From: Thor Bols (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 05/25/01-08:57:42 AM Z
Perhaps it is because English is not my first (or second, or third)
language, or perhaps it is because of the brevity required by e-mail, but I
am confused by your attitude and your insistance that I know nothing about
this field. I have not posted a resume, and neither have you. In fact, I
have used digital cameras and backs for a number of years. I have taken
hundreds of digital photographs, and am well experienced in the both
advantages and limitations of digital imagery. I have used both the D-1 and
the 660, but in a scientific setting that did not include "backlit trees"
that you consider the end-all requirement for proving adaquacy in digital
photography. In the past, I have experienced magenta fringing and other
undesirable artifacts in digital shots, but not with the D-1 and the 660.
Contrary to your belief, it is NOT an unacceptable request to ask YOU to
back up your claim. Clearly it is *YOU* not *I* that is speaking from
ignorance in this matter.
Never did I factor YOUR financial considerations into my suggestions that
Mr. Koshyk consider a digital camera for his project. I simply posited that
a digital camera might be a possiblity whose time has come. The negative
comments from yourself and others seemed to be referencing dated anecdotal
information, derived from experience with older, less capable and
As far as renting a camera this weekend, I'm out of luck: the camera stores
have already rented all of the available equipment, so it looks like I'm
doomed to lug the big Canham through this bleak, depressing city. Maybe
>From: Pam Niedermayer <email@example.com>
>To: Thor Bols <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Color Negative Film question
>Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 00:57:30 -0500
>No, Thor, I haven't made up my mind, I'm waiting until I find the
>right digital to give up film. The reason I refuse to spend valuable
>time looking at NASA photos is I know a couple of people who work on
>these images; and they aren't necessarily raw images, many of them
>have been processed further. Therefore, there's no way of knowing
>whether or not they originally displayed the artifact.
>Also, I can't, as in CAN NOT, afford a Kodak 660 or any of the 6 MP
>cameras. I already said I did NOT know whether the artifact was
>present on a 6 MP.
>Your attempt is to recommend something about which you clearly know
>nothing at this point, then get me to do the work to back up my claim,
>which is based on personal experience? Get real.
>Indeed, let me know how your D1 experiment works out. As I said at
>least twice before, let me know if you don't get the fringing.
>Thor Bols wrote:
> > With all due respect, that is a little strange. And is there some kind
> > reasoning behind your reluctance to accept my honest attempt to provide
> > with information that you might actually find useful? If *I*, Thor,
> > these pictures, they would mean something, have some weight, possess
> > "authority", but because they were taken by NASA, (an agency not known
> > embracing sub-standard technology, by the way), you dismiss them, and
> > for having the temerity to bring them to your attention? Look, you
> > this "fringing: concept, and I point to to some evidence that clearly
> > demonstrates you are wrong. Some of these "satellite against the bright
> > clouds of earth" should have "fringing" and they don't. They don't take
> > THAT long to download.
> > Hey, since you are obviously an open-minded person, and a fellow "seeker
> > truth", I'll go the extra distance: this weekend I'll rent a D-1 from
> > Calumet (in Chicago, where I have the misfortune to be temporarily
> > for the outrageous price of $195/day, and I'll point it at some backlit
> > trees, take the images back to my hotel room and look for "fringing".
> > you are right, I'll say so right here!
> > Something tells me, though, that you've already made up your mind.
> > ..
>Pamela G. Niedermayer
>Pinehill Softworks Inc.
>600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
>Austin, TX 78705
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