There's a really funny response to this somewhere, I just don't want
to work hard enough to come up with it.
At 02:47 PM 2/5/04, you wrote:
> Try an experiment: glue a coin to a tennis ball and then drop it
> into a bucket of water. The side with the coin is heavier and ends up
> underneath.
And th
Won't fit in a vending machine, will it?
Fred wrote:
Try an experiment: glue a coin to a tennis ball and then drop it
into a bucket of water. The side with the coin is heavier and ends up
underneath.
And then what am I going to do with a tennis ball with a coin glued
onto it?
Fred
--
grayw
Play tennis, of course. (VBG)
It could be fun.
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
> And then what am I going to do with a tennis ball with a coin glued
> onto it?
>
> Fred
>
>
> Try an experiment: glue a coin to a tennis ball and then drop it
> into a bucket of water. The side with the coin is heavier and ends up
> underneath.
And then what am I going to do with a tennis ball with a coin glued
onto it?
Fred
s conclusion is that North America, Asia and Europe are just
> so much ballast.
>
> Paul Ewins
> Melbourne, Australia
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTEC
; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Upside Downness - was Re: * ist Digital Question
>
> No, no, no. It's common sense. Most of the landmass is north of
> the
> equator, which makes it heavier so that it naturally sinks to the
> bottom. Try an experiment: glue a coin to a te
The obvious conclusion is that North America, Asia and Europe are just
so much ballast.
Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia
-Original Message-
From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Upside Downness - was Re: * ist Di
Mike,
I am just trying to make sure I don't end up with a bony butt!
That is all I am saying on that one,
Cesar
Panama City, Florida
-- -Original Message-
-- From: mike.wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 3:43 AM
--
-- Hi,
--
-- Cesar wrote:
--
-- > C
At 07:46 AM 4/02/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> We are the only island continent
...except for Antarctica, perhaps?
Covered in snow - doesn't count! ;-)
Fred
(*)o(*)
Robert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> No, no, no, Tom, this group has been advised before that Oz is not
> upside down at all. We are the only continent the right way up,
> and we can show you a map to prove it!
Ah, but, the only way to show a map or a globe with Australia "the
right way up" (i.e., above the equator) is to show the
> We are the only island continent
...except for Antarctica, perhaps?
Fred
Grafton
OZ
-Original Message-
From: mapson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2004 6:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Upside Downness - was Re: * ist Digital Question
At 12:30 PM 4/02/2004 +1000, you wrote:
>No, no, no, Tom, this group has been advised bef
At 12:30 PM 4/02/2004 +1000, you wrote:
No, no, no, Tom, this group has been advised before that Oz is not upside
down at all. We are the only continent the right way up, and we can show
you a map to prove it!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
And it'a a prawn, not a shrimp
we can ride in the front
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: * ist Digital Question
> So you Aussies are not only upside down, you are front to rear as well?
How
> strange.
>
e starts to lecture me about safety issues and talking
about this type of stuff on the internet...
*eek*
tan.
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: * ist Digital Questio
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So far it seems to be buttocks/breasts*, hobos, and prostitutes --e.g.
fannies,
> bums, & solicitors. And, they say we americans are strange.
>
> *Depending upon whether it is winter or summer where you are.
Solicitors, where
So far it seems to be buttocks/breasts*, hobos, and prostitutes --e.g. fannies,
bums, & solicitors. And, they say we americans are strange.
*Depending upon whether it is winter or summer where you are.
--
Steve Desjardins wrote:
So, what do you think we should retitle this thread as?
Steven
So you Aussies are not only upside down, you are front to rear as well? How
strange.
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
This is too funny to me - in Australia, what we refer to as a "fanny" is in
fact only found only on a lady and is the FRONT rather than the BACK of
them, iykwim?
We here, call what
There's a chain of fabric stores here in Canada called "Fanny's Fabrics".
Laugh it up.
Quoting mapson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 11:29 PM 3/02/2004 +1000, you wrote:
> >This is too funny to me - in Australia, what we refer to as a "fanny" is in
> >fact only found only on a lady and is the FRONT
- Original Message -
> Damn, there as wise a** in every group. (I thought that was my job).
Peter,
We're just drooling for the job.
Jostein
At 11:29 PM 3/02/2004 +1000, you wrote:
This is too funny to me - in Australia, what we refer to as a "fanny" is in
fact only found only on a lady and is the FRONT rather than the BACK of
them, iykwim?
