I've got a 30mp digital camera

"John Adams" wrote in message
. ..
Pete D wrote:


That would certainly take some doing Douglas is about 60.

Ok, he's back to diapers now but they call them depends instead.

That would be "Depends"! Never got that joke at first but I did enjoy the
whooshing sound it made!!!

John Adams wrote:
frederick wrote:

lol - you dimwitted presumptuous troll.
Where is it that you get the idea that the posters to this group were
born yesterday?


If I am the troll and you are replying to me doesn't that make you the
dimwitted one? Why, yes, it most certainly does! And you were the dorks
that started with the presumptions.

No - trolling the trolls is a valuable activity, or usenet
will die!
There's sometimes confusion on that point though, as
repetitive monologues that proliferate from the occasional
zealots in this group are often mistaken for trolling.

To you sir, I offer an apology.
You've got a thread running with over 40 posts up as I type
this, and all based on the implied premise of "film vs
digital" - a debate which should have died years ago.

On 6 Nov, 04:53, "Douglas" wrote:
"Pete D" wrote in message

...





"Douglas" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

Recent films may have better scanning capabilities than traditional ones
but never will a scan of a 35 mm film, come close to producing image
quality produced by an 8 megapixel digital camera.

Douglas
You would need to tell the OP poster this, not, from me there is no
argument.

Peter,
Just because you posted a reply to a thread, doesn't give you ownership of
the thread. When I used your reply to piggy back and enhancement to what you
said, it was directed at *ALL* thread readers, not just you.

One of the unwritten rules of thread etiquette is that when you reply
to someone's post you are replying to them, much as you have done
here. Were your message intended for the OP (as your previous post
appears to have been) then Pete is justified in pointing out that you
replied to *his* message in the thread, not the the OPs.
Ownership of the thread is not at dispute.

Doc

Had I wanted to communicate to you specifically, I would have used the
"reply to sender" instead of "reply to group" button in the menu bar and
discovered as I have in the past, you don't provide a valid e-mail address.

Douglas

Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
Douglas
You would need to tell the OP poster this, not, from me there is no
argument.

Peter,
Just because you posted a reply to a thread, doesn't give you ownership of
the thread. When I used your reply to piggy back and enhancement to what you
said, it was directed at *ALL* thread readers, not just you.

One of the unwritten rules of thread etiquette is that when you reply
to someone's post you are replying to them, much as you have done
here.

That is indeed unwritten: as, in your imagination only.
Few with any history on Usenet will likely agree with
you.

Learn to write to the *entire* audience, even when you
specifically address comments by a single person. The
voice used can indeed be that of someone addressing that
one person, but do not ever forget that it is in fact
addressing *everyone*.

Everyone includes your great grandchildren who might be
reading the archives in a few years... it also includes
your employer, your next romantic partner, or the neighbor
down the road. Write for posterity!

Were your message intended for the OP (as your previous post
appears to have been) then Pete is justified in pointing out that you
replied to *his* message in the thread, not the the OPs.

The actual message last referenced is of relativelylittle
significance in regard to who is addressed in the text,
though it of course makes a great deal of common sense
to make it explicitly clear just to avoid confusion and
responses such as your message.

Ownership of the thread is not at dispute.

There is no such thing as ownership of a thread.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

You remind me of these guys...
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

On Nov 5, 12:40 pm, John Adams wrote:
Yea, I shoot slide film on my Nikon 35mm and then scan them into my PC
with my Canoscan. Surpasses the results of any DC on the market.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:35:42 GMT, John Adams wrote:

wrote:

Beg Pardon..... But I have prints hanging all over the place dome with
a 6.2 megapixel camera. Fine, detailed and inkjet printed 13x19's and
16x20's printed on paper and indistinguishable from any traditional
film print I have ever seen.

Indistinguishable? Yea, sure, pull the other leg.

Well, it's easy to make claims from the other side of a monitor I will
agree.

