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
|
|||
|
|||
[Meta] POLL: Who here would support a moderated version of rec.photo.digital?
Bay Area Dave wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: Bay Area Dave wrote: John McWilliams wrote: Uh, "WebKatz"- just what is your interest in photograpy? Or are you pushing an agenda? Are you saving us from ourselves? why not ask Lionel the same question, John? Because there's no need to. Lionel displays a sound knowledge of digital photography which he shares with others. He's pleasant to all but those who either hate him or worship him. Since there are so many posts under false names, do "you" have a demonstratable interest in digital photography? absolutely! I've posted a number of questions that have garnered some thoughtful discussion. and i don't "hate" or worship Lionel. I'm just debating the usefulness of creating a shadow of this newsgroup. I think it's counter productive. If he REALLY likes the idea of another group, my contention is that it should fly on it's own. He's been MOSTLY pleasant in his responses to me (one little lapse, perhaps g) but nothing that truly offends me. I'd like to see the newsgroup return to discussing the pros and cons of the various cameras, accessories, and techniques that are available now and on the horizon. THAT'S what drew me to this group in the first place. I didn't mean to imply you had any energy towards any one, and with so many posting under other's names, it's hard to know who's on first at times. Have there been postings in this NG under your name that weren't yours? And what kind of photography intersests you? In the hopes we'll all get back to what brought *many* of us here.... -- John McWilliams |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[Meta] POLL: Who here would support a moderated version of rec.photo.digital?
John McWilliams wrote:
Bay Area Dave wrote: John McWilliams wrote: Bay Area Dave wrote: John McWilliams wrote: Uh, "WebKatz"- just what is your interest in photograpy? Or are you pushing an agenda? Are you saving us from ourselves? why not ask Lionel the same question, John? Because there's no need to. Lionel displays a sound knowledge of digital photography which he shares with others. He's pleasant to all but those who either hate him or worship him. Since there are so many posts under false names, do "you" have a demonstratable interest in digital photography? absolutely! I've posted a number of questions that have garnered some thoughtful discussion. and i don't "hate" or worship Lionel. I'm just debating the usefulness of creating a shadow of this newsgroup. I think it's counter productive. If he REALLY likes the idea of another group, my contention is that it should fly on it's own. He's been MOSTLY pleasant in his responses to me (one little lapse, perhaps g) but nothing that truly offends me. I'd like to see the newsgroup return to discussing the pros and cons of the various cameras, accessories, and techniques that are available now and on the horizon. THAT'S what drew me to this group in the first place. I didn't mean to imply you had any energy towards any one, and with so many posting under other's names, it's hard to know who's on first at times. Have there been postings in this NG under your name that weren't yours? And what kind of photography intersests you? In the hopes we'll all get back to what brought *many* of us here.... -- John McWilliams to your first question, I'm not sure if the troll posted here as well as 3 other NG's, but I tried my best to alert everyone to the imposter as his (presumably a pre-pubescent MALE) posts showed up. it was several months ago, IIRC. I have an S-40 which is my only digicam at the moment. I would use film exclusively but I can't trust the developing. I get rolls back with streaks on the negatives, dust on the prints, poor color balance, yada yada yada. I love the color of film when everything is correct, and you can't beat the latitude of negative film. I'm partial to slides but then there is the hassle of setting up a projector. I have a film scanner (not real good; it's a PhotoSmart S20) but the results are marginal. The resolution is low, the density range isn't so great and it takes forever. Digital hasn't reached a level of perfection that would prompt me to spend a significant amount of cash on a DSLR. I miss the speed, focus confirmation and lens inter changeability of my film SLR's, but I won't spend the money on a D-SLR until they up the dynamic range and reduce sensor blooming. Randall Ainsworth provide a link to some nice landscape photos recently and I was dismayed to see that same muddy, dark rendition of a forest against a well exposed mountain and foreground. That's with an expensive Canon (IIRC) D-SLR. I've seen far too many of my own shots, friend's images, and on-line images that suffer the same fate resulting from a serious lack of dynamic range. and don't even get me started on small sensors screwing us out of affordable glass for super wide angle picture taking! How's that for "on-topic", John? dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[Meta] POLL: Who here would support a moderated version of rec.photo.digital?
Bay Area Dave wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: Bay Area Dave wrote: John McWilliams wrote: Bay Area Dave wrote: John McWilliams wrote: Uh, "WebKatz"- just what is your interest in photograpy? Or are you pushing an agenda? Are you saving us from ourselves? why not ask Lionel the same question, John? Because there's no need to. Lionel displays a sound knowledge of digital photography which he shares with others. He's pleasant to all but those who either hate him or worship him. Since there are so many posts under false names, do "you" have a demonstratable interest in digital photography? absolutely! I've posted a number of questions that have garnered some thoughtful discussion. and i don't "hate" or worship Lionel. I'm just debating the usefulness of creating a shadow of this newsgroup. I think it's counter productive. If he REALLY likes the idea of another group, my contention is that it should fly on it's own. He's been MOSTLY pleasant in his responses to me (one little lapse, perhaps g) but nothing that truly offends me. I'd like to see the newsgroup return to discussing the pros and cons of the various cameras, accessories, and techniques that are available now and on the horizon. THAT'S what drew me to this group in the first place. I didn't mean to imply you had any energy towards any one, and with so many posting under other's names, it's hard to know who's on first at times. Have there been postings in this NG under your name that weren't yours? And what kind of photography intersests you? In the hopes we'll all get back to what brought *many* of us here.... -- John McWilliams to your first question, I'm not sure if the troll posted here as well as 3 other NG's, but I tried my best to alert everyone to the imposter as his (presumably a pre-pubescent MALE) posts showed up. it was several months ago, IIRC. I have an S-40 which is my only digicam at the moment. I would use film exclusively but I can't trust the developing. I get rolls back with streaks on the negatives, dust on the prints, poor color balance, yada yada yada. I love the color of film when everything is correct, and you can't beat the latitude of negative film. I'm partial to slides but then there is the hassle of setting up a projector. I have a film scanner (not real good; it's a PhotoSmart S20) but the results are marginal. The resolution is low, the density range isn't so great and it takes forever. Digital hasn't reached a level of perfection that would prompt me to spend a significant amount of cash on a DSLR. I miss the speed, focus confirmation and lens inter changeability of my film SLR's, but I won't spend the money on a D-SLR until they up the dynamic range and reduce sensor blooming. Randall Ainsworth provide a link to some nice landscape photos recently and I was dismayed to see that same muddy, dark rendition of a forest against a well exposed mountain and foreground. That's with an expensive Canon (IIRC) D-SLR. I've seen far too many of my own shots, friend's images, and on-line images that suffer the same fate resulting from a serious lack of dynamic range. and don't even get me started on small sensors screwing us out of affordable glass for super wide angle picture taking! How's that for "on-topic", John? dave Excellent! We have taken different paths for the time being, as I did (and still do) that digital is well enough along to be worthwhile for me to concentrate in it. Maybe even one day the monitors we use will be good enough and well calibrated so that we all see the same colors....maybe better said that we are all presented with the same palette as we view stuff on the web. -- John McWilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|