Scanning negatives
 

On 2018-03-16 15:24, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

but can be compensated.

compensated is the wrong word, and shows your lack of understanding
about basic photography.

what you're calling 'compensated' must be done for *every* photo,
regardless of subject.


Only for light intensity, not hue or temp.

nope. it's trivial to adjust for hue or temp, what experienced
photographers (i.e., not you) call white balance, which can even be
done *after* the photo was taken (without loss).

You are proving that you don't know your subject.

nope. what *you* are doing is showing that you haven't a ****ing clue.

Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored.

translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to
admit it.

I don't need to back ours... you do.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Scanning negatives
 

On 2018-03-16 12:46:55 +0000, nospam said:

In article , android
wrote:

but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result.

it's very predictable when done properly.

It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment.

it can.

no you've stared to resort to lying per reflex again.

nope

Oki... Thanks for proving me right!

i didn't.

you did for sure, don't be so overly modest!

--
teleportation kills

Scanning negatives
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

but can be compensated.

compensated is the wrong word, and shows your lack of understanding
about basic photography.

what you're calling 'compensated' must be done for *every* photo,
regardless of subject.


Only for light intensity, not hue or temp.

nope. it's trivial to adjust for hue or temp, what experienced
photographers (i.e., not you) call white balance, which can even be
done *after* the photo was taken (without loss).

You are proving that you don't know your subject.

nope. what *you* are doing is showing that you haven't a ****ing clue.

Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored.

translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to
admit it.

I don't need to back ours...

yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong.

simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it.

you do.

i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades.

you haven't a clue and refuse to learn.

Scanning negatives
 

On 2018-03-16 18:17, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

but can be compensated.

compensated is the wrong word, and shows your lack of understanding
about basic photography.

what you're calling 'compensated' must be done for *every* photo,
regardless of subject.


Only for light intensity, not hue or temp.

nope. it's trivial to adjust for hue or temp, what experienced
photographers (i.e., not you) call white balance, which can even be
done *after* the photo was taken (without loss).

You are proving that you don't know your subject.

nope. what *you* are doing is showing that you haven't a ****ing clue.

Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored.

translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to
admit it.

I don't need to back ours...

yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong.

simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it.

And _we_ say you are wrong. Not I, but we.


you do.

i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades.

Prove it.

Here it is only you supporting that claim.

you haven't a clue and refuse to learn.


I'm still waiting for your link supporting the X7 is crap.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Scanning negatives
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored.

translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to
admit it.

I don't need to back ours...

yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong.

simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it.

And _we_ say you are wrong. Not I, but we.

prove it. you can't, because i'm not wrong.

you do.

i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades.

Prove it.

i explained it several times.

you aren't interested in a discussion, nor are you interested in
learning anything.

Scanning negatives
 

On 2018-03-16 18:42, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored.

translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to
admit it.

I don't need to back ours...

yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong.

simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it.

And _we_ say you are wrong. Not I, but we.

prove it. you can't, because i'm not wrong.

you do.

i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades.

Prove it.

i explained it several times.

you aren't interested in a discussion, nor are you interested in
learning anything.

Clearly you can not prove your point, and you are the single person
claiming it. The onus is on you. You have a known record of saying
things that are false, so *we* do not believe you.

Every expert knows that using the sun light to copy slides or negatives
is not reliable and needs changing compensations, so every expert uses a
fixed setup with artificial light and recommends that.

Only you support using the sun as good and easy and reliable. Only when
cornered you recognize that compensation is needed.

End of discussion.


And I'm still waiting for your link supporting that the X7 is crap...



--
Cheers, Carlos.

Scanning negatives
 

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Prove it.

i explained it several times.

you aren't interested in a discussion, nor are you interested in
learning anything.

Clearly you can not prove your point,

i have, and more than one occasion.

and you are the single person
claiming it.

nope. anyone who knows even a little bit about photography and has
actually done it agrees with me, not you.

The onus is on you. You have a known record of saying
things that are false,

i never say things that are false. ever.

so *we* do not believe you.

i don't give a **** what you or anyone else believes.

what matters is what the facts are, which are as i said.

Every expert knows that using the sun light to copy slides or negatives
is not reliable and needs changing compensations, so every expert uses a
fixed setup with artificial light and recommends that.

appeal to the masses logical fallacy.

you're also lying about what i said.

furthermore, you don't realize that *every* photo needs what you
erroneously call compensation, including ones with artificial light.

unfortunately, it's well beyond your understanding, so you resort to
insults.

Only you support using the sun as good and easy and reliable. Only when
cornered you recognize that compensation is needed.

i never said it wasn't.

as usual, you lie about what i said.

End of discussion.

if only.

And I'm still waiting for your link supporting that the X7 is crap...

what for? you'll argue no matter what i say.