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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 15:24, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: 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. nope. it's trivial to adjust for hue or temp, what experienced photographers (i.e., not you) call white balance, which can even be done *after* the photo was taken (without loss). You are proving that you don't know your subject. nope. what *you* are doing is showing that you haven't a ****ing clue. Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored. translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to admit it. I don't need to back ours... you do. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 12:46:55 +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! i didn't. you did for sure, don't be so overly modest! -- teleportation kills |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: 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. nope. it's trivial to adjust for hue or temp, what experienced photographers (i.e., not you) call white balance, which can even be done *after* the photo was taken (without loss). You are proving that you don't know your subject. nope. what *you* are doing is showing that you haven't a ****ing clue. Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored. translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to admit it. I don't need to back ours... yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong. simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it. you do. i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades. you haven't a clue and refuse to learn. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 18:17, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: 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. nope. it's trivial to adjust for hue or temp, what experienced photographers (i.e., not you) call white balance, which can even be done *after* the photo was taken (without loss). You are proving that you don't know your subject. nope. what *you* are doing is showing that you haven't a ****ing clue. Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored. translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to admit it. I don't need to back ours... yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong. simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it. And _we_ say you are wrong. Not I, but we. you do. i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades. Prove it. Here it is only you supporting that claim. you haven't a clue and refuse to learn. I'm still waiting for your link supporting the X7 is crap. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored. translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to admit it. I don't need to back ours... yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong. simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it. And _we_ say you are wrong. Not I, but we. prove it. you can't, because i'm not wrong. you do. i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades. Prove it. i explained it several times. you aren't interested in a discussion, nor are you interested in learning anything. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
On 2018-03-16 18:42, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: Your opinion and insults are discarded and ignored. translated: you can't back up your claims. you are wrong and refuse to admit it. I don't need to back ours... yes you do if you want to claim i'm wrong. simply saying i'm wrong ain't gonna cut it. And _we_ say you are wrong. Not I, but we. prove it. you can't, because i'm not wrong. you do. i did, as have countless photographers going back many decades. Prove it. i explained it several times. you aren't interested in a discussion, nor are you interested in learning anything. Clearly you can not prove your point, and you are the single person claiming it. The onus is on you. You have a known record of saying things that are false, so *we* do not believe you. Every expert knows that using the sun light to copy slides or negatives is not reliable and needs changing compensations, so every expert uses a fixed setup with artificial light and recommends that. Only you support using the sun as good and easy and reliable. Only when cornered you recognize that compensation is needed. End of discussion. And I'm still waiting for your link supporting that the X7 is crap... -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning negatives
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: Prove it. i explained it several times. you aren't interested in a discussion, nor are you interested in learning anything. Clearly you can not prove your point, i have, and more than one occasion. and you are the single person claiming it. nope. anyone who knows even a little bit about photography and has actually done it agrees with me, not you. The onus is on you. You have a known record of saying things that are false, i never say things that are false. ever. so *we* do not believe you. i don't give a **** what you or anyone else believes. what matters is what the facts are, which are as i said. Every expert knows that using the sun light to copy slides or negatives is not reliable and needs changing compensations, so every expert uses a fixed setup with artificial light and recommends that. appeal to the masses logical fallacy. you're also lying about what i said. furthermore, you don't realize that *every* photo needs what you erroneously call compensation, including ones with artificial light. unfortunately, it's well beyond your understanding, so you resort to insults. Only you support using the sun as good and easy and reliable. Only when cornered you recognize that compensation is needed. i never said it wasn't. as usual, you lie about what i said. End of discussion. if only. And I'm still waiting for your link supporting that the X7 is crap... what for? you'll argue no matter what i say. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 02:32 AM |
scanning negatives | Mike - EMAIL IGNORED | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | November 27th 04 07:31 AM |
Lab for Scanning Negatives..... | ron | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | October 14th 04 05:30 PM |