Digital BW, The Print

Sorry Peter, but you have conveniently taken my comments completely out of
context. If that was the point you were attempting to make, it was cloaked
within a bunch of disparaging potshots at, as you so charmingly refer to
them once again here, "art majors". If you choose to include that sort of
bluster, you can't fault me or anyone else for calling you on it.

Flame on if you'd like. I'll be getting back to photography now, thanks.

Doug

> From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>
> Subject: Re: Techies -vs- Artists
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Doug I."
> Look, Doug, try to keep up, OK?   There is no Cliff Notes
> summary for this forum - you have to actually read the
> postings.
> 
> **I'm** the one here who said that digital IS ready for
> prime time and it's already the dominant mode for pro's.
> 
> But that's not what this thread ("Techies -vs- Artists")
> is about, is it?   Go back and reread the original.  What
> THIS thread is about is the claim by some MF shooters
> that digital has such high resolution that it forces
> them to buy new, sharper lenses.  And THAT's a statement
> where numbers **DO** tell the whole story.  That's a claim
> that could only be made by an art major.