Harry Krause wrote:
Gould 0738 wrote:
Still shooting film here. I need five different lenses for my work, some as
short as 19mm for shooting interior photos. Most digital cameras stress *zoom*
imaging.
I don't ned a zoom, I can always put on a longer lens.


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!





We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either
of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

basskisser wrote:
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Cheesyturtle is in my bozo bin.

As for "digital" versus "film" photography, most pro photographers are
still using film for all sorts of reasons, although "the switch" is
underway. One of the reasons is this: even on the best glass-tube
computer monitors, because of the limitations of screen resolution, you
cannot see enough detail in most digital photos to determine how sharp
focus is, and therefore which are the best shots for publication. Until
very recently, most of the pro photogs I've worked with have worked
strictly in film, and in medium format at that - usually 2-1/4. Now,
many carry along a pro digital outfit, too.

The most strikingly beautiful television commercials are still shot on
35 or 70 mm film. The cheaper ones, or the commercials where great tonal
range and feel are not that important, are shot on tape...digital, as it
were. Most movies are still shot on film.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

(basskisser) wrote in message . com...
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
the moron.

basskisser wrote:
(basskisser) wrote in message . com...
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
the moron.

Until recently, a year or so ago, I had no great interest in digital
photography. When I work professionally on magazines or brochures or
annual reports, I always have the photography done by a top pro, and the
graphics done by a professional graphics artist. My role was always
directing the photogs and then looking through the 'chromes and picking
the photos I wanted to use. That's still mostly the case on my
professinoal work, though I am starting to see more use of digital
originals. Still, with a digital original, you can't really tell what
you have because of screen resolution limitations.

There are many other limitations inherent in "digital processing" of
photos, art and layout in putting together publications. My graphics
designer uses Photoshop for photos, but Quark Express for design and
layout of publications. When we have the budget, we send out to the
typehouse for type, instead of using "DTP" type.

But digital works...and is useful for some professional jobs.

My personal involvement in digital photography now is casual.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:
(basskisser) wrote in message . com...
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
the moron.

Until recently, a year or so ago, I had no great interest in digital
photography. When I work professionally on magazines or brochures or
annual reports, I always have the photography done by a top pro, and the
graphics done by a professional graphics artist. My role was always
directing the photogs and then looking through the 'chromes and picking
the photos I wanted to use. That's still mostly the case on my
professinoal work, though I am starting to see more use of digital
originals. Still, with a digital original, you can't really tell what
you have because of screen resolution limitations.

There are many other limitations inherent in "digital processing" of
photos, art and layout in putting together publications. My graphics
designer uses Photoshop for photos, but Quark Express for design and
layout of publications. When we have the budget, we send out to the
typehouse for type, instead of using "DTP" type.

But digital works...and is useful for some professional jobs.

My personal involvement in digital photography now is casual.

I have always had a *hobby* interest in photography. It's the only
artistic type of thing I'm any good at. I've taken a few classes at
junior colleges, etc. I still like the artistic bent of 35mm
photography, that is, being able manipulate things at the point of
contact, rather than doing it at the computer, although there are a
lot of advantages to digital. I may at some time dabble more and more
with digital, I have a camera, and decent software.