.
John in Brisbane
-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bob W-PDML
Sent: Friday, 20 May 2016 17:31
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: PESO - from the archives
That looks very good. Is it scanned from the neg?
B
>
Oh, you've been looking at my portfolio have you?
On 5/20/16 12:42 PM, pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:41:13 -0400
From: Mark Roberts<postmas...@robertstech.com>
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List<pdml@pdml.net>
Subject: Re: PESO - from the archive
On 5/20/2016 12:52 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
It is always reassuring to find out good photography didn't just start
with the digital age
Yeah but a lot of digital age photography just isn't good photography.
Kenneth Waller
That's not new with the "digital age" either.
--
Science - Questions we
Doug Brewer wrote:
>On 5/20/16 12:52 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
>>> It is always reassuring to find out good photography didn't just start
>>> with the digital age
>>
>> Yeah but alot of digital age photography just isn't good photography.
>>
>It was the same with film photography. Bad photos are bad
DiGiorgi" <godd...@me.com>
Subject: Re: PESO - from the archives
Why on earth do you want to start yet another nauseating "film vs digital"
thread?
Aren't we done with that stupid topic by now?
Sheesh. Just when I was enjoying new adventures in instant film
photography...
Excellent picture and scan.
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> It was the same with film photography. Bad photos are bad photos, regardless
> of format.
>
> On 5/20/16 12:52 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
>>>
>>> It is always reassuring to find out good
It was the same with film photography. Bad photos are bad photos,
regardless of format.
On 5/20/16 12:52 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
It is always reassuring to find out good photography didn't just start
with the digital age
Yeah but alot of digital age photography just isn't good photography.
Why on earth do you want to start yet another nauseating "film vs digital"
thread?
Aren't we done with that stupid topic by now?
Sheesh. Just when I was enjoying new adventures in instant film photography...
:-/
G
On May 20, 2016, at 9:52 AM, Ken Waller wrote:
>> It is
; <shark50...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PESO - from the archives
It is always reassuring to find out good photography didn't just start
with the digital age.
On 5/20/16 7:17 AM, pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:22:41 +1000
From: "John Coyle"<jco.
Lovely, John! It’s a beauty! Cheers, Christine
> On May 20, 2016, at 2:22 AM, John Coyle wrote:
>
> I've come to the conclusion that I will not have an opportunity to do much
> wet processing of older
> photos, particularly given the size of the archive, which goes back
Beautiful creamy texture clean
image, Mark!
J
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 20, 2016, at 4:12 AM, Mark Stringer wrote:
>
> Very nice image and scan. I'm impressed and encouraged. What scanner are
> you using?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: PDML
John Coyle wrote:
> I've come to the conclusion that I will not have an opportunity to do
> much wet processing of older photos, particularly given the size of the
> archive, which goes back 49 years! So, now I am scanning only those
> worth preserving and probably leaving to my son, as they
That looks very good. Is it scanned from the neg?
B
> On 20 May 2016, at 08:24, John Coyle wrote:
>
> I've come to the conclusion that I will not have an opportunity to do much
> wet processing of older
> photos, particularly given the size of the archive, which goes back
13 matches
Mail list logo