On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 07:46:51 -0400, wgaf wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:18:31 -0400, in rec.crafts.metalworking you wrote:


wgaf wrote in message ...
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Dave__67
wrote:


Some aircraft assembly, a RR forge, and miss scrap metal posing draped
in swarf (that one made me cringe a bit, hope they pulled it off her
carefully).

http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com...hread=22669914

Dave

there is nothing better than real film for photography, thanks for posting
those

Excellent photos, but I think mostly due to artful lighting, good framing,
etc.. They had to be scanned in to show on the web, so I'm not sure you can
attribute the quality to real film as opposed to digital, especially
compared to the current digital standards for professional photography.


I think you can tell, and the thing about professional quality digital, is
very few use the high end stuff, even when the reporters started with 10mp
that was not all that long ago, getting the full frame sensors out on the
market was a good step in the right direction but still does nto compete under
a loom with film

I've never heard the term "under a loom" before. (I don't weave.
A quick googling didn't help, either.

Anyway,

I was extremely happy with the pics I got from my Nikon 995. I
am thrilled with the detail I get from my Nikon D-40. And I would be
absolutely orgasmic with a D3x or D4, I'm sure. Film is -out- for me.
YMMV. If you can see a difference, feel free to go with film. About
99% of us are now happy with digital. And a vast section of the
unwashed is happy with phone camera pics and texting. Ptui!

--
The greatest justice in life is that your
vision and looks tend to go simultaneously.
-- Kevin Bacon