basskisser wrote:
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Cheesyturtle is in my bozo bin.

As for "digital" versus "film" photography, most pro photographers are
still using film for all sorts of reasons, although "the switch" is
underway. One of the reasons is this: even on the best glass-tube
computer monitors, because of the limitations of screen resolution, you
cannot see enough detail in most digital photos to determine how sharp
focus is, and therefore which are the best shots for publication. Until
very recently, most of the pro photogs I've worked with have worked
strictly in film, and in medium format at that - usually 2-1/4. Now,
many carry along a pro digital outfit, too.

The most strikingly beautiful television commercials are still shot on
35 or 70 mm film. The cheaper ones, or the commercials where great tonal
range and feel are not that important, are shot on tape...digital, as it
were. Most movies are still shot on film.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?