rec.photo.digital: By Thread

rec.photo.digital: By Thread

496 messages sorted by: [ author ] [ date ] [ subject ] [ attachment ]
Previous Folder, Thread view | Next Folder, Thread view | List of Folders

Starting: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:44:28 EST
Ending: Tue Apr 06 2004 - 06:06:10 EDT

Thanks golden67 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:09:25 EST)
Nikon Coolpix 8700 Steve B (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:52:16 EST)
300D problems chaz (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:21:41 EST)
300D firmware change to create a "10D" chaz (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:20:09 EST)
I have 2 Canon lenses, which DSLR to get? chaz (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:16:59 EST)

Re: I have 2 Canon lenses, which DSLR to get? S (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:05:30 EST)
Re: I have 2 Canon lenses, which DSLR to get? Charles Schuler (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:39:21 EST)

Follow-up product to Nikon Coolpix SQ? Mårten (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:02:51 EST)
live picture Antony Buonomo (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:09:09 EST)
Re: Euro2004Canonfanfoto-Help Required! Tony Spadaro (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:50:36 EST)
Solution to Olympus Camedia C-50 Picture Card Error when Copying Photos from PC Dan (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:22:37 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama Mark Herring (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:57:39 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:49:09 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama Marten (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:33:16 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Mark Weaver (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:10:19 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:24:40 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Alan Browne (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 19:40:32 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Alan Browne (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 16:32:30 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama lotus (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 18:55:27 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Alan Browne (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 19:36:14 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:04:41 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama Mark Herring (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:05:49 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:32:06 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Mark Herring (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:08:12 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Kulvinder Singh Matharu (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:32:11 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:03:46 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Bowzah (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:04:37 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama Charlie Ih (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:18:11 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:07:39 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:07:12 EST)

Re: Mars Panorama zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:20:45 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Bowzah (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 17:35:34 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Paolo Pizzi (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 18:08:38 EST)
Re: Mars Panorama Ron Hunter (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 21:06:00 EST)

Nikon D100 question Tshearon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:28:35 EST)

Re: Nikon D100 question Vin (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:57:02 EST)

Re: Nikon D100 question Tshearon (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:06:53 EST)

Re: Nikon D100 question Gavin Cato (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:39:06 EST)

Re: Nikon D100 question John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:18:12 EST)

Re: Nikon D100 question Gavin Cato (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 19:44:28 EST)
Re: Nikon D100 question John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:49:19 EST)

Re: Nikon D100 question DFM (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:44:26 EST)

Digital Rebel Underexposure medessa_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:19:09 EST)

Re: Digital Rebel Underexposure Robertwgross (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:36:19 EST)
Re: Digital Rebel Underexposure jean (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:39:46 EST)
Re: Digital Rebel Underexposure Charles Schuler (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:22:48 EST)

Re: Digital Rebel Underexposure Fred A. Miller (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:21:20 EST)

Re: Digital Rebel Underexposure medessa_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:57:04 EST)

Re: Digital Rebel Underexposure David J. Littleboy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:10:50 EST)

What is the best way to save a program to disk or to upload? SH (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:58:26 EST)

Re: What is the best way to save a program to disk or to upload? Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:30:14 EST)
Re: What is the best way to save a program to disk or to upload? Don Stauffer (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:03:54 EST)

Re: What is the best way to save a program to disk or to upload? SH (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:33:31 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Barney (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:06:23 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:18:50 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:19:37 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Kianoosh Yazdani (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:51:15 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:00:01 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? William Jackson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:27:55 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? David J Taylor (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 04:44:31 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:08:22 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:46:17 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:26:59 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Bart van der Wolf (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 10:33:06 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:40:27 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:45:11 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 17:21:31 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? grant kinsley (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 01:31:25 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 10:01:46 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Kianoosh Yazdani (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:05:59 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 12:45:33 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Dave Haynie (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 13:04:46 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 22:58:36 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? DM (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 03:46:46 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? DM (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 03:47:51 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Fred A. Miller (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 03:50:36 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? David J. Littleboy (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 04:34:18 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Fred A. Miller (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 19:06:16 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 19:32:37 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Jonathan Wilson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:03:58 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:44:13 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:46:40 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? DM (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 22:11:57 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 23:18:21 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Barney (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 12:05:49 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Barney (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 01:28:11 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Ray Paseur (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 08:11:33 EST)
Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? David J Taylor (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 12:30:43 EST)

Re: Has CCD image sensor technology improved? Barney (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 02:27:19 EST)

D100 or D70 ? rfload (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:31:39 EST)

Re: D100 or D70 ? max (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:50:54 EST)
Re: D100 or D70 ? Vin (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:08:12 EST)

Cheap filters... r (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:37:14 EST)

Re: Cheap filters... John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:17:49 EST)

Re: Cheap filters... r (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:17:04 EST)

D100 or D1x Boru < (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:03:18 EST)

Re: D100 or D1x andrew29_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:29:39 EST)
Re: D100 or D1x John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:28:30 EST)

Photoshop in propaganda use m II (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:21:09 EST)
Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Diggery Don (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:02:38 EST)

Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Phöènix (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:46:13 EST)

Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Jim Spen (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:13:56 EST)

Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Diggery don (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:03:43 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:16:49 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:58:21 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:27:17 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:05:24 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:24:48 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Ron Hunter (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 05:24:10 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 08:33:46 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Ron Hunter (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:50:11 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:25:20 EST)
Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Ron Hunter (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 20:52:18 EST)

Re: Most compact and FAST FAST digital camera?????? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:56:45 EST)

Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera Fuzzy Logic (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:21:09 EST)

Re: Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:24:21 EST)
Re: Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera Bill Crocker (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:49:46 EST)

Re: Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera Frank (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:16:45 EST)
Re: Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera Clyde (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:40:07 EST)

Re: Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera Robert Lynch (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:42:46 EST)
Re: Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera Chris Brown (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:31:13 EST)

Re: Epson Launches World's First Digital Rangefinder Camera BG250 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:17:31 EST)

Canon Powershot A70 upgrade Simon Finnigan (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:37:10 EST)

Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:45:05 EST)

Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade Simon Finnigan (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:54:24 EST)

Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade MarkH (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:20:49 EST)
Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:29:09 EST)
Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade Simon Finnigan (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:26:53 EST)
Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade Lucas Tam (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:11:06 EST)
Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade Donegal Paul (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:12:52 EST)
Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:06:30 EST)

Re: Canon Powershot A70 upgrade John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:46:38 EST)

Dimage A1 Good Choice? John (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:55:44 EST)

Re: Dimage A1 Good Choice? David Kilpatrick (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:14:43 EST)
Re: Dimage A1 Good Choice? zog (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:33:34 EST)
Re: Dimage A1 Good Choice? David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:08:52 EST)

Re: Dimage A1 Good Choice? Kianoosh Yazdani (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:24:49 EST)

Re: Dimage A1 Good Choice? David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:44:11 EST)

Re: Dimage A1 Good Choice? Dave Brown (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 22:06:32 EST)

Double Exposure Jerry (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:37:59 EST)

Re: Double Exposure Jerry (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:11:56 EST)

Re: Double Exposure Joseph Meehan (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:43:54 EST)

Re: Double Exposure Paul H. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:37:21 EST)
Re: Double Exposure David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:03:37 EST)
Re: Double Exposure Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:53:06 EST)
Nikon D100 on manual exposure Gary (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:54:02 EST)

Re: Nikon D100 on manual exposure Canongirly (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:52:55 EST)

Must read for Nikonians japer (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:20:50 EST)

Re: Must read for Nikonians John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:37:10 EST)

Re: Must read for Nikonians Charles Schuler (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:19:43 EST)

Re: Must read for Nikonians jriegle (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:16:46 EST)
Re: Must read for Nikonians gsum (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:03:29 EST)

Re: Must read for Nikonians japer (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:16:44 EST)

Re: Must read for Nikonians Bowzah (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:08:25 EST)

About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Jytzel (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:50:32 EST)

Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Bill Hilton (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:56:10 EST)
Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Canongirly (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:55:02 EST)
Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Silvio Manuel (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:02:15 EST)

Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Raphael Bustin (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:12:45 EST)

Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Bart van der Wolf (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:09:43 EST)
Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Bill Hilton (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:43:18 EST)
Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Gregory W Blank (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:15:54 EST)

Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Jytzel (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:23:17 EST)

Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Bill Hilton (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:41:00 EST)
Re: About minilabs , Lightjet, and others Silvio Manuel (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:53:19 EST)

Li-Ion CR-V3 rechargeables? jp (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:14:07 EST)

Re: Li-Ion CR-V3 rechargeables? Ron G (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:17:35 EST)

Re: Li-Ion CR-V3 rechargeables? jp (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 12:22:58 EST)

D30 review shows yellow question mark... Si (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:33:35 EST)

Re: D30 review shows yellow question mark... Bill Hilton (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:57:27 EST)

Re: D30 review shows yellow question mark... Si (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:47:19 EST)

Re: D30 review shows yellow question mark... Bill Hilton (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:54:17 EST)
Re: D30 review shows yellow question mark... Jonathan Wilson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:29:39 EST)

EOS 300D + IR -- photo here [blu|shark] (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:04:51 EST)

Re: EOS 300D + IR -- photo here paleryder (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:12:50 EST)

Re: EOS 300D + IR -- photo here [blu|shark] (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:50:29 EST)

Re: EOS 300D + IR -- photo here Paul J Gans (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:47:05 EST)

Re: EOS 300D + IR -- photo here [blu|shark] (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:53:05 EST)

Re: EOS 300D + IR -- photo here R.Cortes (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:02:00 EST)
Re: EOS 300D + IR -- photo here Paul J Gans (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:04:38 EST)

Re: EOS 300D + IR -- photo here Unclaimed Mysteries (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:48:27 EST)

Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? golden67 (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:40:18 EST)

Re: Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? Robertwgross (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:44:37 EST)
Re: Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? Richard Kaszeta (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:46:09 EST)
Re: Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? golden67 (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:28:11 EST)

Re: Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? Sorby (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:11:28 EST)

Re: Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? Simon Gardner (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:22:55 EST)

Re: Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? Michael Benveniste (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:16:33 EST)
Re: Does anyone have a suggestion for a support for a Canon EOS camera to use on a automobile window? Neon John (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:08:01 EST)

DRebel: exposure indicator goes off too fast leo (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:14:28 EST)

Re: DRebel: exposure indicator goes off too fast DJ (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:30:25 EST)

Which Nikon repair site for scanner service? Bill Hilton (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:36:21 EST)

Re: Which Nikon repair site for scanner service? Bowzah (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:40:32 EST)

Re: Which Nikon repair site for scanner service? Bill Hilton (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:19:09 EST)

Re: Which Nikon repair site for scanner service? Trajabador (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:52:09 EST)

Pixela ImageMixer Bald=Beautiful (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:28:09 EST)

Re: Pixela ImageMixer Roy (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:51:32 EST)

Re: Pixela ImageMixer Bald=Beautiful (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:58:47 EST)
Re: Pixela ImageMixer Bald=Beautiful (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:26:59 EST)

Re: Digital Camera fror 21" PC Monitor Darren Harris (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:09:26 EST)
Good P&S/enthusiast Digital camera for skin tones? Rick (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:48:03 EST)

Re: Good P&S/enthusiast Digital camera for skin tones? stan_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:03:35 EST)
Re: Good P&S/enthusiast Digital camera for skin tones? JMooreTS (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:55:24 EST)

Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD Darkly Brite (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:42:06 EST)

Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD Chris (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:52:25 EST)
Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD Jeremy (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:54:56 EST)

Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD Darkly Brite (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:12:41 EST)

Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD stan_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:09:08 EST)
Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD Tumbleweed (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:43:11 EST)

Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD Tumbleweed (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:42:54 EST)

Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD Darkly Brite (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:14:28 EST)

Re: Minimum system requirement Pentax *istD stan_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:07:23 EST)

A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Alan Browne (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:28:44 EST)

Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Chris (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:54:42 EST)

Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Mike (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:00:16 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Alan Browne (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:13:56 EST)

Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Deathwalker (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:05:12 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm David Kilpatrick (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:11:32 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:50:01 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:03:04 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Deathwalker (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:14:45 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:00:05 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Alan Browne (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:20:54 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 05:21:38 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 05:22:36 EST)

Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Deathwalker (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:37:36 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Deathwalker (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:40:38 EST)

Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Alan Browne (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:55:45 EST)

Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Deathwalker (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:10:30 EST)
Re: A2 Review --slightly OT for the r.p.e.35mm Alan Browne (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:34:06 EST)

Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 or Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4? none (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:23:59 EST)

Re: Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 or Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4? George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:57:32 EST)

Re: Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 or Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:44:53 EST)

5050 or 5060--that is the question! Rudy Marcelletti, K8SWD (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:23:23 EST)

Re: 5050 or 5060--that is the question! emski (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:37:27 EST)

Re: 5050 or 5060--that is the question! Mark Johnson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:21:16 EST)

Re: 5050 or 5060--that is the question! Stefan Patric (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:03:43 EST)
Re: 5050 or 5060--that is the question! Dave (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:59:46 EST)

Re: 5050 or 5060--that is the question! Rudy Marcelletti, K8SWD (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:00:41 EST)

Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? howard (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:33:10 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Tumbleweed (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:44:21 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Bill Hilton (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:09:19 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Bart van der Wolf (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:42:49 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Roland Karlsson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:46:33 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? stan_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:11:33 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:37:31 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Phöènix (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:21:18 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:56:14 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Don Stauffer (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:58:16 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:23:01 EST)

Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Jonathan Wilson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:35:41 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:58:01 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Don Stauffer (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 09:42:39 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Bill Hilton (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 10:06:42 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 10:10:24 EST)

RE: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? Michael Schnell (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:45:35 EST)
Re: Getting larger prints: lower output res or resample? mark_digital (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:17:09 EST)

D70 and Compact Flash ketil (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:29:52 EST)
Sony DSC-P71 Aperture Stuck on f2.8 PoE~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:56:30 EST)
Clip-on tripods (sort of) Richard (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:24:22 EST)

Re: Clip-on tripods (sort of) Richard Kaszeta (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:38:21 EST)

Re: Clip-on tripods (sort of) Simon Gardner (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:22:54 EST)

Re: Clip-on tripods (sort of) Michael Meissner (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:26:29 EST)
Re: Clip-on tripods (sort of) Chris (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:49:16 EST)
Re: Clip-on tripods (sort of) Bob Salomon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:42:59 EST)

Canon 'Try before you Buy' photo printer service Phöènix (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:23:59 EST)

Re: Canon 'Try before you Buy' photo printer service Jose Marques (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:38:51 EST)

Re: Canon 'Try before you Buy' photo printer service John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:48:28 EST)

Re: Canon 'Try before you Buy' photo printer service Phöènix (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:01:55 EST)
Re: Canon 'Try before you Buy' photo printer service Jonathan Wilson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:49:28 EST)

Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! Jim Spen (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 07:49:32 EST)

Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! R.Cortes (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:03:36 EST)

Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! Jim Spen (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:06:20 EST)

Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:07:35 EST)
Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! Tmax (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:12:49 EST)
Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! Don (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:27:05 EST)
Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! Cool Hand (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:00:32 EST)
Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! George Preddy (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:56:36 EST)

Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! pjp (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:49:15 EST)

Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! Ken Oaf (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:32:36 EST)
Re: Fuji S7000 SHORT Battery Warning!!! George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 17:15:24 EST)

Re: Digital file names Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:13:24 EST)
Re: IBM/Hitachi/Microtech 1G MicroDrive Specs ????? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:52:29 EST)
Re: IBM/Hitachi/Microtech 1G MicroDrive Specs ????? Cool Hand (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:03:01 EST)

Re: IBM/Hitachi/Microtech 1G MicroDrive Specs ????? Charles Lasitter (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:10:57 EST)

Re: IBM/Hitachi/Microtech 1G MicroDrive Specs ????? Annika1980 (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:18:37 EST)

Re: IBM/Hitachi/Microtech 1G MicroDrive Specs ????? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:40:05 EST)

Re: A Fix for Sony Camera Connection Problems with Windows XP LB (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:46:29 EST)

Re: A Fix for Sony Camera Connection Problems with Windows XP Mikey O (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:01:20 EST)

Re: A Fix for Sony Camera Connection Problems with Windows XP bmoag (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:54:05 EST)
Re: A Fix for Sony Camera Connection Problems with Windows XP John (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:46:12 EST)
Re: Best Plugins John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:46:21 EST)
Re: Best Plugins JMooreTS (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:50:19 EST)
Re: Resizing for Retail Processing John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:44:32 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens MarkH (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:37:33 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens max (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:15:57 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Vin (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:43:02 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens MarkH (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:14:10 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Vin (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:55:04 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens MarkH (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:51:23 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Vin (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:20:04 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:07:54 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens max (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:45:19 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:07:56 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:15:32 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens [BnH] (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:33:39 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Randall Ainsworth (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:38:47 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Fred A. Miller (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:18:52 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens gsum (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:11:29 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Bowzah (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:16:15 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:34:17 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Bowzah (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:39:40 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Russell Williams (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:50:58 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:42:52 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Paolo Pizzi (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 18:45:45 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens David Kilpatrick (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 08:14:39 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 22:51:40 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens David Kilpatrick (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 13:26:25 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Alan Browne (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 13:53:18 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 13:58:40 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens David Kilpatrick (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 19:47:45 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Alan Browne (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 20:22:21 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Paolo Pizzi (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 16:36:56 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Bowzah (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 07:15:49 EST)

Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens max (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 07:48:58 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens Paolo Pizzi (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 18:54:15 EST)
Re: new Sigma 18 - 125 mm lens John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 19:45:16 EST)