All I can tell you is what you read here. If you care to keep an eye
on skinnerstudios.photoreflect.com and order a print or two sometime
in the future I will double your money back if you disagree upon
inspection.

You have obviously not done your homework on this subject and I assure
you sir. I have. I am not the most knowledgable here nor the best
photographer but I have spent the past 6 years putting together my
techniques and processes to provide the highest of quality to my
paying customers. And they do pay in ever increasing numbers so I must
be doing something right.

I would suggest you study a bit further at the web sites of some of
these fine manufacturers before you start casting stones.

Epson
Canon
Adobe

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:08:51 GMT, John Adams wrote:

M-M wrote:
And wait to see your results.

Results are good. I only have a 2.1mp Olympus 2020Z so need to get a
10mp DSLR before I can really compare. Want to lend me your Nikon D80?

You are comparing your results to an Olympus 2020Z!!!!

You miserable TROLL! YOu egotistical, self serving piece of flotsom!!!

That's it..... where is my killfile stick. THis one gets an immediate
beating!!!!

Christ. Please save us from the imbiciles and idiots!

muttering compating yo a 2.1mp camera and claiming all digital
sucks. Jesus CHRIST what's this world coming to?

You know, if I knew where you lived I wouldn't EVEN bother walking
over and slapping the smugness out of your silly ass! Just go away and
shut the hell up till you know what you are talking about to fool.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:51:41 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
m...

"John Adams" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

This is, of course, simply wrong.

Here's what happens when you compare 35mm to medium format and the 5D.

Now compare the 35mm straight to print without the scanner in between the
process.

I've never seen a 35mm print that's even close to what the 5D coughs up
every time.

But I will concede that I really want a good quality DSLR now. Time to
move up from my 2.1mp Olympus.

Most 35mm users who acquired a 6MP dSLR never shot 35mm again.

As a long-term MF user, I think that's simply because 35mm was never ready
for prime time. Lots of people think 35mm's wonderful though. I wouldn't
think of showing someone an 11x14 or 12x18 from 35mm film. That's 645/5D
territory.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Actually I do 12x18 prints from my 6MP camera, beautiful prints at that
size.


Try going up to 18x24. You will be thrilled. That's just about the
limit though at 6MP:. I jumped to the XTi and 10.2 MP and can go as
high as 20x30 with superb results....... when viewed properly.

What you folks have to remember is that the larger the print the
further it is meant to be viewed!

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:10:42 GMT, John Adams wrote:

Charles wrote:

It's not about resolution!



I agree, and that is why I never intend to upgrade to a fancy-schmancy
10mp Nikon when my 2.1mp Olympus is just as good. :/

Somebody ought to jap slap the stupidity right out of you.

Are you REALLY this stupid or are you just trying to troll up some
interest?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:51:41 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
om...

"John Adams" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

This is, of course, simply wrong.

Here's what happens when you compare 35mm to medium format and the 5D.

Now compare the 35mm straight to print without the scanner in between
the
process.

I've never seen a 35mm print that's even close to what the 5D coughs up
every time.

But I will concede that I really want a good quality DSLR now. Time to
move up from my 2.1mp Olympus.

Most 35mm users who acquired a 6MP dSLR never shot 35mm again.

As a long-term MF user, I think that's simply because 35mm was never
ready
for prime time. Lots of people think 35mm's wonderful though. I wouldn't
think of showing someone an 11x14 or 12x18 from 35mm film. That's 645/5D
territory.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Actually I do 12x18 prints from my 6MP camera, beautiful prints at that
size.


Try going up to 18x24. You will be thrilled. That's just about the
limit though at 6MP:. I jumped to the XTi and 10.2 MP and can go as
high as 20x30 with superb results....... when viewed properly.

What you folks have to remember is that the larger the print the
further it is meant to be viewed!


I have done .6 mtr x 2.5 mtr with my 10MP K10D, six shots joined but still
about twenty inches high and the detail even if I do say so myself bloody
amazing.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1330/...f7d7772f_o.jpg