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