8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:xQqud.622$2r.171@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:Wypud.604$2r.560@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:7fpud.603$2r.527@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...

Who gives a dam what you do?
Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept
it!
me

It looks like you're getting a little desperate to not accept the
idea
that
digital has caught up with film, in fact did so some time ago, and
in
some
cases, surpasses it.

That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG.
Film; do I have to say it?
me


I'll tell you what, show me some of your work. And look at mine and
tell
me
which is digital and which is film. And not on my website. I'll mail
you
prints. As long as you mail me some, too.
Like I said, I shoot both. If you don't like digital, what are you
doing
posting to the digital NG? Take yourself out of the conversation, and
be
secure in your own little world.
Photography rules, no matter how you do it...

I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film
cameras.
I
guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards.
:-)
Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-(
me


I haven't noticed you posting much of use over here, either...

Work on those reading skills. You appear to be having trouble making up your
mind, a minute ago you said you were done with me.

Still don't want to compare images? I'm waiting...

You *ass*ume incorrectly that I feel a need to prove something to you, I do
not. You have a need to prove something to me, which you can not.
Film, rules

wrote:
snip
So that is MY personal experience, Jon. Why don't you tell us all
about your ACTUAL experience with this stuff..?

How about some examples of your work, or a rundown on your involvement
in this, rather than just endless argument? - you seem very shy when
that request comes up... Why is that?


Like I said, here's a quick afternoon of *my* work when I tried out a
new camera - warts and all..

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
I'd hate to be called a hypocrite..

(O;

Nice things there, chrlz (Is that pronounced "Churls"? (My inner ear
needs something to process when my eye sees something)

You don't expect us to take your opinions seriously just because you are
a careful thinker and an accomplished photographer, do you?


--
Frank ess

wrote:
snip
So that is MY personal experience, Jon. Why don't you tell us all
about your ACTUAL experience with this stuff..?

How about some examples of your work, or a rundown on your involvement
in this, rather than just endless argument? - you seem very shy when
that request comes up... Why is that?


Like I said, here's a quick afternoon of *my* work when I tried out a
new camera - warts and all..

http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm
I'd hate to be called a hypocrite..

(O;

Nice things there, chrlz (Is that pronounced "Churls"? (My inner ear
needs something to process when my eye sees something)

You don't expect us to take your opinions seriously just because you are
a careful thinker and an accomplished photographer, do you?


--
Frank ess

"Jon Pike" posted:
"...

Yes, but, since you seem to have come into this thread rather late in the
game, I'll give you a touch of background. Someone asked about the
whether 8mp digital had "theoretical equivalent resolution" to 35mm film.
From there Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements
based on his 'tests.' I pointed out that his tests were severely flawed
from many aspects, and he used his claim to having been an editor for a
scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually
answer any of the questions I was asking.
...."

First:
The "points" you tried to point out are and were wrong. And so are the
points you are trying to make in your idiotic thread on "12-Stop Film."

Second:
You ... "Jon Pike" ... have behaved like a little spoiled whiney brat ...
or at best, a second-semester college kid who's just finished the Basic
Optics portion of his Beginning College Physics course ... and is now
trying to argue the finer points of optics and photography with the head of
the Physics Department.

You should be shutting up and learning.

Third:
Roger N. Clark has a very well established reputation in the real-world
scientific imaging community, **and** in this and several other USENET
groups. Just in case you haven't noticed ... He was awarded his Ph.D. from
MIT before you were even a friggin' glimmer in your father's eye.

Fourth:
Next, I suggest that **you** read through
http://clarkvision.com/rnc/
http://www.brc.tamus.edu/rs2k/clark.html
and then do a Boolean web search (using Google, if you are not familiar
with some of the other and better Search Engines) on the string

"Roger N. Clark" and cassini

Fifth:
YOU ... "Jon Pike" ... are nothing more than a really screwed up TROLL.

Sixth:
PLONK

Bye-Bye Idiot.

"Jon Pike" posted:
"...