We here, call what you are referring to, a BUM! lol
AND rather than "fanny pack", it is a "bum b
So, what do you think we should retitle this thread as?
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/03/04 01:17PM >>>
Yes,
During the first week of what would become a
On 3/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>Hay Cesar, I have a Marmot Walkabout, top quality gear with a nice range
>of products.
ROTFL.
So you like to eat in the barn with horses or what?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
And I should really learn to type...
At 01:24 PM 2/3/04, you wrote:
Damn, there as wise a** in every group. (I thought that was my job).
At 03:42 AM 2/3/04, you wrote:
Hi,
Cesar wrote:
> Can I find a larger fanny pack?
How big is your fanny likely to grow?
m
I drink to make other people inte
Damn, there as wise a** in every group. (I thought that was my job).
At 03:42 AM 2/3/04, you wrote:
Hi,
Cesar wrote:
> Can I find a larger fanny pack?
How big is your fanny likely to grow?
m
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan
Remember when the word gay meant happy?
Bill
> Time can be as great a divide as space, too. The other day I re-read
> an Agatha Christie story which was set at a country house party (gosh!).
> One of the guests, being bored, apparently spent the afternoon lazily
> making love to his hostess in t
Yes,
During the first week of what would become an 11-year sojourn in 'Oz, I
had this explained quite graphically to me by young lady during a mixed
conference meeting of about 20 persons.Took about a week for normal
colour to return to my face. Never forgot that one. Was reminded by
some
>
> This is too funny to me - in Australia, what we refer to as a "fanny" is in
> fact only found only on a lady and is the FRONT rather than the BACK of
> them, iykwim?
That's the UK usage, too.
Gave me quite a shock the first time I read some US piece of fiction
that described somebody who, on
Hi,
Cesar wrote:
> Can I find a larger fanny pack?
How big is your fanny likely to grow?
m
From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Lasse Karlsson:
> >Generally I'd say that if the alanders were certain that it was economically
> >safe, I think a majority would opt for independence. As it stands there is
> >about 10-20% support for independence now. This number will rise till the
>
Lasse Karlsson:
Generally I'd say that if the alanders were certain that it was economically
safe, I think a majority would opt for independence. As it stands there is
about 10-20% support for independence now. This number will rise till the
next elections in four years.
And the rest wants to stay
From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Stan Halpin:
> >Right. But If I say Aland, who but you and Anders would know what/where
> >that is? If I just say Sweden, I am insulting Aland.
>
> I'd think that would be more insulting to Finland than to Åland,
> actually, since Åland formally is par
Stan Halpin:
Right. But If I say Aland, who but you and Anders would know what/where
that is? If I just say Sweden, I am insulting Aland.
I'd think that would be more insulting to Finland than to Åland,
actually, since Åland formally is part of Finland and not Sweden,
even though historically Ål
After I purchased my 6x7, within a month I rarely carried it together
with a 35mm body. It's pretty much either or for me as well. If I'm on
the move and my primary purpose is not photography, the 35mm bag goes
with. Otherwise, it's almost always just the 6x7.
Norm
Stan Halpin wrote:
You migh
From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Right. But If I say Aland, who but you and Anders would know
> what/where that is?
All Scandinavian, Finnish and probably Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Russian
readers would.
Besides, you got to start somewhere.
(I see my mission here - to put Aland
Right. But If I say Aland, who but you and Anders would know
what/where that is? If I just say Sweden, I am insulting Aland.
BTW, I thought that was a pretty good suggestion to go on
the internet to find a model. I can see the email now: "You
want me to come where?! Are you out of your mind?!"
From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I took both MZ-S and Optio to Sweden and Finland for 10 days
> in late September, combination of work and vacation. I
> mostly used the Optio.
Stan,
Just for the record - as far as I'm concerned, you didn't visit Finland (as far as I
know) - you visit
Norm Baugher wrote:
> For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are
relative "digital
> newbies" - how has this affected your film camera usage?
E.g. when I
> bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went down by about 75%.
Just curious...
> Norm
Soon after I got my Optio 330 15 months ago I had a
- Original Message -
From: "wendy beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I sold all my film bodies (including my beloved LX and 3 MXs) to buy the
D.
> >And I couldn't be happier.
