Thread: Film scanners?
View Single Post
  #146  
Old April 21st 17, 11:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Film scanners?

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:13:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums
presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their
prints.

completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive

comparison.

Isn't that a bit presumptive?

nope.

Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's
"neck of the woods"?

he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two
different
photographers of two different subjects under different lighting
with
different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that
the only reason the results are different is because one is film and
the other is digital. that's completely absurd.

there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the
slightest bit useful.

it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want
can
be done with digital. simple fact.

You are changing the subject. Typical.

nothing was changed. not a single thing.

Bull****.

bull**** right back.

The original discussion was about film photography vs digital
photography in general. Now here you are writing as though the
discussion was about "two different photos taken by two different
photographers ... etc". Up till now no one was discussing "two
different photos taken by two different photographers ... etc" until
you introduced the topic.

nope. read it again. someone *else* brought the comparison.

Nope.

Prove me wrong by giving a quote.

scroll up.


Typical cop out.


it ain't me who is copping out.

Give me a quote.


scroll up. it's still there.