Scanning negatives

On 2018-03-15 13:07:30 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I've copied slides or rather tried to using a few methods and I know that if
using daylight you still have to use your brain too.

a brain is always needed.

Have you considered to electronically enhance yours?

"Hello sir. don't be afraid of this technology. It's something good,
there are very bad people in this world who commit murder, raped, steal
and do many inmoral things that affect our human lives. I have been in
contact with them for a while now and they use me in ways I can't say
because it's "classified". I was instructed to tell you right now as I
have been writing, that you are doing a great job informing the public
about this amazing technology, but also that you or no one else should
be"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzgYDe8TwDo
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I've used flash too but the closest I've come
to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist.

imagine that.

these other clucks say it can't be done.

On 2018-03-15 15:23:38 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I've used flash too but the closest I've come
to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist.

imagine that.

these other clucks say it can't be done.

No one said that but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

I've used flash too but the closest I've come
to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist.

imagine that.

these other clucks say it can't be done.

No one said that

yes they did.

but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result.

it's very predictable when done properly.

just because you (and others) have no clue doesn't make it impossible.

On 2018-03-15 15:13, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Contrary to nospam claims, the sun light varies a lot and affects
results.

i never said it didn't. you are intentionally lying about what i said.

You can compensate, take it into account.

something which is needed for *every* single photo. it's also very easy
to do.

Finally! You recognize that compensation is needed.

i never said otherwise. stop lying.

Oh, you certainly did. Stop trolling.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-03-15 18:36, nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

I've used flash too but the closest I've come
to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist.

imagine that.

these other clucks say it can't be done.

No one said that

yes they did.

No, we did not.

but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result.

it's very predictable when done properly.

just because you (and others) have no clue doesn't make it impossible.


That *you* say something is sufficient to know that it is not true :-P


--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Contrary to nospam claims, the sun light varies a lot and affects
results.

i never said it didn't. you are intentionally lying about what i said.

You can compensate, take it into account.

something which is needed for *every* single photo. it's also very easy
to do.

Finally! You recognize that compensation is needed.

i never said otherwise. stop lying.

Oh, you certainly did.

i did not say any such thing. stop lying.

Stop trolling.

if anyone needs to stop trolling, it would be you.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I've used flash too but the closest I've come
to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist.

imagine that.

these other clucks say it can't be done.

No one said that

yes they did.

No, we did not.

actually, you were among the first to do so.

but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result.

it's very predictable when done properly.

just because you (and others) have no clue doesn't make it impossible.

That *you* say something is sufficient to know that it is not true :-P

if you think what i said wrong, then it should be easy for you to prove
it. simply saying it's wrong is insufficient. you can't (because it's
not wrong), which is why you resort to ad hominem attacks and lying
about what i said.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:38:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I've used flash too but the closest I've come
to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the easist.

imagine that.

these other clucks say it can't be done.

No one said that

yes they did.

No, we did not.

actually, you were among the first to do so.

but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result.

it's very predictable when done properly.

just because you (and others) have no clue doesn't make it impossible.

That *you* say something is sufficient to know that it is not true :-P

if you think what i said wrong, then it should be easy for you to prove
it. simply saying it's wrong is insufficient. you can't (because it's
not wrong), which is why you resort to ad hominem attacks and lying
about what i said.

You are lying about what you said and lying about what you didn't say.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I've used flash too but the closest I've come
to a resonable result was using an overcast sky in London was the
easist.

imagine that.

these other clucks say it can't be done.

No one said that

yes they did.

No, we did not.

actually, you were among the first to do so.

but that is not a MO that gives you a predictable result.

it's very predictable when done properly.

just because you (and others) have no clue doesn't make it impossible.

That *you* say something is sufficient to know that it is not true :-P

if you think what i said wrong, then it should be easy for you to prove
it. simply saying it's wrong is insufficient. you can't (because it's
not wrong), which is why you resort to ad hominem attacks and lying
about what i said.

You are lying about what you said and lying about what you didn't say.

nope.