A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[Meta] POLL: Who here would support a moderated version of rec.photo.digital?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 24th 04, 01:38 AM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old June 24th 04, 06:01 AM
Bay Area Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old June 24th 04, 07:53 AM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.