 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / August 2008Original charter of rec.photo.equipment.35mm and notes on the charter
Original Charter -----begin----- This group is for the discussion of all aspects of 35mm camera equipment. This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and lenses, 35mm point-and-shoot cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale focus cameras and 35mm half-frame cameras. All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited. -----end----- Notes on the Charter -------------------- The creators of this group wisely did not include any reference to the type of sensor, even though both film and digital sensors were in existence at the time of the groups creation. Clearly they knew that eventually there would be digital sensors that were the same size as 35mm film, and they did not want to exclude discussion of these products. At this time there are not separate Usenet groups for 35mm film based SLRs and 35mm digital based SLRs; rec.photo.equipment.35mm is a proper venue for all posts regarding all types of 35mm cameras, including SLR 35mm film, SLR 35mm digital, and point and shoot 35mm film (there are no 35mm point and shoot digital cameras at this time). 35mm digital cameras include the following: Canon 5D (no longer in production) Canon 7D Canon EOS-1Ds (no longer in production) Canon 1Ds Mark II (no longer in production) Canon 1Ds Mark III Contax N Digital (no longer in production) Kodak Pro DCS-14/n (no longer in production) Kodak Pro DCS-14/c (no longer in production) Nikon D3 Nikon D700 There is a Usenet group that is solely for digital SLR cameras of all types regardless of the sensor size, this group is rec.photo.digital.slr-systems. Posts regarding true 35mm digital SLRs may be be posted to both rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Many professional and amateur photographers use both film and digital SLR bodies, and use the same set of lenses, flashes, and other accessories on the bodies. Oops! I owe a big apology to this group. I have visited here from time to time over the years, but did not know of the policy not to post "commercial advertisements or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography." So when I recently posted a link to my NEW SITE, http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ , which shows some very nice (IMHO) nature photos with information about the subjects (species, shooting data, ect.), I was out of line. I do have a page there that discusses the possibility of making sales, so, even though most folks would see it as educational, it should be considered promotional material. Mea culpa. I'll never, ever, ever, do that again. Of course this probably does not apply to my other sites: http://home.earthlink.net/~roosevelt_elk/ http://home.earthlink.net/~alan_justice/ http://home.earthlink.net/~north_coast/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nature_photography/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nationalparks/ They do not discuss sales, (although they do link to the first site, which does). Again, I apologize for this inexcusable transgression.  Signature- Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ > Original Charter > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > bodies, and use the same set of lenses, flashes, and other accessories > on the bodies. > They do not discuss sales, (although they do link to the first site, which > does). > > Again, I apologize for this inexcusable transgression. LOL, few people would object to what you posted. Well maybe one of the resident net-kops, but I don't think anyone pays much attention to them as they are the source of most of the off-topic posts. >Oops! I owe a big apology to this group. I have visited here from time to >time over the years, but did not know of the policy not to post "commercial [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >see it as educational, it should be considered promotional material. Mea >culpa. I'll never, ever, ever, do that again. But you just did *exactly that*. >Again, I apologize for this inexcusable transgression. Hypocrisy. >> Oops! I owe a big apology to this group. I have visited here from time to >> time over the years, but did not know of the policy not to post "commercial [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But you just did *exactly that*. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm "Sarcasm can be difficult to grasp in written form. To prevent this some people emphasise (often overly) the sarcastic comment." Most people can tell its sarcasm from the context, however. Others need it pointing out to them. > Oops! I owe a big apology to this group. <snip> The reason for my earlier post was simply to make the point that rec.photo.equipment.35mm is in no way restricted by the charter to the discussion of only film-based 35mm equipment. The word "film" is never mentioned in the charter. 35mm digital equipment is certainly a legitimate topic for discussion in this group. > Oops! I owe a big apology to this group. I have visited here from time to > time over the years, but did not know of the policy not to post "commercial [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Again, I apologize for this inexcusable transgression. Alan... ignore those who think you're trying to sell sand to the Arabs or ice to the Eskimos. Anyone with half a brain (high IQ for this group I admit) would know your site is a learning process for you and although I have the ability to help you, I've refrained because discussion like that are off-topic for this group. IF promoting the "Shootin" is on-topic, so is promoting *ANY* site hosting photos likely to be of interest to photographers. I whole heartedly vote you continue your learning and actually get a sales site going. You are about as likely to sell