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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except
for a tiny minority who still uses film). It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.* Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital these days. Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
In message , Alfred Molon
writes Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except for a tiny minority who still uses film). That's going to start the usual (one or three) suspects ranting that film is making a comeback and it never went away and ti will long out live digital and go on about needing a minimum of 60MP digital to compete with film and film has better dynamic range any way... so THERE! :-) It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.* Yes. Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital these days. Say "many" or you will get the film nuts screaming again if you say "all" Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter. Yes but it will die out in about 5 years. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
Alfred Molon wrote:
Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except for a tiny minority who still uses film). It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.* Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital these days. Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter. Rather than separating into groups based on film v. digital, I would suggest dividing into rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.nutcases. This would eliminate about 90 percent of the postings to r.p.d. Allen |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
In message , Allen
writes Alfred Molon wrote: Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except for a tiny minority who still uses film). It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.* Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital these days. Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter. Rather than separating into groups based on film v. digital, I would suggest dividing into rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.nutcases. This would eliminate about 90 percent of the postings to r.p.d. Allen Betters still rec.photo.God's.own.Nikon.Users and rec.photo.heratics. :-) -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
Alfred Molon wrote:
Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except for a tiny minority who still uses film). It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.* Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital these days. Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter. Usenet is dying anyway. These groups are going to be dead in a few years anyway. I also subscribed to the Yahoo group on DP, and while it started kinda blah, this group is deteriorating fast anyway, so I am spending more time on that Yahoo list. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:45:08 +0000, Chris H wrote:
Alfred Molon writes Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except for a tiny minority who still uses film). That's going to start the usual (one or three) suspects ranting .................. Which is the usual result of a post like this. What we do _not_ need are the trolls that slither around usenet. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:08:24 -0600, Don Stauffer wrote:
Usenet is dying anyway. Then please *LEAVE* , damnit! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
Alfred Molon wrote:
Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except for a tiny minority who still uses film). It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.* Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital these days. Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter. Might want to consider that it's not as easy to create a new group in the Big Eight hierarchies than in alt. I'm not encouraging a new alt group; just mentioning that rec groups aren't done on a whim. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups - The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
In article .net,
Blinky the Shark says... Might want to consider that it's not as easy to create a new group in the Big Eight hierarchies than in alt. I'm not encouraging a new alt group; just mentioning that rec groups aren't done on a whim. I don't know... But they managed to create four subgroups of rec.photo.digital of which only one got enough traffic. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
"Spamm Trappe" wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:45:08 +0000, Chris H wrote: Alfred Molon writes Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except for a tiny minority who still uses film). That's going to start the usual (one or three) suspects ranting .................. Which is the usual result of a post like this. What we do _not_ need are the trolls that slither around usenet. does that mean you will be leaving ?? -- [This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter Data Updatedand Posted | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 0 | December 7th 07 09:29 PM |
Snapfish - Digital Photo Printing and Free Online Photo Sharing | Starlord | Film & Labs | 1 | November 13th 06 06:12 PM |
Photo editor software to easily blend digital photo onto another image(landscape picture etc) | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | May 24th 06 11:55 AM |
goodbye rec.photo.digital -hello rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? | Woodchuck Bill | Digital Photography | 80 | October 31st 04 12:50 AM |
Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? | Lionel | Digital Photography | 28 | September 17th 04 01:48 PM |