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

Scanning negatives



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old March 16th 18, 02:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Scanning negatives

On 2018-03-16 02:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


Nope. I said that it doesn't work well, that the light varies. You
denied it. Then you (nospam) accepted that it varies but can be compensated.


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.


Certainly.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #72  
Old March 16th 18, 03:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Scanning negatives

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.


Nope. I said that it doesn't work well,


actually, it does, and quite well.

you've clearly never copied slides/negatives with a copier. i have, and
quite a bit and using a variety of methods.

that the light varies.


of course the light varies. nobody said it didn't.

You
denied it.


nope. i *never* denied that the light varies.

what i said that the variance does not matter, and it doesn't. not one
bit.

i also said that anyone with even the slightest clue about photography
would understand why it doesn't matter.

Then you (nospam) accepted that it varies


given that i never said it didn't vary, i could not have later accepted
that it does.

but can be compensated.


compensated is the wrong word, and shows your lack of understanding
about basic photography.

what you're calling 'compensated' must be done for *every* photo,
regardless of subject.
  #73  
Old March 16th 18, 06:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Scanning negatives

On 2018-03-15 17:36:06 +0000, nospam said:

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.


It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment. The setup you recommended was a Nikon slide
duplicator hocked up to a Nikon camera with a Micro Nikkor attached to
it is not free... An Epson V600 will cost you a fraction of that what
it does and give you better results, especially with a third party
software like Vuescan Pro. There is a learning curve but that should
not be a hindrance if if you have been able to produce quality slides.
The results with you suggested setup will not be more predictable than
the London weather, BTW! :-ppp

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

--
teleportation kills

  #74  
Old March 16th 18, 06:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Scanning negatives

In article , android
wrote:

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


it's very predictable when done properly.


It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment.


it can.
  #75  
Old March 16th 18, 06:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Scanning negatives

On 2018-03-16 05:43:12 +0000, nospam said:

In article , android
wrote:

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

it's very predictable when done properly.


It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment.


it can.


no you've stared to resort to lying per reflex again. you bettered
yourself for a while, but as they say you're not better than your last
show...
--
teleportation kills

  #76  
Old March 16th 18, 12:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Scanning negatives

In article , android
wrote:

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

it's very predictable when done properly.

It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment.


it can.


no you've stared to resort to lying per reflex again.


nope
  #77  
Old March 16th 18, 12:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Scanning negatives

On 2018-03-16 11:34:27 +0000, nospam said:

In article , android
wrote:

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

it's very predictable when done properly.

It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment.

it can.


no you've stared to resort to lying per reflex again.


nope


Oki... Thanks for proving me right!
--
teleportation kills

  #78  
Old March 16th 18, 01:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Scanning negatives

In article , android
wrote:

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

it's very predictable when done properly.

It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment.

it can.

no you've stared to resort to lying per reflex again.


nope


Oki... Thanks for proving me right!


i didn't.

you're wrong yet again.
  #79  
Old March 16th 18, 01:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Scanning negatives

On 2018-03-16 12:40, android wrote:
On 2018-03-16 11:34:27 +0000, nospam said:

In article , android
wrote:

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

it's very predictable when done properly.

It can't be done properly for results worthy of pictures taken with
quality equipment.

it can.

no you've stared to resort to lying per reflex again.


nope


Oki... Thanks for proving me right!


Absolutely!

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #80  
Old March 16th 18, 01:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Scanning negatives

On 2018-03-16 03:52, 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.


Nope. I said that it doesn't work well,


actually, it does, and quite well.

you've clearly never copied slides/negatives with a copier. i have, and
quite a bit and using a variety of methods.

that the light varies.


of course the light varies. nobody said it didn't.

You
denied it.


nope. i *never* denied that the light varies.

what i said that the variance does not matter, and it doesn't. not one
bit.

i also said that anyone with even the slightest clue about photography
would understand why it doesn't matter.

Then you (nospam) accepted that it varies


given that i never said it didn't vary, i could not have later accepted
that it does.

but can be compensated.


compensated is the wrong word, and shows your lack of understanding
about basic photography.

what you're calling 'compensated' must be done for *every* photo,
regardless of subject.


Only for light intensity, not hue or temp.

You are proving that you don't know your subject.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
scanning old negatives Phillip Helbig[_2_] Digital Photography 23 May 29th 15 06:49 AM
Scanning old negatives Stuart Digital Photography 17 April 20th 07 05:53 AM
Help scanning negatives, please! iamcanadian 35mm Photo Equipment 12 December 3rd 06 03:32 AM
scanning negatives Mike - EMAIL IGNORED 35mm Photo Equipment 12 November 27th 04 08:31 AM
Lab for Scanning Negatives..... ron 35mm Photo Equipment 3 October 14th 04 05:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 AM.


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.