Film not dead yet...

DanP wrote,on my timestamp of 22/08/2011 3:49 AM:

When you resort to insults you lost the argument.

Then why didn't you comment befoe, arsehole?


It cost you a small fortune and saved you another in running costs so it paid for itself, assuming of course you have used it.

Actually, it did not. I had to spend another small fortune upgrading my PC at
the timne to cope with the much increased storage and processing requirements.
See, you really don't know how to add, do you?


$50 in a plastic bag - it had been flooded in an underwater housing - and is
worth last time I priced them in ebay around $200. Which is the better value?
CAreful: handwriting on walls doesn't qualify you as a mathematician...

Care to say what model exactly? All film SLR's sell now for a fraction of the original price and that is without factoring in inflation.

Did I say it isn't a fraction of the original price? Can't you read basic
English, dickhead?

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2011 9:41 PM:

photography is a misnomer. An image on film is a digital image; its pixels are
just not arranged in a regular array like those in an image produced by a
digital camers.)

Grain is not the same as pixels. No, that "idiot with a web site" doesn't have
a clue what he's talking about. Learn the basics before you comment on anything
and stop embarassing yourself!



In the scenario you describe, it really makes no difference whether film or
digital is capable of greater sharpness. Introducing the scanner step is bound
to degrade the resolution you could otherwise get. Whether Alan's right or not
(and I think he probably is), a picture taken on film should always be printed
with a decent film enlarger.

And most likely whoever is using the scanner doesn't have a clue how to use it
effectively. Or is using a flatbed "because some web site says it is as good as".

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:35:37 +1000, Noons wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2011 9:41 PM:
:
: photography is a misnomer. An image on film is a digital image; its pixels
: are just not arranged in a regular array like those in an image produced
: by a digital camers.)
:
: Grain is not the same as pixels. No, that "idiot with a web site" doesn't
: have a clue what he's talking about. Learn the basics before you comment
: on anything and stop embarassing yourself!

What "idiot with a web site"? I don't know what you're talking about. But that
isn't surprising, because I doubt that you know either.

: In the scenario you describe, it really makes no difference whether film
: or digital is capable of greater sharpness. Introducing the scanner step
: is bound to degrade the resolution you could otherwise get. Whether Alan's
: right or not (and I think he probably is), a picture taken on film should
: always be printed with a decent film enlarger.
:
: And most likely whoever is using the scanner doesn't have a clue how to use
: it effectively.

And I suppose you do.

: Or is using a flatbed "because some web site says it is as good as".

Actually, Noons, these photography newsgroups are for photographers and those
with a serious interest in learning about photography, not for loudmouthed
bull****ters who have yet to convince anyone that they know a lens from a
viewfinder. So why don't you do us all a favor and mosey on down the road. You
were gone for a while (I won't ask why, because I don't give a rat's ass), and
frankly we liked it that way.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 22/08/2011 9:07 AM:

: photography is a misnomer. An image on film is a digital image; its pixels
: are just not arranged in a regular array like those in an image produced
: by a digital camers.)
:
: Grain is not the same as pixels. No, that "idiot with a web site" doesn't
: have a clue what he's talking about. Learn the basics before you comment
: on anything and stop embarassing yourself!

What "idiot with a web site"? I don't know what you're talking about. But that
isn't surprising, because I doubt that you know either.

The one you idiots with the "pixel is the same as grain" argument like to bring
in to support that demented claim. At least get informed before you troll.


: or digital is capable of greater sharpness. Introducing the scanner step
: is bound to degrade the resolution you could otherwise get. Whether Alan's
: right or not (and I think he probably is), a picture taken on film should
: always be printed with a decent film enlarger.
:
: And most likely whoever is using the scanner doesn't have a clue how to use
: it effectively.

And I suppose you do.

Unlike morons like you who spout "knowledge" on the Usenet, I've got the facts
to prove it.


Actually, Noons, these photography newsgroups are forphotographers and those
with a serious interest in learning about photography,

And I suppose morons like you define that? Here is a piece of news, dickhead:
neither you nor ANYONE here can claim any right over what these newsgroups are
for.

not for loudmouthed
bull****ters who have yet to convince anyone that they know a lens from a
viewfinder.

So why are you here?

So why don't you do us all a favor and mosey on down the road.

I don't do favours to trolls, dickhead.