photos to the motley crew in this group as you are to get a ticket on the next space shuttle but your photos and how you took them are definitely of interest to many subscribers here. To not post them because of some wacky jerk playing Net Kop posts an objection is a travesty of justice. The big bloke of everything newsgroups on the board of the "big 8" who administer this group, lays it out here: http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:index#newsgroup_charters That's right... Groups change as the participants alter subject matter to keep the group alive... Net Kops are a pain in the a.s. Ignore 'em. The charter is a guide for establishment of a group. Once established, it becomes a historical document - not an absolute set of rules, as I once thought them to be. Newsgroup rules are made on the fly. Usenet is pure Anarchy. The most forceful and resourceful win... ALWAYS! Survival of the fittest stuff. Natural attrition in it's purest form. Don't let any single person tell you what to do. When half a dozen tell you the same thing, it's time to change. SignatureMeet my troll... Mark Thomas - really Charlie Stevens from South Australia: http://www.marktphoto.com/whoami.htm He's serious about his verbal diarrhoea too! ROTFL. I wouldn't think of trying to sell photos to anyone in this group (well, maybe if you insist). It was strictly for you who like to see nature photos and learn about how they were shot. The information with the photos is not just lens and f-stop, but some comments on how to set up or anticipate the shot. (My "apology" was made with tongue planted firmly in cheek). Plus I was hoping for constructive criticism, which I got (and, amazingly none was rude!). I would welcome any comments which you fear may be inappropriat for this group (although I feel that information on how to display photos taken with 35-mm equipment is relevant) off-line at : the part after the "~" in the address for any of the sites, plus "@earthlink.net". Alan Justice > > Oops! I owe a big apology to this group. I have visited here from time to > > time over the years, but did not know of the policy not to post "commercial [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > you what to do. When half a dozen tell you the same thing, it's time to > change. > I wouldn't think of trying to sell photos to anyone in this group (well, > maybe if you insist). It was strictly for you who like to see nature photos [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Alan Justice Taking discussions off-line signifies that I actually want to do that and I don't. At some point in your development you will need to embrace the notion that only you ought to have control over your web site and it's shopping cart. That's when you get to decide if $25 a month or even $10 a month is worth the investment to host your own site. As for getting your site up in the Google rankings? $650 for 3 months is the going rate. I do my own SEO work and have three sites at the top of the ranking tree - for keywords I've identified people use. Until I achieved that ranking, I got no business at all from the Internet. Today I rely on it! How you decide to go from here is what will determine if you too, collect a bunch of insecure idiots as trolls who hang on your every word as you get more and more successful at what they can't do, will be a significant decision for you. One thing is absolutely certain... You will learn ZERO about setting up and running a successful web site selling photos in a group like this. The make up of this group's users might surprise you. 80% are retires. 10% are unemployed time wasters and 10% are serious photographers with no where else to go. SignatureMeet the trolls... http://www.d-mac.info/trolls.htm > One thing is absolutely certain... You will learn ZERO about setting > up and running a successful web site selling photos in a group like > this. The make up of this group's users might surprise you. 80% are > retires. 10% are unemployed time wasters and 10% are serious > photographers with no where else to go. So you are telling us that you are one of these old senile bastards clinging onto a dead dream of yesteryear? Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >> One thing is absolutely certain... You will learn ZERO about setting >> up and running a successful web site selling photos in a group like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita I am when the wind blows! Except Ryadia is far from dead mate. She's capable of 18 knots under sail on healthy shy reach. Quite a sight. 23 ton of beauty leaving all those power boats in her wake. You ought to try sailing mate. It'll take your breath away. Get rid of the stale odours for all those buritos! LOL. SignatureMeet the trolls... http://www.d-mac.info/trolls.htm > > One thing is absolutely certain... You will learn ZERO about setting > > up and running a successful web site selling photos in a group like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you are telling us that you are one of these old senile bastards clinging > onto a dead dream of yesteryear? I'm the .01% that D-Mac didn't tell you about .... the serious photographer who is also a serious time-waster. But that could change any day now. >>> One thing is absolutely certain... You will learn ZERO about setting >>> up and running a successful web site selling photos in a group like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > photographer who is also a serious time-waster. > But that could change any day now. The older you get the less likely you'll get a job. Face it Bret, you're too old to caddy, to stupid to start a business too lazy to work and too scared to steal. All you got left is Social Security mate. Speak to the Aussie Trolls... They'll tell you how easy it is to be a dole bludger. Down under at least. SignatureMeet the