> >
> >Christian
>
> **THUD** (that's me fainting). You sold ALL your MXes. Oh, I could ~never~
> be happy without my
wendy beard wrote:
> >I sold all my film bodies (including my beloved LX and 3
> MXs) to buy the D.
> >And I couldn't be happier.
> >
> >Christian
>
> **THUD** (that's me fainting). You sold ALL your MXes. Oh, I
> could ~never~ be happy without my MX(es) Hmmm. I'd sell the
> LX though. Anyone
At 12:28 PM 30/01/2004, you wrote:
I sold all my film bodies (including my beloved LX and 3 MXs) to buy the D.
And I couldn't be happier.
Christian
**THUD** (that's me fainting). You sold ALL your MXes. Oh, I could ~never~
be happy without my MX(es)
Hmmm. I'd sell the LX though. Anyone want to bu
What did you do with your film gear?
Norm
arnie wrote:
film? whats film?
i haven't shot film since i got the istD, and i dont plan on.
arnie
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> I never saw this
> camera as a *film* aid!
It looks like it also works as a shield from UFTs.
;-)
Kostas
Norm Baugher wrote:
> For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are relative
> "digital newbies" - how has this affected your film camera
> usage? E.g. when I bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went down
> by about 75%. Just curious...
35mm B&W - same level
35mm Slide - up 20%
67 - same le
I sold all my film bodies (including my beloved LX and 3 MXs) to buy the D.
And I couldn't be happier.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "Norm Baugher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:32 PM
Subject: * ist Dig
I've found the *ist-D to be as good or better than 35mm film for some
things, not as good for others. I plan to move virtually all of my high
magnification works - like macros and birds - over to the *ist-D. That
will cut my film use significantly.
However, I definitely will continue to shoot
on 30.01.04 12:44, Herb Chong at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> a good lab will handle files too. you just have to pick which ones.
So I have to find such a lab yet... The best ones, which I always trusted
don't do that leaving all creativity to users. Thanks for inspiration
though!
--
Best Regards
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:32:22 -0500, Norm Baugher wrote:
>For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are relative "digital
>newbies" - how has this affected your film camera usage? E.g. when I
>bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went down by about 75%. Just curious...
Norm
I appear to have stop
a good lab will handle files too. you just have to pick which ones.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: * ist Digital Question
> I shoot film n
on 30.01.04 4:32, Norm Baugher at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are relative "digital
> newbies" - how has this affected your film camera usage? E.g. when I
> bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went down by about 75%. Just curious...
I shoot film now very ra
film? whats film?
i haven't shot film since i got the istD, and i dont plan on.
arnie
From: "Norm Baugher"
> For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are relative "digital
> newbies" - how has this affected your film camera usage? E.g. when I
> bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went down
- Original Message -
From: "Norm Baugher"
Subject: * ist Digital Question
> For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are relative "digital
> newbies" - how has this affected your film camera usage? E.g. when I
> bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went do
On 29 Jan 2004 at 22:32, Norm Baugher wrote:
> For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are relative "digital
> newbies" - how has this affected your film camera usage? E.g. when I
> bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went down by about 75%. Just curious...
Hi Norm,
My 35mm film usage has re
For those who have purchased the sunkist, and are relative "digital
newbies" - how has this affected your film camera usage? E.g. when I
bought my 6x7, my 35mm shooting went down by about 75%. Just curious...
Norm
På tirsdag, 15. juli 2003, kl. 02:43, skrev William Robb:
- Original Message -
From: "Hans Imglueck"
Subject: Re: Digital question
Hi Dag,
. But as I mentioned
in my first email - digital makes it much more easy.
I had this conversation with Dag a couple of months ago. He
Most of the folks I know are using a computer or a DVD player (some can
do this) and a TV to view images. The images are being stored on a hard
drive or a CD.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PR
Hi Len,
>There are many more advantages to using a computer but most
>folks already know that, including yourself, so I won't bore the list
>further.
Perhaps it's more interesting to give Pentax some more marketing advise ;-)
Cheers, Hans.
___
r but most
folks already know that, including yourself, so I won't bore the list
further.
Len
---
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital question
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:43:33 -0600
---
I'd guess the Minoltas are capable of better than that, too.
The Minolta samples shown here are _way_ worse than my PIE 3600Pro,
which most folks say is the worst out there.