Re: Best value in NiMH/NiCD chargers Steven M. Scharf (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:04:58 EST)
Re: Best value in NiMH/NiCD chargers Lenny (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:11:25 EST)
Re: Best value in NiMH/NiCD chargers John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:28:56 EST)
Re: Best value in NiMH/NiCD chargers David Chien (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:49:20 EST)
Re: Best value in NiMH/NiCD chargers Cool Hand (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:10:44 EST)
Re: Best value in NiMH/NiCD chargers TomH (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:58:08 EST)
Re: Best value in NiMH/NiCD chargers Dr. Gee (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:28:08 EST)
Re: Owner of a Kodak DX 4330 & ? ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:21:04 EST)
Re: Houston digital photography club? Steven Whatley (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:12:46 EST)
Re: Houston digital photography club? RAD (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:52:18 EST)
Re: camera that uses microdrive compactflash and rechargeable batteries Mike Henley (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:26:30 EST)

Re: camera that uses microdrive compactflash and rechargeable batteries RAD (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:43:52 EST)

Re: camera that uses microdrive compactflash and rechargeable batteries AngryofMayfair (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:41:27 EST)

Re: camera that uses microdrive compactflash and rechargeable batteries Mike Henley (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:57:15 EST)

Re: Wanted: digital camera - Obsidian IC-100/Epix EpixPro/NEC PC-DC401 Ralph (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:51:00 EST)

Re: Wanted: digital camera - Obsidian IC-100/Epix EpixPro/NEC PC-DC401 Edward Bertsch (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:19:24 EST)

Re: Wanted: digital camera - Obsidian IC-100/Epix EpixPro/NEC PC-DC401 Ralph (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:48:44 EST)

Re: Success: Kodak DX6340 Firmware reversion. pawn (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:53:07 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:18:06 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? Charlie Dilks (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:02:03 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? Ryan Robbins (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:41:48 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? Mark M (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:59:34 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? Jonathan Wilson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:05:37 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? Mark M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 19:59:42 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:45:38 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? buck (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:59:26 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:23:21 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? Pangloss (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:49:17 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? Ron Hunter (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 22:12:59 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? Tony Gartshore (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:06:36 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? Paul H. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:12:07 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:43:11 EST)

Re: So why does it make a noise? Mark B. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:12:02 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? zog (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:08:13 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? stan_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:14:43 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? OLM (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:52:09 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? Cool Hand (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:12:32 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? DM (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:22:04 EST)
Re: So why does it make a noise? Phöènix (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:02:14 EST)
Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:15:23 EST)
Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:40:21 EST)
Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie Ed E. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:19:38 EST)

Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:42:12 EST)

Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie Ed E. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:03:49 EST)
Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie Jonathan Wilson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:52:48 EST)

Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:14:53 EST)

Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:37:54 EST)
Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:37:28 EST)
Re: Terabyte hard drive by Lacie David Chien (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:37:53 EST)
Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get Vin (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:13:03 EST)
Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get BPR2 (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:21:10 EST)

Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get Michael Ryan (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:28:16 EST)

Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get JJD (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:57:10 EST)
Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get Clyde (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 19:47:08 EST)

Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get Michael Ryan (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 13:50:11 EST)

Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get BPR2 (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 12:48:02 EST)

Re: Canon L lenses : which ones to get Leonard (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:23:13 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Juan R. Pollo (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:40:30 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? mark_digital (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:00:38 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:45:36 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Jonathan Wilson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:40:47 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Mekon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:54:38 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Jonathan Wilson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:02:44 EST)
Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Mekon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:19:39 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Don (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:47:32 EST)
Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Marc Dufour (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:02:39 EST)
Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Irwell (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:11:39 EST)

Re: Hey brother. Can you spare $62,000 ? Mekon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:17:11 EST)

Re: D70 and FC ketil (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:27:06 EST)
Re: Nikon Flash Question bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:42:37 EST)
Re: Molasses in Alaska! Ernesto T. Bass (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:20:07 EST)
Re: Molasses in Alaska! Don (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:36:46 EST)
Re: Paint Shop Pro 8 sale for US David Chien (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:35:55 EST)

Re: Paint Shop Pro 8 sale for US Mark M (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:01:38 EST)

Re: Paint Shop Pro 8 sale for US John Navas (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 22:03:05 EST)
Re: Paint Shop Pro 8 sale for US David Chien (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:31:52 EST)
Re: Paint Shop Pro 8 sale for US Nick C (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:10:44 EST)

Re: Paint Shop Pro 8 sale for US David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:10:41 EST)

Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 00:22:20 EST)
Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:24:06 EST)

Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:48:03 EST)

Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:58:22 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Ken Weitzel (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:11:12 EST)
Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:14:04 EST)
Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Mark M (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:09:25 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Lucrezia (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 13:11:49 EST)

Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 David J Taylor (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:44:33 EST)

Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Stuart (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:05:02 EST)

Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 David J Taylor (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:22:46 EST)

Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Mark B. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:14:21 EST)

Re: Re:FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:24:54 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:45:39 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Michael P Gabriel (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:20:18 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:22:45 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:48:54 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:55:01 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:16:29 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Proto T (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:50:04 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:17:05 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:37:12 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:00:37 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:25:48 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:01:31 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:45:40 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Stuart (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:34:13 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Proto T (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:39:20 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 bob (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:39:01 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:37:09 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 bob (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:43:27 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:00:08 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 19:57:09 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Frank ess (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:25:38 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:16:21 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:01:08 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:02:50 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:48:47 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:11:43 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:16:56 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 bob (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:08:16 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 18:05:12 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 19:54:21 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 03:13:31 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 bob (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 09:32:30 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 01:57:21 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 bob (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 16:19:49 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 16:48:50 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 bob (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 10:18:14 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 18:47:02 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:21:35 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Ken Weitzel (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:43:04 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:57:58 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 19:45:06 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Ken Weitzel (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 19:57:27 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:26:10 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:06:03 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Charlie Self (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 19:58:03 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Frank ess (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:26:50 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:56:32 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:11:52 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:40:30 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 07:00:30 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Azzz1588 (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 05:30:33 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Charlie Self (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 03:50:21 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:50:20 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 07:02:31 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:32:58 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Lucrezia (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 13:17:11 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:19:50 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 18:06:39 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 19:58:45 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 03:15:24 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Roger Halstead (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 18:52:33 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Frank ess (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 21:45:58 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 00:46:59 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 00:45:21 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Mark B. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:33:03 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Mark B. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:32:35 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:13:41 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:19:50 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 DM (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:19:46 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:31:24 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Mark M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:00:05 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Stuart (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:34:36 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:23:48 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:44:55 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Ralph (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:47:18 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:59:46 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:36:12 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:06:43 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 RAD (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:16:29 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 zbzbzb (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:02:29 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 DM (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:21:48 EST)

Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 ~* Mary *~ (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:30:03 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Lucy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:33:44 EST)
Re: FREE Paint Shop Pro 8 Black Fox (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 09:34:17 EST)

Re: Paint Shop Pro 8 sale for US Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:39:36 EST)
Re: Does Sony Even MAKE the HVL-F32X Flash ??? Vubast (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:57:37 EST)

Re: Does Sony Even MAKE the HVL-F32X Flash ??? Bob Salomon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:34:30 EST)

Re: Does Sony Even MAKE the HVL-F32X Flash ??? buck (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:19:28 EST)

Re: Does Sony Even MAKE the HVL-F32X Flash ??? mark_digital (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 18:44:05 EST)
Re: "Shutter" speed John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:11:49 EST)
Re: Olympus 4040 now supports RAW Alfred Molon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:35:34 EST)

Re: Olympus 4040 now supports RAW jpc (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:08:10 EST)

Re: Perspective bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:54:34 EST)
Re: Perspective Roger Halstead (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:23:14 EST)
Re: Perspective Don Stauffer (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:56:35 EST)
Re: Resolution fo different formats: TIFF,JPEG etc.. ed (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:52:58 EST)

Re: Resolution fo different formats: TIFF,JPEG etc.. John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:15:29 EST)
Re: Resolution fo different formats: TIFF,JPEG etc.. Lucas Tam (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:42:32 EST)
Re: Resolution fo different formats: TIFF,JPEG etc.. Lucas Tam (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:39:01 EST)

Re: Resolution fo different formats: TIFF,JPEG etc.. Don Stauffer (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:51:51 EST)
Re: Resolution fo different formats: TIFF,JPEG etc.. George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:08:43 EST)
Re: Olympus C 5060 Dave (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:17:06 EST)

Re: Olympus C 5060 Charlie Dilks (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:45:53 EST)

Re: website templates for my digital photos Mike Kieffer (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:46:35 EST)
Re: Anyone currently running Linux and using Gimp? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:08:48 EST)
Re: Anyone currently running Linux and using Gimp? Fred A. Miller (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:39:03 EST)
Re: hard to fix a broken LCD? Rayfes (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:02:54 EST)

Re: hard to fix a broken LCD? Ken Weitzel (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:34:54 EST)

Re: hard to fix a broken LCD? Jonathan Wilson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:59:21 EST)
Re: hard to fix a broken LCD? Robert Polk (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:43:51 EST)

Re: hard to fix a broken LCD? Robert Polk (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:51:17 EST)

Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:03:40 EST)
Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:05:01 EST)

Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:54:07 EST)

Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:12:23 EST)

Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:00:03 EST)
Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 08:26:48 EST)

Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:55:43 EST)

Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test Fred A. Miller (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:11:37 EST)
Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:00:48 EST)
Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test Bart van der Wolf (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 08:33:08 EST)
Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test Chris Brown (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 10:31:05 EST)
Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 12:24:44 EST)

Re: My quick dRebel review and lens test JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:24:20 EST)
Re: HELP! Received Gray Market Sony DSC-T1 Cybershot! David Chien (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:29:54 EST)
Re: Canon Powershot S1 IS versus Pansonic DMC FZ10? Petey (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:07:55 EST)
Re: H20+fuji=death Paul J Gans (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:30:46 EST)
Re: Digital Zoom is a joke! Keith Sheppard (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:53:17 EST)

Re: Digital Zoom is a joke! Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:11:52 EST)

Re: Digital Zoom is a joke! Psyonicdreams (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:12:28 EST)

Re: Digital Zoom is a joke! DM (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 01:03:41 EST)
Re: LCD Protectors Mikey S. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:29:26 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? GLC1173 (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:29:57 EST)

Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:26:49 EST)

Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:41:33 EST)

Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:04:07 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? john (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:04:02 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? Charles Schuler (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:33:21 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? john (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:30:04 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:21:57 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:07:43 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:22:40 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 21:42:31 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? Charlie Dilks (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 21:54:05 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 07:52:07 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 07:53:08 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 21:44:58 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:05:08 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 08:23:57 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:13:42 EST)

Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? RobbH (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:59:06 EST)

Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:41:27 EST)
Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? Jim Garner (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:52:40 EST)

Re: Should I always use 400 ISO setting? Chris (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 02:40:27 EST)
Re: Printer & paper suggestion? (need thick paper) Jonathan Wilson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:37:53 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:00:17 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests George Preddy (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:11:44 EST)

Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:18:06 EST)

Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:19:44 EST)

Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:27:57 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:51:58 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:57:31 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:38:39 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 17:06:03 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 17:08:23 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 22:57:36 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 05:32:45 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 07:27:04 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Bill (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 07:18:01 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Bart van der Wolf (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 09:45:06 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 16:58:39 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 22:48:41 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 23:33:46 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 07:22:55 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests David Kilpatrick (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 09:56:10 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 15:03:42 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Crownfield (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 15:45:50 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests David Kilpatrick (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 16:00:40 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 16:32:52 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests David Kilpatrick (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 17:19:18 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 16:31:51 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests David Kilpatrick (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 17:18:33 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 23:36:25 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 17:35:03 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests David Kilpatrick (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 19:32:18 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 19:54:52 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Dave Martindale (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 22:10:20 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 22:42:17 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests Fred A. Miller (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 17:02:02 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:47:31 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:53:51 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 12:22:22 EST)

Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests David Kilpatrick (Mon Mar 15 2004 - 06:57:13 EST)
Re: Foveon X3 failings: some tests KBob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:10:58 EST)
Re: Good prosumer model in ambient indoor light? (also: Sony DSCV1 vs Kodak 649 Azzz1588 (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:31:47 EST)
Re: ACDSee is FINALLY zippy again! Mark M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:17:57 EST)
Re: ACDSee is FINALLY zippy again! Mark M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:19:40 EST)
Re: Best B&W film for scanning Azzz1588 (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:31:46 EST)
Re: Compact Flash Memory - microdrive or type 1? andrew29_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:32:53 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:37:22 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:25:49 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:16:29 EST)

Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:28:49 EST)

Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? bob (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:27:32 EST)

Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? Ron Hunter (Mon Mar 15 2004 - 05:56:01 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? Paul J Gans (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:34:27 EST)

Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? Roger Halstead (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:31:14 EST)

Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? Paul J Gans (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:50:35 EST)

Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:18:46 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 08:21:57 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 12:03:05 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? David Kilpatrick (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 05:56:28 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? David J Taylor (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 07:59:45 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 22:44:38 EST)

Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? John Navas (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 13:47:45 EST)
Re: Is digital reducing the cost of photography ? bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:42:35 EST)
Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? NowayJose (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:08:28 EST)
Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:54:08 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Simon Gardner (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:23:25 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Simon Gardner (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 02:10:11 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:55:14 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Alan Browne (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 16:11:25 EST)
Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Leonard (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:50:26 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Paul J Gans (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:42:46 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Simon Gardner (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:23:20 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Paul J Gans (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:37:24 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Marli (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 07:18:42 EST)
Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:57:49 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Simon Gardner (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:23:26 EST)
Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Chris Brown (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:06:51 EST)

Re: When will Canon replace the 300D ? Simon Gardner (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:06:06 EST)

Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure Steve Young (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:40:27 EST)

Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:08:56 EST)

Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure Steve Young (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:25:57 EST)

Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:33:59 EST)
Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure Steve Young (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:30:43 EST)
Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:41:15 EST)
Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure Steve Young (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:55:52 EST)
Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:04:58 EST)

Re: Is Moderation a Right Cure Cent (Mon Mar 29 2004 - 08:08:36 EST)
Re: FA - Minolta Dimage 7Hi Dave (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:00:38 EST)
Re: can you get HIV from a toilet seat? Gymmy Bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:36:04 EST)

Re: can you get HIV from a toilet seat? Mekon (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:08:58 EST)
Re: can you get HIV from a toilet seat? Kim (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:11:18 EST)

Re: can you get HIV from a toilet seat? Moira de Swardt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:11:37 EST)
Re: decent digital P&S for darkness? RobbH (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:05:30 EST)
Re: Wide angle, digital vs. 35mm (was Re: 24 mm lens equivalent?) Neil Harrington (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:42:28 EST)

Re: Wide angle, digital vs. 35mm (was Re: 24 mm lens equivalent?) David Kilpatrick (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:26:07 EST)

Re: Wide angle, digital vs. 35mm (was Re: 24 mm lens equivalent?) Neil Harrington (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:54:09 EST)

Re: 24 mm lens equivalent? John Navas (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 20:10:19 EST)

Re: 24 mm lens equivalent? bob (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 09:32:56 EST)
Re: Problem with a Kodak DX3215 Ron Baird (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:33:04 EST)
Re: Things I don't like about my camera (Kodak DX6490) Jim Spen (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:14:23 EST)
Re: Things I don't like about my camera (Kodak DX6490) Ron Baird (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:47:50 EST)

Re: Things I don't like about my camera (Kodak DX6490) Jim Spen (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:26:12 EST)

Re: Things I don't like about my camera (Kodak DX6490) Ron Baird (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:30:24 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:47:41 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:08:21 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Ray Fischer (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 04:01:22 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 07:20:25 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 15:47:40 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 23:25:37 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Paul H. (Sat Mar 13 2004 - 13:22:11 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:13:36 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:19:49 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:37:15 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:19:16 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:47:58 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:26:45 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:11:34 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 11:40:55 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:45:34 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J. Littleboy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:10:38 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:31:30 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale YoYo (Sun Mar 14 2004 - 07:27:17 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:21:56 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:11:24 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Rodney Myrvaagnes (Sun Mar 14 2004 - 01:07:04 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:53:02 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:10:12 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J. Littleboy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:17:10 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Sun Mar 14 2004 - 11:32:16 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:45:56 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:23:01 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Nibbler (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:03:45 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:59:07 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Nibbler (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:00:28 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:54:25 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Nibbler (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:08:39 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:34:40 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:40:25 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:33:32 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:04:07 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:36:52 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:05:18 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 22:38:09 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 02:22:50 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 03:03:47 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 15:02:33 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 20:51:34 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J. Littleboy (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 21:08:14 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 21:48:11 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 21:57:38 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:20:36 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:48:27 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 12:54:00 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 13:03:25 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 20:26:06 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 01:39:41 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 03:45:53 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 09:21:23 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 15:24:01 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 16:17:03 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 02:56:51 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 10:01:56 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 23:35:18 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:52:43 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 10:10:15 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:18:45 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:53:49 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 17:30:08 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 10:10:58 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 13:03:15 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 15:06:25 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 20:35:04 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 02:00:24 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 04:06:48 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 09:54:52 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 03:55:26 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 18:43:09 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 16:39:26 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:11:20 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J Taylor (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 04:51:02 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 22:38:54 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:35:30 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 17:31:53 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Nibbler (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 18:06:28 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 22:30:45 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale nospam (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 23:38:36 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 09:30:09 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 11:25:44 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 13:52:53 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 14:10:44 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 16:45:06 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 22:02:49 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 02:16:10 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 09:37:49 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 12:49:26 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 20:28:17 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 14:27:19 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 20:31:34 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:14:03 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:57:56 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 11:54:31 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 13:09:24 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 20:05:30 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 02:04:20 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 03:11:00 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 16:14:17 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 18:59:13 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Haynie (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 16:20:39 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 17:22:19 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David J. Littleboy (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 21:03:33 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 21:30:50 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Haynie (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 16:01:37 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Haynie (Wed Mar 31 2004 - 15:55:35 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 12:02:33 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale eawckyegcy_at_email.domain.hidden (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 17:54:31 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 23:32:58 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale eawckyegcy_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 14:25:35 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 20:35:05 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale eawckyegcy_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 13:46:16 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 01:47:46 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David Dyer-Bennet (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 13:09:42 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 16:18:52 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Dave Martindale (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 19:01:19 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 19:25:07 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale - and call for data sheets! David J Taylor (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 05:44:17 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale - and call for data sheets! George Preddy (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 19:34:20 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale - and call for data sheets! John Navas (Mon Mar 29 2004 - 02:10:37 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 16:36:54 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:36:38 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:44:09 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:49:41 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Fred A. Miller (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:34:22 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:19:12 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 11:48:43 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 17:12:10 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 17:21:26 EST)
Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 07:15:41 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 08:38:05 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 15:34:17 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 17:21:14 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) Bart van der Wolf (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 09:32:17 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 15:36:06 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 12:09:32 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 10:00:03 EST)
Re: Foveon = 13.7MP Bayer (Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale) JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 16:52:32 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 19:09:49 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 19:45:33 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 11:47:43 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 22:43:22 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Rob Partington (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 13:04:26 EST)
Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 21:37:22 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Steve m... (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 22:23:21 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Fred A. Miller (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 22:49:08 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Tom Thackrey (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 00:47:04 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 13:02:55 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 07:36:38 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Fletis Humplebacker (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 11:00:36 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Digger (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 12:34:56 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 13:04:45 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Digger (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 23:28:12 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Fletis Humplebacker (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 11:24:50 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Skip M (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 01:54:43 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 00:49:52 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 13:06:17 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Fletis Humplebacker (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 21:58:23 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers John Navas (Mon Mar 22 2004 - 23:49:49 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Digger (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 06:10:36 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Fletis Humplebacker (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 07:43:24 EST)
Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers John Navas (Tue Mar 23 2004 - 11:29:59 EST)