trolls... http://www.d-mac.info/trolls.htm >>>> One thing is absolutely certain... You will learn ZERO about setting >>>> up and running a successful web site selling photos in a group like [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > All you got left is Social Security mate. Speak to the Aussie Trolls... > They'll tell you how easy it is to be a dole bludger. Down under at least. so how is that Weddings n Portraits going Doug, hopefully now that someone competent is running it the business will finally turn the corner and start to make money :-) well at least it might reach the GST threshold :-) Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg > The older you get the less likely you'll get a job. > > Face it Bret, you're too old to caddy, to stupid to start a business too > lazy to work and too scared to steal. I have a job .... just not one that I like. As for caddying, I personally know about 5 guys from my town who caddy on the PGA Tour, and they're all about my age. It might come as a shock to you, but the reason I and most other people don't steal has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with honesty, which I know is a foreign concept to you. Oh, BTW, here's some free advice from your old pal...in the future when you are trying to tell someone they are "too stupid" to do something, try to at least spell it correctly. > Oh, BTW, here's some free advice from your old pal...in the future > when you are trying to tell someone they are "too stupid" to do > something, try to at least spell it correctly. Hmm, is that related to him being a maroon or a moroon? >> Oh, BTW, here's some free advice from your old pal...in the future >> when you are trying to tell someone they are "too stupid" to do >> something, try to at least spell it correctly. > > Hmm, is that related to him being a maroon or a moroon? Both! Also, subject don't agree with verb, and to awkwardly split an infinitive isn't such a good idea. Signaturejohn mcwilliams On Aug 19, 8:47 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote: > D-Mac wrote: > > One thing is absolutely certain... You will learn ZERO about setting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > clinging > onto a dead dream of yesteryear? I'm the .01% that D-Mac didn't tell you about .... the serious photographer who is also a serious time-waster. But that could change any day now. Which part? -Jim SMS wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 3:15 AM: > At this time there are not separate Usenet groups for 35mm film > based SLRs and 35mm digital based SLRs; rec.photo.equipment.35mm is a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Nikon D3 > Nikon D700 so the 40D is off-topic? Dear me: thanks for that! SMS wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 3:15 AM: > 35mm digital cameras include the following: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nikon D3 > Nikon D700 You mean all other dslrs such as the 40D for example, are off-topic? Dear me! Thanks for the useful post. LOL! > 35mm digital cameras include the following: > > Canon 5D (no longer in production) > Canon 7D Screw that charter bullshit. Tell us more about that Canon 7D! >> 35mm digital cameras include the following: >> >> Canon 5D (no longer in production) >> Canon 7D > > Screw that charter bullshit. Tell us more about that Canon 7D! -16.7 megapixel sensor (same sensor that was in the EOS-1Ds Mark II) -3" LCD -Live View It'll be priced about the same as the Nikon D700. On 8/18/2008 5:01 PM SMS spake thus: >>> 35mm digital cameras include the following: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It'll be priced about the same as the Nikon D700. This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital cameras that look like 35mm SLRs. Please use an appropriate newsgroup for postings on digital cameras. One of the following groups would be a good place for such postings: rec.photo.digital rec.photo.digital.point+shoot rec.photo.digital.rangefinder rec.photo.digital.slr rec.photo.digital.slr-system (note corrected newsgroup names) Signature"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'" - Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority". >> 35mm digital cameras include the following: >> >> Canon 5D (no longer in production) >> Canon 7D > > Screw that charter bullshit. Tell us more about that Canon 7D! More importantly for you Bret... About the $1200 5D's on special right now! SignatureMeet my trolls... #1. Mark Thomas - really Charlie Stevens from South Australia: http://www.marktphoto.com/whoami.htm Seriously? You bet ROTFL. #2. Steve Brooks (Brooksie boy) A bit of a piss head who thinks it's smart to use non keyboard characters in his (current) screen name. Great he's not in charge of anything, eh? LOL. >>> 35mm digital cameras include the following: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > More importantly for you Bret... About the $1200 5D's on special right > now! Hey Douggie boi, look at your keyboard and find the number 6 key that runs along the top of all the letters, now press and hold the shift key and at the same time press the number 6 key. there you go you just re-produced that "non keyboard" character. for someone who professed a great knowledge about all things computer related and apparently ran a computer business, your pretty clueless!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg >>>> 35mm digital cameras include the following: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > all things computer related and apparently ran a computer business, your > pretty clueless!