Butch Black wrote:
That's a pretty severe difference. The main difference in the machines would
be the Minolta uses a cold ca
treme.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:30
Subject: RE: Yet another digital question
> That's a pretty severe difference. The main difference in the machines would
&
That's a pretty severe difference. The main difference in the machines would
be the Minolta uses a cold cathode tube and the Nikon uses LEDs. My guess is
that the author had some setting wrong with the Minolta. It's also
interesting that the Nikon's color balance was warmer/ more yellow and a bit
m
Hi Dag,
It is clear that there is always an amount of subjectivity in everything
what men are doing - no absolute reality possible. So in this point we agree
completely.
And it is also clear that men can modify photographs. But as I mentioned
in my first email - digital makes it much more easy.
http://www.edzardpiltz.de/Minolta_DSMP.html
Could anyone try to explain it. I mean, something beyond "N is better
than M". What exactly in the construction of the two machines could make
them behave that differently.
cheers,
caveman
TECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: Digital question
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:23:05 -0400, Caveman wrote:
>
> > Dag T wrote:
> >
> > > I do not think that photography is an
> > > objective representation of some reality, it
My thinking, exactly.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Digital question
> Because you are a
Matt wrote:
I just think that viewing on a monitor and viewing as a print are such different
experiences as to make the comparison useless. I also think that typical use of
digital images is to ultimately print them. That's all.
REPLY:
Yeah. I think people are viewing digital on a screen, sli
Every now and then I go back and look at some old slides to get an idea
of how much I've improved and how much stricter my standards are now.
-Matt
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 06:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
your standards will go up as your skills improve and your select rate
will
go up o
>your standards will go up as your skills improve and your select rate will
go up only >slightly. my select rate for my stock photos are about 15-20% of
the frames i shoot. >about 10% of those are added to my show-to-friends
portfolio.
>Herb
Thanks. That could well be why my select rate ha
TED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 18:08
Subject: Re: OT: Digital question
> Marnie aka Doe As I get better, the count goes up a bit, but not THAT much.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Am I the only one who shoots film and doesn't get a "keeper" on every
>shot? Or is everyone else printing and keeping every frame of every
>roll?
Nope. Not shooting digital, but scanning slides and printing my own prints.
However, I have tons of slides I haven't ev
Because you are a valued customer of theirs???
That's a pretty heavy book for them to pay postage on.
Len
---
Now, on the other hand, I am trying to figure out why B&H has sent me 3, at
the last count, copies of their 20lb (only a slight exaggeration)
Professional Lighting catalog.
Ciao,
Graywolf
På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 22:27, Hans Imglueck:
May be I missed my point because I used the word painting. Let me
say it this way:
We are already high quality intelligent stereoscopic digital
cameras equiped with a lot of incredible software.
Images are taken, modified and composed within. The
God. You're jumping on me even before I'm doing anything ? Do you fear
the results ? Why ? For the moment I'm just noticing that a monitor has
some advantages to a paper print, i.e. being backlit it has higher
contrast and more vivid colors. It's also bigger than the *typical* 4x5
inch minilab
I'm trying to say that "typical use" is to print the keepers whether
they were shot on digital or film. This is what I was trying to
explain in part B of my previous message, which you chose not to reply
to or even quote in making your snide response. I'll copy it again
here in case anyone mi
>From: "Caveman"
>Subject: OT: Digital question
>
>
>> Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
>> taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
>> images viewed:
>>
>> a) on computer monitors
>
Matt Bevers wrote:
A) I didn't say "the best" I said "good" please don't twist my words
around.
I said "typical use". If you want something else, feel free to perform
your own test.
cheers,
caveman
I'm about the same - I sometimes get a few more per roll, but often I
like to save these more so I can learn something than because they are
perfect. I'd say I print about 2-3% of what I shoot.
-Matt
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:49 PM, Lon Williamson wrote:
In my hands, there are rolls tha
In my hands, there are rolls that are a complete waste.
I once got what I considered 5 "good" shots from 1 24-frame roll.
My highest percentage of keepers ever. The old rule of thumb
"1 good shot per roll" seems to be about average for me.
Matt Bevers wrote:
Am I the only one who shoots film and
A) I didn't say "the best" I said "good" please don't twist my words
around.
B) I don't mean "good" as in the best quality possible, I mean "good"
in terms of the best of a number of photos taken with the same camera.
