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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
The Wogster wrote: Uh boys, wanna move this to another newsgroup: alt.men.who.wanna.act.like.they.are.still.four.yea rs.old O.K., dad. I'll go stand in a corner The look of an image is in the eye of the viewer, and if you think it's impossible to get a 16x20 out of 35mm, take a roll of Ilford Pan-F and pull it to 25ASA or even 12.5ASA, using a really fine grain developer, the grain is so fine, you could easily go to 3 times that size. W |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... Frank Pittel wrote: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : Frank Pittel wrote: : : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : : : Frank Pittel wrote: : : : : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : : : : : Frank Pittel wrote: : : : : : snip obtuseness. ..(little point in arguing with : : : someone who refuses to acknowledge fundamental : : : photographic physics.) : : : : Interesting that Tom seems to think that getting a print from an : : inkjet of an image taken with a 4mp p&s camera that looks good : : is a violation of fundamental photographic physics. : : : I could care less about your inkjets frank. : : I thought I was in your killfile?? If you don't care about my inkjet : prints why did you start this flame?? : : : Just as you seem to care less about how to get : : good quality enlargements. If by your own view : : your enlargements are "crap," and your inkjets : : compare well with those enlargements, one can : : only imagine what your inkjets look like... : : Once again I have to correct the lie that you seem to enjoy telling about : me thinking my traditional prints look like crap. I never wrote that and you : know it. : uh... : =Frank Pittel wrote on Fri, 17 Dec 17, 2004: : : A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap... You now admit to your lie. As your quote of one of my past post demonstrates that I didn't say that my prints look like crap. That is contrary to your later lie. Yes, you did. And I never lie. But if you didn't mean what you said about your enlargements being "crap" you should say so. frankly, Frank, you have less than a proficient command of photographic terms and terminology. Such as calling the "plane of focus" the plane the image is focused on (one focuses on the film/image plane, not the subject/ plane of focus.) So, perhaps you should think more carefully before you type one liners incorporating words like "crap"... please children, no more bickering, your upsetting the women folk, not to mention making yourselves look like complete dickheads. Brian............................ |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Phillips" wrote in message ... Frank Pittel wrote: In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : Frank Pittel wrote: : : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : : : Frank Pittel wrote: : : : : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : : : : : Frank Pittel wrote: : : : : : snip obtuseness. ..(little point in arguing with : : : someone who refuses to acknowledge fundamental : : : photographic physics.) : : : : Interesting that Tom seems to think that getting a print from an : : inkjet of an image taken with a 4mp p&s camera that looks good : : is a violation of fundamental photographic physics. : : : I could care less about your inkjets frank. : : I thought I was in your killfile?? If you don't care about my inkjet : prints why did you start this flame?? : : : Just as you seem to care less about how to get : : good quality enlargements. If by your own view : : your enlargements are "crap," and your inkjets : : compare well with those enlargements, one can : : only imagine what your inkjets look like... : : Once again I have to correct the lie that you seem to enjoy telling about : me thinking my traditional prints look like crap. I never wrote that and you : know it. : uh... : =Frank Pittel wrote on Fri, 17 Dec 17, 2004: : : A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap... You now admit to your lie. As your quote of one of my past post demonstrates that I didn't say that my prints look like crap. That is contrary to your later lie. Yes, you did. And I never lie. But if you didn't mean what you said about your enlargements being "crap" you should say so. frankly, Frank, you have less than a proficient command of photographic terms and terminology. Such as calling the "plane of focus" the plane the image is focused on (one focuses on the film/image plane, not the subject/ plane of focus.) So, perhaps you should think more carefully before you type one liners incorporating words like "crap"... please children, no more bickering, your upsetting the women folk, not to mention making yourselves look like complete dickheads. Brian............................ |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote: : : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : : : Frank Pittel wrote: : : : : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : : : : : Frank Pittel wrote: : : : : : : In rec.photo.darkroom Tom Phillips wrote: : : : : : : : Frank Pittel wrote: : : : : : : : snip obtuseness. ..(little point in arguing with : : : : someone who refuses to acknowledge fundamental : : : : photographic physics.) : : : : : : Interesting that Tom seems to think that getting a print from an : : : inkjet of an image taken with a 4mp p&s camera that looks good : : : is a violation of fundamental photographic physics. : : : : : I could care less about your inkjets frank. : : : : I thought I was in your killfile?? If you don't care about my inkjet : : prints why did you start this flame?? : : : : : Just as you seem to care less about how to get : : : good quality enlargements. If by your own view : : : your enlargements are "crap," and your inkjets : : : compare well with those enlargements, one can : : : only imagine what your inkjets look like... : : : : Once again I have to correct the lie that you seem to enjoy telling about : : me thinking my traditional prints look like crap. I never wrote that and you : : know it. : : : uh... : : =Frank Pittel wrote on Fri, 17 Dec 17, 2004: : : : : A 16x20 print of a 35mm frame is going to look like crap... : : You now admit to your lie. As your quote of one of my past post demonstrates : that I didn't say that my prints look like crap. That is contrary to your : later lie. : Yes, you did. And I never lie. I reread my posts and never saw the one in which I wrote that my prints look like crap and you know I that. : But if you didn't mean what you said about your : enlargements being "crap" you should say so. ??? You're talking stupid again. Maybe you should take a class and learn how to read. : frankly, Frank, you have less than a proficient command : of photographic terms and terminology. Such as calling : the "plane of focus" the plane the image is focused on : (one focuses on the film/image plane, not the subject/ : plane of focus.) More lies. While what I wrote could have been worded better what I wrote was correct. If you had problems understanding whatwas written the problem is with you. Then again on more then one occasion during this thread you've allowed your imagination to alter what was written. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I started 35mm B&W darkroom forum | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 0 | December 11th 04 12:41 AM |
Getting married in the UK or Ireland - WedUK have just started a new Wedding Forum | The Warrior | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | November 26th 04 12:20 AM |
35mm on grade 3 explained | Michael Scarpitti | In The Darkroom | 240 | September 26th 04 02:46 AM |
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 30 | September 12th 04 04:46 AM |
Develper for Delta-100 | Frank Pittel | In The Darkroom | 8 | March 1st 04 04:36 PM |