You
were gone for a while (I won't ask why, because I don't give a rat's ass), and
frankly we liked it that way.

No I wasn't, dickhead. The fact that for the last 4 months the discussions here
have bordered on the usual irrational politics and uninformed stupidity of
monster threads doesn't mean I wasn't following them. Stupidity and ignorance
was rampant and therefore I didn't want to post.

As such go and get ****ed, you and your "go away" bull****: neither you nor any
of the other trolls here can stop me posting wherever and whenever I want. Give
up on that because I'm not in the least afraid of any of you, singly or
severaly. Got it, you stupid wank?

On 8/19/2011 2:53 PM, Martin Riddle wrote:
From the CNN website.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2011/08/18/natpkg.film.not.dead.yet.cnn?hpt=hp_abar

Cheers




Neither are these:

http://www.buggy-whips.com/

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:45:16 +1000, Noons wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 22/08/2011 9:07 AM:
:
: : photography is a misnomer. An image on film is a digital image; its pixels
: : are just not arranged in a regular array like those in an image produced
: : by a digital camers.)
: :
: : Grain is not the same as pixels. No, that "idiot with a web site" doesn't
: : have a clue what he's talking about. Learn the basics before you comment
: : on anything and stop embarassing yourself!
:
: What "idiot with a web site"? I don't know what you're talking about. But that
: isn't surprising, because I doubt that you know either.
:
: The one you idiots with the "pixel is the same as grain" argument like to bring
: in to support that demented claim. At least get informed before you troll.
:
:
: : or digital is capable of greater sharpness. Introducing the scanner step
: : is bound to degrade the resolution you could otherwise get. Whether Alan's
: : right or not (and I think he probably is), a picture taken on film should
: : always be printed with a decent film enlarger.
: :
: : And most likely whoever is using the scanner doesn't have a clue how to use
: : it effectively.
:
: And I suppose you do.
:
: Unlike morons like you who spout "knowledge" on the Usenet, I've got the facts
: to prove it.
:
:
: Actually, Noons, these photography newsgroups are forphotographers and those
: with a serious interest in learning about photography,
:
: And I suppose morons like you define that? Here is a piece of news, dickhead:
: neither you nor ANYONE here can claim any right over what these newsgroups are
: for.
:
: not for loudmouthed
: bull****ters who have yet to convince anyone that they know a lens from a
: viewfinder.
:
: So why are you here?
:
: So why don't you do us all a favor and mosey on down the road.
:
: I don't do favours to trolls, dickhead.
:
: You were gone for a while (I won't ask why, because I don't give a rat's
: ass), and frankly we liked it that way.
:
: No I wasn't, dickhead. The fact that for the last 4 months the discussions
: here have bordered on the usual irrational politics and uninformed stupidity
: of monster threads doesn't mean I wasn't following them. Stupidity and
: ignorance was rampant and therefore I didn't want to post.

We haven't changed, so what brought you back?

: As such go and get ****ed, you and your "go away" bull****: neither you nor
: any of the other trolls here can stop me posting wherever and whenever I want.
: Give up on that because I'm not in the least afraid of any of you, singly or
: severaly. Got it, you stupid wank?

Noons, I could play you like a pair of cymbals if I had the time and
inclination. I've never run across anybody who blew his top so predictably
with so little provocation. All we "trolls" have to do is push one of your
many buttons, and you go berserk. I hope you're taking something to keep your
blood pressure in check; despite your bizarre, repellent misanthropy, I
wouldn't want to see you have a heart attack over something I said.

Bob

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT), Noons
wrote:


I wouldn't want to see you have a heart attack over something I said.

You'll never see anything of me, much less a heart attack.

Or your photos.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 23/08/2011 2:41 PM:


Or your photos.

The blind leading the blind. Because yours are sooooo obvious...

Here is a hint: they will NEVER show up in your crap site.
What's its name again, ah yes: pbase.

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
On 8/19/2011 2:53 PM, Martin Riddle wrote:
From the CNN website.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2011/08/18/natpkg.film.not.dead.yet.cnn?hpt=hp_abar

Cheers




Neither are these:

http://www.buggy-whips.com/

Not available, check back in 1908 ;D

Cheers

DanP wrote,on my timestamp of 24/08/2011 9:38 PM:


Could it be him?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulkatcher/5138792752/

I'llbet it's you...