Re: Class Action Lawsuit against Bayer digital camera manufacturers Alan Browne (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 15:59:38 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Joe Connellan (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 08:06:41 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:42:26 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:54:37 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:25:46 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 23:27:19 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Lionel (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 23:53:05 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 05:28:18 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 07:33:04 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 10:16:41 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 12:55:50 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 13:11:54 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Fri Mar 26 2004 - 21:35:13 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Pepys (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 01:40:06 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 06:05:52 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 09:02:11 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 09:09:15 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 19:30:19 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Alan Browne (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 20:32:29 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Sun Mar 28 2004 - 09:45:58 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale grant kinsley (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 15:48:48 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Sat Mar 27 2004 - 22:27:13 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale grant kinsley (Sun Mar 28 2004 - 04:03:58 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale grant kinsley (Sun Mar 28 2004 - 13:48:16 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Sun Mar 28 2004 - 10:46:55 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:55:25 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:55:44 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Joe Connellan (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:06:06 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:47:30 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Joe Connellan (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 12:07:49 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:19:07 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:22:07 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:14:40 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:22:10 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Bart van der Wolf (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:54:32 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:45:32 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:39:26 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:16:16 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:27:10 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:59:30 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Joe Connellan (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:21:01 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:49:17 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:07:14 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:35:57 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:59:39 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Sun Mar 14 2004 - 00:38:07 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:30:44 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:45:53 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:40:00 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Fred A. Miller (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:02:49 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:30:50 EST)

Re: The Sigma-Foveon pixel rationale John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:12:04 EST)

Re: Olympus 5060 and 8080 users group Bob Thomas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:15:09 EST)
Re: C8080 Mark Johnson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:11:41 EST)

Re: C8080 Alfred Molon (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:51:06 EST)

4.954 *****SPAM***** Re: Olympus 5060 and 8080 users group R2D2 (Thu Mar 11 2004 - 20:42:13 EST)
Re: Dealing with uneven skin tones William Mutch (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:30:45 EST)
Re: Dealing with uneven skin tones William Mutch (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:31:06 EST)
Re: Kodak Easyshare with DX 6440 and WinXP Pro problem Ron Baird (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:24:04 EST)

Re: Kodak Easyshare with DX 6440 and WinXP Pro problem Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:52:05 EST)

Re: Kodak Easyshare with DX 6440 and WinXP Pro problem buck (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:05:19 EST)

Re: Kodak Easyshare with DX 6440 and WinXP Pro problem William Jackson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:26:00 EST)
Re: Kodak Easyshare with DX 6440 and WinXP Pro problem Ron Hunter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 22:01:11 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Tripurari Singh (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:54:44 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:13:24 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Bart van der Wolf (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 21:28:35 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Roland Karlsson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:31:04 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Tripurari Singh (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:36:33 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? David J. Littleboy (Fri Mar 12 2004 - 17:34:02 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:02:56 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? mark_digital (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:40:31 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Dave Haynie (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:36:22 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:30:55 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? David J. Littleboy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:23:25 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? mark_digital (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:09:11 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Lucas Tam (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:14:16 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:47:29 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:33:36 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Guido Vollbeding (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:00:09 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:12:01 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Jürgen Eidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:43:00 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:10:12 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Jürgen Eidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:19:45 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:43:38 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Jürgen Eidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:50:47 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:12:15 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Jürgen Eidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:04:24 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:44:10 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Roland Karlsson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:55:40 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Jürgen Eidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:03:18 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:22:28 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? David J. Littleboy (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:49:03 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:16:25 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Guido Vollbeding (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:01:08 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 09:08:01 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Guido Vollbeding (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:19:42 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:35:01 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? David J Taylor (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 05:27:03 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Bart van der Wolf (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:32:54 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Guido Vollbeding (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:12:50 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 10:21:08 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:51:47 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Roland Karlsson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:26:47 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:49:16 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Mxsmanic (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:01:43 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:26:56 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Roland Karlsson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:39:14 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:57:37 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? Roland Karlsson (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:09:54 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:45:29 EST)

Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? David J Taylor (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 11:53:06 EST)
Re: Why no 3ccd stills cameras? John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 02:37:44 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:23:42 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:29:54 EST)

Re: The big lie! Foveon is the best so deal with it Fred A. Miller (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:39:04 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 06:31:11 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 07:03:40 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:45:52 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it TP (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 04:40:12 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 09:38:50 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it TP (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 14:43:36 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:52:49 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:58:26 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 06:55:55 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 09:43:50 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 22:35:10 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 10:37:41 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 21:59:36 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 01:55:25 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Pepys (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 03:46:22 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Bart van der Wolf (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 07:44:52 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Randall Ainsworth (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 10:18:49 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 22:36:33 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 12:34:49 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 13:59:50 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:03:49 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:40:25 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:48:32 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:07:58 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:08:29 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:49:47 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:09:34 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:00:39 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 11:39:30 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:17:29 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:33:09 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 12:12:46 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:28:26 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:39:14 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 16:23:49 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it TP (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 03:57:33 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 08:02:43 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 21:46:35 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David Kilpatrick (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:22:59 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Fred A. Miller (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:22:18 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 16:43:57 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it TP (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 04:37:44 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Mark M (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 00:11:21 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:26:00 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Fred A. Miller (Sun Mar 14 2004 - 22:04:08 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:01:34 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:17:03 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:21:15 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:46:57 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:58:17 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:06:26 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Fred A. Miller (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:43:30 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:05:15 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Azzz1588 (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:21:34 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it George Preddy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:58:04 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Mark M (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:21:00 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Fred A. Miller (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 01:40:44 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Mark M (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:07:40 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Fred A. Miller (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 02:50:52 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 06:12:16 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Rob Partington (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 10:54:51 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it George Preddy (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 14:38:37 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Rob Partington (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 15:33:08 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 23:21:14 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Mark M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:18:02 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Fri Mar 12 2004 - 01:55:58 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:05:07 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Paul Schmidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:29:02 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:00:10 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:08:10 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:15:36 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:27:17 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:36:12 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:54:12 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 23:41:03 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:14:40 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Fred A. Miller (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:40:37 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Alan Browne (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 11:50:24 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 04:43:09 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Skip M (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:16:23 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it David J. Littleboy (Fri Mar 19 2004 - 00:28:36 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Deathwalker (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:24:56 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 18:42:42 EST)
Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it Mark M (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 20:23:16 EST)

Re: Foveon is the best so deal with it DM (Tue Mar 16 2004 - 01:41:12 EST)
Re: The Sigma-Foveon dilemma Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:07:03 EST)
Re: don't archive everything Roger Halstead (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 05:17:47 EST)
Re: TIFF vs. JPEG Marc Dufour (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:29:53 EST)

Re: TIFF vs. JPEG Lucas Tam (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:26:16 EST)
Re: TIFF vs. JPEG David J Taylor (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 04:17:42 EST)

Re: Download this Action! Paul H. (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:41:47 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. Dan Wojciechowski (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 13:47:03 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. bob (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 16:57:24 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. George Preddy (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 00:37:03 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. John Navas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 01:21:28 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. George Preddy (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 23:30:20 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:58:19 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 06:12:47 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. Rob Partington (Sat Mar 20 2004 - 16:52:21 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. John Navas (Sun Mar 21 2004 - 23:23:36 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. Roger Halstead (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 03:13:19 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. Fred A. Miller (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 13:18:23 EST)

Re: RAW or jpg. George Preddy (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 23:37:01 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:59:25 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. George Preddy (Wed Mar 24 2004 - 23:39:09 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. John Navas (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:59:44 EST)
Re: RAW or jpg. JPS_at_email.domain.hidden (Thu Mar 25 2004 - 06:24:33 EST)

Re: Disappointed by Digital Rebel (Canon EOS-300D) Chris Brown (Wed Mar 10 2004 - 04:25:12 EST)
Re: Film vs Digital Photography: THE FINAL DEBATE Paul Schmidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:44:39 EST)

Re: Film vs Digital Photography: THE FINAL DEBATE John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 09:50:15 EST)

Re: Film vs Digital Photography: THE FINAL DEBATE Paul Schmidt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:30:19 EST)
Re: Film vs Digital Photography: THE FINAL DEBATE Dave Haynie (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:43:46 EST)

Re: Film vs Digital Photography: THE FINAL DEBATE mutt (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 06:23:01 EST)
Re: Film vs Digital Photography: THE FINAL DEBATE Brian Dooley (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 19:05:31 EST)
Re: Who is Martha Stewart ? Etaoin Shrdlu (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 20:14:30 EST)

Re: Who is Martha Stewart ? Nick C (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:31:24 EST)

Re: AMERICANS love BURGER KING: WHY? Paolo Pizzi (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:00:05 EST)
Re: AMERICANS love BURGER KING: WHY? Paolo Pizzi (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:57:45 EST)
Re: AMERICANS love BURGER KING: WHY? Paolo Pizzi (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:55:44 EST)
Re: How to photograph a cervix sldkjf_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:41:16 EST)
Re: How to photograph a cervix me_at_email.domain.hidden (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:40:22 EST)
Re: Who is the best guitarist ever? Big Daddy (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:41:21 EST)
Re: Who is the best guitarist ever? Thomas (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 03:30:16 EST)
Re: Who is the best guitarist ever? street shooter (Thu Mar 18 2004 - 08:15:03 EST)
Re: minolta dslr or sigma sd 10? Jake Patterson (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 22:54:08 EST)

Re: minolta dslr or sigma sd 10? John Navas (Wed Mar 17 2004 - 23:27:10 EST)

Re: minolta dslr or sigma sd 10? Prognathous (Tue Mar 02 2004 - 03:22:16 EST)

Last message date: Tue Apr 06 2004 - 06:06:10 EDT
Archived on: Fri Sep 24 2004 - 17:34:50 EDT

496 messages sorted by: [ author ] [ date ] [ subject ] [ attachment ]
Previous Folder, Thread view Next Folder, Thread view List of Folders