Do we still need rec.photo.digital?
Alfred Molon
for a tiny minority who still uses film).
It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.*
Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital
these days.
Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film
and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Chris H
<alfred...@yahoo.com> writes
>Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except
>for a tiny minority who still uses film).
That's going to start the usual (one or three) suspects ranting that
film is making a comeback and it never went away and ti will long out
live digital and go on about needing a minimum of 60MP digital to
compete with film and film has better dynamic range any way... so THERE!
:-)
>It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.*
Yes.
>Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital
>these days.
Say "many" or you will get the film nuts screaming again if you say
"all"
>Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film
>and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter.
Yes but it will die out in about 5 years.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Allen
> Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except
> for a tiny minority who still uses film).
>
> It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.*
>
> Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital
> these days.
>
> Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film
> and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter.
suggest dividing into rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.nutcases. This
would eliminate about 90 percent of the postings to r.p.d.
Allen
Chris H
<all...@austin.rr.com> writes
rec.photo.God's.own.Nikon.Users
and
rec.photo.heratics.
:-)
Don Stauffer
> Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except
> for a tiny minority who still uses film).
>
> It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.*
>
> Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital
> these days.
>
> Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film
> and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter.
Usenet is dying anyway. These groups are going to be dead in a few
years anyway. I also subscribed to the Yahoo group on DP, and while it
started kinda blah, this group is deteriorating fast anyway, so I am
spending more time on that Yahoo list.
Spamm Trappe
> Alfred Molon writes
>>
>>Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except
>>for a tiny minority who still uses film).
>
> That's going to start the usual (one or three) suspects ranting
Which is the usual result of a post like this.
What we do _not_ need are the trolls that slither around usenet.
Spamm Trappe
>
> Usenet is dying anyway.
Then please *LEAVE* , damnit!
Blinky the Shark
> Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except
> for a tiny minority who still uses film).
>
> It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.*
>
> Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital these
> days.
>
> Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film and
> rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter.
Might want to consider that it's not as easy to create a new group in the
Big Eight hierarchies than in alt. I'm not encouraging a new alt group;
just mentioning that rec groups aren't done on a whim.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Matt Ion
> Since for practical purposes all photography is digital nowadays (except
> for a tiny minority who still uses film).
>
> It would make sense to restructure rec.photo.*
>
> Why have a newsgroup dedicated to "DSLRs" since all SLRs are digital
> these days.
>
> Perhaps create a group rec.photo.film for all those who still use film
> and rename the other rec.photo groups and/or change their charter.
An ancient wisdom comes to mind...
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Alfred Molon
Blinky the Shark says...
> Might want to consider that it's not as easy to create a new group in the
> Big Eight hierarchies than in alt. I'm not encouraging a new alt group;
> just mentioning that rec groups aren't done on a whim.
I don't know... But they managed to create four subgroups of
rec.photo.digital of which only one got enough traffic.
Atheist Chaplain
news:slrngnp8o9.2c...@shell.config.com...
does that mean you will be leaving ??
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi