - > From: "Jostein" > Subject: Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film > > It's like having you brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped > > round a Canon D60...:-) > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&

Re: not particularly Re: Digital vs Film

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, William Robb wrote: > Why would anyone wrap a lemon around a lemon? Oooh, meow. Sharp claws there. Excellent :-) Chris

Sv: Re: Digital vs Film

> Fra: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 22/7/04, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, offered: > > >> there's one in every crowd... > >> > >> you are totally asking for it buddy... > >> > >> (anyone know of a good hitman in london?) > > > >My rates are reasonable... :-) > > > >S > > yeah but he's a phy

Re: Digital vs Film

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Cotty wrote: On 22/7/04, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, offered: there's one in every crowd... you are totally asking for it buddy... (anyone know of a good hitman in london?) My rates are reasonable... :-) S yeah but he's a physicist - what's he going to do, *reason* me to deat

Re: Digital vs Film

On 22/7/04, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, offered: >It's all the chins that make him so scary. Without them he's just like >any other Canon-user... Cheeky bugger!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _

Re: Digital vs Film

On 21/7/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, offered: >I was going to offer to do the job for her for the cost of a ticket, but >Cotty kind of scares me... I scare myself. Hey we all get our kicks somehow. >Cotty wrote: > >>On 22/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: >> >

Re: Digital vs Film

On 22/7/04, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, offered: >> there's one in every crowd... >> >> you are totally asking for it buddy... >> >> (anyone know of a good hitman in london?) > >My rates are reasonable... :-) > >S yeah but he's a physicist - what's he going to do, *reason* me to death? ;-)

Re: Digital vs Film

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Peter J. Alling wrote: I was going to offer to do the job for her for the cost of a ticket, but Cotty kind of scares me... Cotty wrote: :- It's all the chins that make him so scary. Without them he's just like any other Canon-user... S

Re: Digital vs Film

I was going to offer to do the job for her for the cost of a ticket, but Cotty kind of scares me... Cotty wrote: On 22/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: there's one in every crowd... you are totally asking for it buddy... (anyone know of a good hitman in london?) ;-P t.

RE: Digital vs Film

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: there's one in every crowd... you are totally asking for it buddy... (anyone know of a good hitman in london?) My rates are reasonable... :-) S

RE: Digital vs Film

there's one in every crowd... you are totally asking for it buddy... (anyone know of a good hitman in london?) ;-P t. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:50 PM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Digital vs Film On 21/7/04, Tanya

Re: Digital vs Film

On 21/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: >omigosh! that is so freakin' funny! I have dibs on "Strumpet", she is so >ME!! > >hehe. > >tan. Yeah, that's you. But with two major exceptions ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|

Re: Digital vs Film

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh that Film vs Digital thread was so much fun, why don't we start it > again, but this time do digital vs film. Well Bob, I don't think it really is a digital vs film thread. At least I personally am not saying that one is better than the other! I

RE: Digital vs Film

omigosh! that is so freakin' funny! I have dibs on "Strumpet", she is so ME!! hehe. tan. -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 10:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs Film http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

Re: Digital vs Film

On 20 Jul 2004 at 22:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thank You Norm... > Regards, Bob S. > > >>I don't think Bob was referring to pros and cons of the new media, I would > >>imagine, like me, endless speculation as to market stats and the end-time date > >>of film's demise. > Norm Fair enough b

Re: Digital vs Film

Thank You Norm... Regards, Bob S. >>I don't think Bob was referring to pros and cons of the new media, I would imagine, >>like me, endless speculation as to market stats and the end-time date of film's >>demise. Norm Rob Studdert wrote: >If you are referring to the posts that have been made

Re: Digital vs Film

- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" Subject: RE: Digital vs Film > When I got my *ist D I expected still to use film. As it is, I haven't > shot any since last September, and don't know when I will again. > I wanted some realy wide angle stuff

Re: Digital vs Film

On 20 Jul 2004 at 20:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh that Film vs Digital thread was so much fun, why don't we start it again, but > this time do digital vs film. > > The noise to signal ratio on this list is getting terrible. Ultimately, I don't > give a rats ass about digital, I'm not worrie