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^ How did you do those up arrows, did you rub your computer the right way? Hahaha The chemist must be on strike up that way and doggy's drugs have run out. I haven't had alcohol since XMAS 2007 but Doggy has never let the truth get in the way of a good story (read: Doggy invented usenet) Got to love how Doggy is the one always changing his name but accuses everyone else of it (didn't he have 11 names last week) Hahahaha non keyboard character, I would rate that as one of the funniest posts Doggy has ever posted. So in the last week I can't have the 28-135 lens as Canon never shipped it in a kit (http://www.pbase.com/temuchin/image/101816963) and now I have non keyboard characters. Wonder if Doggy celebrates when he actually gets something right. Just did a quick search I have been using non keyboard characters in aus.photo since 7th April 2006 http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.autos.sport.f1/browse_thread/thread/ab17c1 4c37637ccd/da54f851bd74caca?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=%5Etemuchin%5E#da54f851bd74caca And the same non keyboard characters in aus.tv since 11th February 2004 http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.tv/browse_thread/thread/5be4211d14cd04ed/6 f9cc8be28c9147b?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=%5Etemuchin%5E#6f9cc8be28c9147b It must suck to be Douglas MacDonald not just right now he has been proved wrong yet again but all the time. Signature"If someone had told me in 1989 that the BBS I started would eventually become Usenet" - Douglas http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/msg/01b383a7d3a33dc3 > 35mm digital cameras include the following: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nikon D3 > Nikon D700 I suspect the camera list is far from complete especially if there is a broad interpretation of "35mm half-frame cameras." Canon 300D , Canon 350D,Canon 400D and Canon 450D Rita has a list of Nikon's that aren't mentioned. w.. >> 35mm digital cameras include the following: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I suspect the camera list is far from complete especially if > there is a broad interpretation of "35mm half-frame cameras." Yes, I thought the same thing when I saw that. Half frame was mostly 18 x 24 mm, pretty close to the cropped sensors in the non-professional Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Sony digital SLRs. On 8/18/2008 10:15 AM SMS spake thus: > Original Charter > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > including SLR 35mm film, SLR 35mm digital, and point and shoot 35mm film > (there are no 35mm point and shoot digital cameras at this time). Actually, not true. First of all, you're basically trying to read the minds of those who wrote the charter retrospectively, which is a pretty inexact science. But more to the point, when this group was created, there were digital SLRs that were in the same form factor as 35mm film cameras (used the same lenses, had a sensor approximately the size of a 35mm film frame, etc.), but as you well know, they were enormously expensive and not very widely used. Nobody really knew which way digital photography would go at that point. So it's quite a stretch to just breezily assume that "they" (the charter writers) were specifically including digital cameras under that heading. If that were the case, don't you think they would have spelled it out? I would think so. Signature"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'" - Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority". : On 8/18/2008 10:15 AM SMS spake thus: : [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] : under that heading. If that were the case, don't you think they would : have spelled it out? I would think so. The counter-argument would be that "they" could perfectly well have included the word "film" in the charter. Which, evidently, they didn't. Bob > The counter-argument would be that "they" could perfectly well have included > the word "film" in the charter. Which, evidently, they didn't. The other counter-argument, which is the one D-Mac has made, is that the charter really means nothing and is not enforceable. Don't take my word for it, take it from the guys who created this whole thing that D-Mac mentioned. So why waste your time and ours posting 1000 times that a certain post violates the charter? It serves no purpose other than clogging up the group with a bunch of off-topic crap that nobody cares about. And isn't that what the charter tries to prevent? First off, you are wrong about this being a film group since the charter you refer to doesn't mention film. Secondly, even if the posts WERE against the charter, so what? Go the f.ck away until you have something to contribute. Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 24/08/2008 7:43 AM: > The other counter-argument, which is the one D-Mac has made, is that > the charter really means nothing and is not enforceable. which of course would be your natural territor, wouldn't it? Twist and bend any rules is you motto, after all. > So why waste your time and ours posting 1000 times that a certain post > violates the charter? Because it's true? > It serves no purpose other than clogging up the > group with a bunch of off-topic crap that nobody cares about. And your demented off-topic posts about a diminished capability camera are on-topic? I don't think so... > And > isn't that what the charter tries to prevent? Yes. So why are you posting? > First off, you are wrong about this being a film group since the > charter you refer to doesn't mention film. It does mention 35mm. Since when is a 40D a 35mm sensor camera? > Secondly, even if the posts WERE against the charter, so what? > Go the f.ck away until you have something to contribute. Why don't you lead? > > First off, you are wrong about this being a film group since the > > charter you refer to doesn't mention film. > > It does mention 35mm. Since when is a 40D a 35mm sensor > camera? The charter also mentions 35mm lenses which is what I use, so suck me. >>> First off, you are wrong about this being a film group since the >>> charter you refer to doesn't mention film. >> It does mention 35mm. Since when is a 40D a 35mm sensor >> camera? > > The charter also mentions 35mm lenses which is what I use, so suck me. Half frame is also mentioned, and APS-C is very close. Just add "nobody@but.us.chickens" to your kill-file and be done with yet another cross-posting troll that clutters up Usenet with his personal agenda. >> The counter-argument would be that "they" could perfectly well have included >> the word "film" in the charter. Which, evidently, they didn't. