If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 02:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:38:19 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: I've used flash too but the closest I've come to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist. imagine that. these other clucks say it can't be done. No one said that yes they did. No, we did not. actually, you were among the first to do so. Nope. I said that it doesn't work well, that the light varies. You denied it. Then you (nospam) accepted that it varies but can be compensated. but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result. it's very predictable when done properly. just because you (and others) have no clue doesn't make it impossible. That *you* say something is sufficient to know that it is not true :-P if you think what i said wrong, then it should be easy for you to prove it. simply saying it's wrong is insufficient. you can't (because it's not wrong), which is why you resort to ad hominem attacks and lying about what i said. You are lying about what you said and lying about what you didn't say. Certainly. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: I've used flash too but the closest I've come to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist. imagine that. these other clucks say it can't be done. No one said that yes they did. No, we did not. actually, you were among the first to do so. Nope. I said that it doesn't work well, actually, it does, and quite well. you've clearly never copied slides/negatives with a copier. i have, and quite a bit and using a variety of methods. that the light varies. of course the light varies. nobody said it didn't. You denied it. nope. i *never* denied that the light varies. what i said that the variance does not matter, and it doesn't. not one bit. i also said that anyone with even the slightest clue about photography would understand why it doesn't matter. Then you (nospam) accepted that it varies given that i never said it didn't vary, i could not have later accepted that it does. 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. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-15 17:36:06 +0000, nospam said:
In article , android wrote: I've used flash too but the closest I've come to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist. imagine that. these other clucks say it can't be done. No one said that yes they did. 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. The setup you recommended was a Nikon slide duplicator hocked up to a Nikon camera with a Micro Nikkor attached to it is not free... An Epson V600 will cost you a fraction of that what it does and give you better results, especially with a third party software like Vuescan Pro. There is a learning curve but that should not be a hindrance if if you have been able to produce quality slides. The results with you suggested setup will not be more predictable than the London weather, BTW! :-ppp just because you (and others) have no clue doesn't make it impossible. -- teleportation kills |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
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. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 05:43:12 +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. you bettered yourself for a while, but as they say you're not better than your last show... -- teleportation kills |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 11:34:27 +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! -- teleportation kills |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
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're wrong yet again. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 12:40, android wrote:
On 2018-03-16 11:34:27 +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! Absolutely! -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 03:52, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: I've used flash too but the closest I've come to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist. imagine that. these other clucks say it can't be done. No one said that yes they did. No, we did not. actually, you were among the first to do so. Nope. I said that it doesn't work well, actually, it does, and quite well. you've clearly never copied slides/negatives with a copier. i have, and quite a bit and using a variety of methods. that the light varies. of course the light varies. nobody said it didn't. You denied it. nope. i *never* denied that the light varies. what i said that the variance does not matter, and it doesn't. not one bit. i also said that anyone with even the slightest clue about photography would understand why it doesn't matter. Then you (nospam) accepted that it varies given that i never said it didn't vary, i could not have later accepted that it does. 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. You are proving that you don't know your subject. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
scanning old negatives | Phillip Helbig[_2_] | Digital Photography | 23 | May 29th 15 06:49 AM |
Scanning old negatives | Stuart | Digital Photography | 17 | April 20th 07 05:53 AM |
Help scanning negatives, please! | iamcanadian | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | December 3rd 06 03:32 AM |
scanning negatives | Mike - EMAIL IGNORED | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | November 27th 04 08:31 AM |
Lab for Scanning Negatives..... | ron | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | October 14th 04 05:30 PM |