RE: Digital vs Film

That's just way too cool! (ROTFLMAO) Don > -Original Message- > From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Digital vs Film > > > > http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html > >

Re: Digital vs Film

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

RE: Digital vs Film

Rut Ro Rorge, I smell smoke! ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Digital vs Film > > > Hey that sounds like censorship to me! :) > > > &

RE: Digital vs Film

I took that thread as Pentax digi vs Penatx film. A decision I've been struggling with. Learned a very great deal from it. Sticking with film. (For now) Don > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTEC

RE: Digital vs Film

Hey that sounds like censorship to me! :) Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Digital vs Film Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:14:16 -0400 Oh that Film vs Digital thread was so much fun, why don't we start it again, but this time do digital vs film

RE: Digital vs Film observation

That is my plan. Mind you I only have five of them, not as many as some others. They still get their workouts. Spotmatic, SV, S1a, S1a, S3, Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Daniel J. Matyola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:38 PM

Re: Digital vs Film observation

We're hanging on to them! I have four, two of which are still is good operating condition. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pentax made several MILLION screw-mount cameras. Where are they all?

Re: Digital vs Film observation

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: > > > > I'd be curious to know how many who have a DSLR really use their film > > bodies anymore. Outside of wide angle issues I suspect that very few > > really do. Ironically, I'm pushing myself to shoot MORE with my film cameras right now because I'm

RE: Digital vs Film observation

;The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible -- worlds. The pessimist -- fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer -- -- -- -- -- -- >From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- >Subject:

Re: Digital vs Film observation

This is what I've observed in Columbus. Also, the Blads are stacking up as well. Even the RBs and old Mamiya TLRs are dropping nicely (for the buyer). Besides, there are few 80s Pentax bodies available here. Students are using them. Relatively few s/m bodies remain in regular use. CRB >>Since in

Re: Digital vs Film observation

Or glue a PDA to the back (g). Mark Roberts wrote: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TV wrote: I shoot it occasionally so I don't forget how. I feel a little foolish when I squeeze off a frame on the 645n then check the back. That damned screen is always blank. Maybe you should ma

RE: Digital vs Film observation

You know, folks, I had made a comment a while ago that if there were a sub-$500 DSLR film would be dead. To be fair I should have said 35mm would be dead and who knows about MF. The reaction to the *ist D has only reinforced this. Many things can hang around in niche markets (LF) and even with K

RE: Digital vs Film observation

Rob wrote: Still like slides for some reason too. Nothing else will ever have the impact of a 5 foot high projected image! REPLY: I prefer slides as a storage medium before a digital file. Pål

Re: Digital vs Film observation

Bruce wrote: Certainly makes for a real dilemma. Buy the DSLR and pretty much quit shooting film because of how fun it is. So you go to sell your film gear and find that it is worthless (as resale - not useless). REPLY: I just hope the prices for the Leica R system drops significantly. Alw

Re: Digital vs Film observation

"Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TV wrote: >> I shoot it occasionally so I don't forget how. I feel a >> little foolish when I squeeze off a frame on the 645n then >>check the back. That damned screen is always blank. > >Maybe you should make a little drawing and put it back there

RE: Digital vs Film observation

On 16/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I shoot it occasionally so I don't forget how. I feel a little foolish >when I squeeze off a frame on the 645n then check the back. That >damned screen is always blank. You damn chimp. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pas

RE: Digital vs Film observation

CTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Digital vs Film observation Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:26:18 -0400 I could never get used to the size of the F4 though. Just imagine the time I had using the D1X and D1H... Trying to stay caught up until the busy weekend starts, César Panama City, Flo

RE: Digital vs Film observation

... Still like slides for some reason too. Nothing else will ever have the impact of a 5 foot high projected image! > -Original Message- > From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 16 October 2003 20:06 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Digital vs F

RE: Digital vs Film observation

On 16/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I especially plan to only cart my film gear when I travel internationally. >Who needs to carry a portable? Even a portable hard drive is too much of a >hassle. Though I may have to change that if I go to the isle across the >pond as I do not know how Co

RE: Digital vs Film observation

> -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On 16/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >I'd be curious to know how many who have a DSLR really use > their film > >bodies anymore. Outside of wide angle issues I suspect > that very few > >really do. > > Not even wit

  1   2   3   >