From: Joe Haddad (Joe.Haddad@capcomputers.com)
Date: 05/25/01-10:00:51 AM Z
Thank you very much for your willingness to help. I was the subject of
a spam from a dot edu e-mail address who made me subscribe in a few
hundreds of
lists. I am deleting a few hundreds of messages each and every day.
The addresses I am receiving messages to are:
any name@capcomputers.com
e.g.: joe.haddad@capcomputers.com and capusa@capcomputers.com
Also, any name@netprises.com e.g. sales@netprises.com and
support@netprises.com
I would therefore greatly appreciate if you kindly help in DELEING any
e-mail address
that is on any of my domain names specified above: capcomputers.com and
netprises.com.
I thank you in advance for your support.
Joe Haddad
-----Original Message-----
From: Thor Bols [mailto:thorbols@hotmail.com]
Sent: Fri, May 25, 2001 4:35 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Color Negative Film question
It has nothing to do with alt process. It was offered as part of a thread
which was directed at answering questions for the individual interested in
taking pictures of dogs. A thread that has somehow been turned into a
defense for digital cameras, and a thread that I am sure will soon be put to
rest.
You're mistaken, though, in your reasoning regarding the NASA photograph.
As a digital photograph, taken digitally and represented digitally, is
exists ONLY as digital information, and thus can only be seen in its TRUE
ENTIRITY on a monitor. The problem for inkjet printers and publication
printers has always been translating the exact digital information, as seen
on the monitor, into other media.
If an artifact (in this case, the "fringing" Pam mentions) is not visible in
a 2MB 3000 x 2000 pixel photograph, than it simply is not there. This is
not unexpected. Technology is contantly improving, and it is only natural
that the various problems experienced with digital cameras in the past will
be addressed. This has been my point all along.
>From: "Jeffrey D. Mathias" <jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Color Negative Film question
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:36:17 -0400
>
>Thor Bols wrote:
> > ... Take a look at this picture,
> > or any of the other shots on the NASA website. This was taken with the
> > Kodak DCS 660 on the Nikon F5 body , and it looks pretty impressive, ...
>
>The image at the link given is not very impressive at all. It is fuzzy,
>lacks decent resolution, and is over sharpened, and the colors are
>questionable. I have seen inexpensive posters with far better quality.
>
>It doesn't mater what picture one views on a web site. It simply will
>not have the characteristics of a real photo (or even a poster).
>Comparisons made on a monitor are likely to skew any interpretation.
>(Any possible fringing Pam referred to could be lost in this
>rendition.) Relative differences might be studied if carefully
>presented, but only to note the relative difference. The absolute
>quality will still be lost.
>
>But then does this have anything to do with alt-photo anyway?
>
>--
>Jeffrey D. Mathias
>http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:40 AM Z CST