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Secondly, even if the posts WERE against the charter, so what? >Go the f.ck away until you have something to contribute. The 40d has a 35mm sensor? RP© That Rich wrote,on my timestamp of 24/08/2008 11:37 AM: > The 40d has a 35mm sensor? after the photoslop expert is done with it, it has a 128mm sensor! then again even a p&s would... > The 40d has a 35mm sensor? No, but it does use 35mm lenses. Now go get behind Noons in the "suck me" line. >> The 40d has a 35mm sensor? > >No, but it does use 35mm lenses. >Now go get behind Noons in the "suck me" line. Impossible... you're way too fat... and ugly... st00pid to boot. RP© > >Now go get behind Noons in the "suck me" line. > > Impossible... you're way too fat... and ugly... st00pid to boot. > > RP© So if I was a bit thinner you might go for me? cocksucker! >> >Now go get behind Noons in the "suck me" line. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >cocksucker! Nope. I've never been the least bit attracted to human garbage. RP© >>> >Now go get behind Noons in the "suck me" line. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > RP© must make it hard to shave in the mirror every morning ;-) SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? : > The counter-argument would be that "they" could perfectly well have : > included the word "film" in the charter. Which, evidently, they [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : Secondly, even if the posts WERE against the charter, so what? : Go the f.ck away until you have something to contribute. Er ... To whom are you addressing that diatribe, Bret? The only article you quoted was mine, and I was under the impression that I saw the issue pretty much as you do. Bob > Er ... To whom are you addressing that diatribe, Bret? The only article you > quoted was mine, and I was under the impression that I saw the issue pretty > much as you do. It was for the spammer, Nebenzahl. >> The counter-argument would be that "they" could perfectly well have included >> the word "film" in the charter. Which, evidently, they didn't. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Secondly, even if the posts WERE against the charter, so what? > Go the f.ck away until you have something to contribute. If you have nothing to say, say it often. Alas, people like this never go away. They crave the attention they get from people requesting that they behave. > If you have nothing to say, say it often. Alas, people like this never > go away. They crave the attention they get from people requesting that > they behave. Haven't you killfiled David already? SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site >> If you have nothing to say, say it often. Alas, people like this never >> go away. They crave the attention they get from people requesting that >> they behave. > > Haven't you killfiled David already? Indeed I have, but there are always the follow-ups that quote him. > The counter-argument would be that "they" could perfectly well have included > the word "film" in the charter. Which, evidently, they didn't. This is true. It would have been very easy to either include the word "film" or specifically exclude digital. They didn't do either. > This is true. It would have been very easy to either include the word > "film" or specifically exclude digital. They didn't do either. There does not seem to be any "film" postings in rec.photo.equipment.35. Pretty much there are digital posts and a few shoot in posts. I guess 35mm film really is dead. SignatureCharles >> This is true. It would have been very easy to either include the word >> "film" or specifically exclude digital. They didn't do either. > > There does not seem to be any "film" postings in > rec.photo.equipment.35. Pretty much there are digital posts and a few > shoot in posts. I guess 35mm film really is dead. What is a "shoot in post"? SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html >>> This is true. It would have been very easy to either include the word >>> "film" or specifically exclude digital. They didn't do either. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What is a "shoot in post"? http://www.pbase.com/shootin SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >>>> This is true. It would have been very easy to either include the word >>>> "film" or specifically exclude digital. They didn't do either. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/shootin Gotcha. The space between the two words threw me off the scent. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html >>> This is true. It would have been very easy to either include the word >>> "film" or specifically exclude digital. They didn't do either. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What is a "shoot in post"? I'm glad you asked. shootin: http://www.pbase.com/shootin current mandate: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html We look forward to your phots ... due 2008.08.31 Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > rec.photo.equipment.35. Pretty much there are digital posts and a few > shoot in posts. I guess 35mm film really is dead. Wheezing on the old jogging path, actually. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.