«

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:42 PM:

> For example, if you shoot a photo of a snow-covered yard (or any
> monochromatic smooth surface) with both digital and film and then blow
> up both pics, it might appear that the film image has more detail in
> the snow.

Brett: no one in his right mind wants to see "detail" in snow!...
When are you gonna start taking *photos* instead of "statements of detail"?

Noons wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:42 PM:
>
>> For example, if you shoot a photo of a snow-covered yard (or any
>> monochromatic smooth surface) with both digital and film and then blow
>> up both pics, it might appear that the film image has more detail in
>> the snow.
>
> Brett: no one in his right mind wants to see "detail" in snow!...
> When are you gonna start taking *photos* instead of "statements of detail"?
>

Odd statement: Bret has posted more photos than anyone, and I sure
haven't seen anything worthwhile from your sniping self.

--
john mcwilliams

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 3/02/2010 4:16 AM:

> First off, it's "Bret."

Er.......
OK.

> I remember the last time it snowed here (2003, I think) and I posted
> some pics I took then comparing film to digital. A few of the film
> luddites complained that the digital shots smoothed out the texture of
> the snow into a white blob. So maybe that bolsters your point.

Wanna bet all of those "film luddites" weren't?

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 3/02/2010 3:00 AM:
> Noons wrote:
>> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:42 PM:
>>
>>> For example, if you shoot a photo of a snow-covered yard (or any
>>> monochromatic smooth surface) with both digital and film and then blow
>>> up both pics, it might appear that the film image has more detail in
>>> the snow.
>>
>> Brett: no one in his right mind wants to see "detail" in snow!...
>> When are you gonna start taking *photos* instead of "statements of
>> detail"?
>>
>
> Odd statement: Bret has posted more photos than anyone, and I sure
> haven't seen anything worthwhile from your sniping self.
>

Rest...
It's obviosuly all too much for your old mind.

Noons wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 3/02/2010 3:00 AM:
>> Noons wrote:
>>> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 3:42 PM:
>>>
>>>> For example, if you shoot a photo of a snow-covered yard (or any
>>>> monochromatic smooth surface) with both digital and film and then blow
>>>> up both pics, it might appear that the film image has more detail in
>>>> the snow.
>>>
>>> Brett: no one in his right mind wants to see "detail" in snow!...
>>> When are you gonna start taking *photos* instead of "statements of
>>> detail"?
>>>
>>
>> Odd statement: Bret has posted more photos than anyone, and I sure
>> haven't seen anything worthwhile from your sniping self.
>>
>
> Rest...
> It's obviosuly all too much for your old mind.

Almost a week and you come up with this weak response?

You've slipped to nu lo's.

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 9/02/2010 4:13 AM:
>>>>
>>>> Brett: no one in his right mind wants to see "detail" in snow!...
>>>> When are you gonna start taking *photos* instead of "statements of
>>>> detail"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Odd statement: Bret has posted more photos than anyone, and I sure
>>> haven't seen anything worthwhile from your sniping self.
>>>
>>
>> Rest...
>> It's obviosuly all too much for your old mind.
>
> Almost a week and you come up with this weak response?

The truth hurts, doesn't it?


> You've slipped to nu lo's.

Nevertheless, I still look down on you.