Say you take 10 pictures of Aunt Bea at her birthday party, 2 have
someone
It will achieve the stated goal, i.e. compare them in typical use. If
you want to compare "the best" of each, you may want to compare a 8x10
slide to a print from the best MF digital back. I don't have the money
nor the inclination to do such test.
Matt Bevers wrote:
Again, I would argue that
On 11 Jul 2003 at 12:38, T Rittenhouse wrote:
> You seem to have missed the never copied from the camera part.
I'd submit that they do get copied from the camera to the 'puter then most
likely are then emailed to all and sundry or at least those at the
party/dinner/pick-nick/birthday/christenin
Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints, so
you should print both and compare those. Comparing a screen image to a
print is essentially useless. It should however, achieve your goal of
once again "proving" that digital is inferior.
-Matt
On Friday, July 11, 2003, a
That is exactly the point. And let me add:
Digital allows people to modify their pictures. You can easily
add the date and time (no need for data back any more), you can
even include thoughts or feelings into the image (don't need
to write it in the album), and what is more you can hide disturbing
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:18
Subject: Re: Digital question
Are you sure its a generational thing. I don't recall getting very many
prints from slides which account for 95 percent (best guess) of my
personal (as opposed to work related) photo work sinc
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:10 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras
are
status symbols, not photographic tools.
I actually don't imagine these stats are much different from film
cameras. I mean, how many people do you know that stil
w the actual number though, but it is miniscule
compared to their print film sales.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Otis C. Wright, Jr." <"rusty."@att.net>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:18
Subject: Re: Digital question
> A
Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 01:10
Subject: Re: Digital question
These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras are
status symbols, not photographic tools.
no it doesn't. it means that prints are irrelevant to the new generation.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 01:10
Subject: Re: Digital question
> These statisti
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:47:25 -0400, Herb Chong wrote:
>i think the number of people who print from a digital camera is a lot less than 10%
>of the images. i would think that 1% is a high number, and most of that small
>fraction would be on inkjet printers.
I use a digital camera at work for wo
on 7/10/03 2:34 PM, William Robb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For myself, I think I have made 2 inkjet prints from several hundred digital
> exposures, and had a dozen 4x6 proofs made for a particular purpose.
> So,
> inkjet prints: >.5%
> Effectively 0%, as when I took that particular series of
In response to:
> Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
> taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
> images viewed:
>
> a) on computer monitors
> b) as home made inkjet prints
> c) as lab prints
At a recent neighborhood party -
3 people had
- Original Message -
From: "Caveman"
Subject: OT: Digital question
> Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
> taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
> images viewed:
>
> a) on computer monitors
> b
>Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
>taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
>images viewed:
>a) on computer monitors
>b) as home made inkjet prints
>c) as lab prints
>cheers,
>caveman
In fact, it would be kind of fun to do an unoffi
ED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 13:41
Subject: Re: OT: Digital question
> >Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
> >taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
> >images viewed:
>
> >a) on computer monitors
&g
>Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
>taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
>images viewed:
>a) on computer monitors
>b) as home made inkjet prints
>c) as lab prints
>cheers,
>caveman
No idea. I'll ask my friends who use digital (no
Caveman asks and [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes < my speculations in brackets >:
> > Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
> > taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
> > images viewed:
> >
> > a) on computer monitors
> > b) as home made inkjet
> Anyone that has seen some statistics on the
viewing media for images
> taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
> images viewed:
>
> a) on computer monitors
> b) as home made inkjet prints
> c) as lab prints
>
> cheers,
> cave
Apparently everyone's mileage varies. I'm using ME for it's disaster recovery
capabilities, I'm constantly doing something that causes systems lockups.
ME recovers from a re-boot after a lockup more often. (I hate to think the
number of times I've had to re-install 95 and 98 because they got so b
Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That depends on your OS as well.
Yep. The original Win95 won't do USB at all. Win 95 OSR2 had USB capability
but it was a bit shaky. Win98 seems to be rock solid with USB as far as I
can tell - at least, since I updated my chipset drivers after I bought m
"T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No problem. I have it working now. It was a dumb blonde catagory error. e.g.
>PS won't recognise the USB printer if the printer wasn't on when PS was
>open. BTW, according to USB standards, it should. I usually leave the
>printer off unless I am going to
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