Yes, but, since you seem to have come into this thread rather late in the
game, I'll give you a touch of background. Someone asked about the
whether 8mp digital had "theoretical equivalent resolution" to 35mm film.
From there Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements
based on his 'tests.' I pointed out that his tests were severely flawed
from many aspects, and he used his claim to having been an editor for a
scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually
answer any of the questions I was asking.
...."

First:
The "points" you tried to point out are and were wrong. And so are the
points you are trying to make in your idiotic thread on "12-Stop Film."

Second:
You ... "Jon Pike" ... have behaved like a little spoiled whiney brat ...
or at best, a second-semester college kid who's just finished the Basic
Optics portion of his Beginning College Physics course ... and is now
trying to argue the finer points of optics and photography with the head of
the Physics Department.

You should be shutting up and learning.

Third:
Roger N. Clark has a very well established reputation in the real-world
scientific imaging community, **and** in this and several other USENET
groups. Just in case you haven't noticed ... He was awarded his Ph.D. from
MIT before you were even a friggin' glimmer in your father's eye.

Fourth:
Next, I suggest that **you** read through
http://clarkvision.com/rnc/
http://www.brc.tamus.edu/rs2k/clark.html
and then do a Boolean web search (using Google, if you are not familiar
with some of the other and better Search Engines) on the string

"Roger N. Clark" and cassini

Fifth:
YOU ... "Jon Pike" ... are nothing more than a really screwed up TROLL.

Sixth:
PLONK

Bye-Bye Idiot.

wrote in message
oups.com...
And all of those photog's (I know several of them, even though I don't
claim to be one myself)

Agreed.

are leaving it up to you to fight the 'good
fight'. None of them are chiming in. (I think we can discount 'me'
and 'teflon' as very genuine trolls with nary a reference or coherent
thought so far.)

**** you,
me

wrote in message
oups.com...
And all of those photog's (I know several of them, even though I don't
claim to be one myself)

Agreed.

are leaving it up to you to fight the 'good
fight'. None of them are chiming in. (I think we can discount 'me'
and 'teflon' as very genuine trolls with nary a reference or coherent
thought so far.)

**** you,
me

"BillB" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:27:20 -0600, me favorite film fan wrote:
That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG.
Film; do I have to say it?
me

Yes. It's very important to keep saying it as loud and as often
as possible. Otherwise our collective memory of film will
eventually recede to the distant land of the forgotten, where it
will join company with brittle 78's and steel record needles,
flammable film stock, daguerrotypes, muskets, bathtub gin and the
Stanley Steamer. Vo dee oh doh!

Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me
better.
Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future!
me

"BillB" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:27:20 -0600, me favorite film fan wrote:
That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG.
Film; do I have to say it?
me

Yes. It's very important to keep saying it as loud and as often
as possible. Otherwise our collective memory of film will
eventually recede to the distant land of the forgotten, where it
will join company with brittle 78's and steel record needles,
flammable film stock, daguerrotypes, muskets, bathtub gin and the
Stanley Steamer. Vo dee oh doh!

Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me
better.
Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future!
me

"Carl" wrote in message
...
BillB wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:27:20 -0600, me favorite film fan-boi wrote:


That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG.
Film; do I have to say it?
me


Yes. It's very important to keep saying it as loud and as often
as possible. Otherwise our collective memory of film will
eventually recede to the distant land of the forgotten, where it
will join company with brittle 78's and steel record needles,
flammable film stock, daguerrotypes, muskets, bathtub gin and the
Stanley Steamer. Vo dee oh doh!

Of course the true purist - which he obviously is not or he would be
promoting it, would be advocating the use of the pinhole camera and milk
prints. In fact life has never been the same since the invention of the
camera obscura and that damned upstart Galileo. The cheek of the man
taking a child's toy and turning it a scientific tool.

Turn up that knob on your brain marked intelligence so you can hear me
better. (ditto for you jackass.)
Film, it's the best now and will be far into the future!
me