rec.photo.equipment.large-format Discussion: By Date

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	Richard Knoppow	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 18:26:45 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Richard Knoppow	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 18:16:33 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 15:20:52 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 15:15:13 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 11:16:10 EDT
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	Ronin	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 17:45:49 EDT
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	Ronin	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 17:40:41 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Matt Clara	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 17:22:27 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	David Nebenzahl	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 12:24:43 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 12:07:48 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 12:04:36 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	David Nebenzahl	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 12:04:41 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	No One	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 15:58:09 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Tom Phillips	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 16:10:17 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 11:54:08 EDT
Re: Anyone here ever submit to LensWork?	BBarlow690	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 15:58:31 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 11:20:02 EDT
Re: Ilex #5 shutter problem-Cable release!	jjs	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 11:14:16 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 14:36:32 EDT
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	Tom Ferguson	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 14:32:15 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Bob G	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 14:08:43 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Shelley	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 09:29:22 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	rafe bustin	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 08:41:43 EDT
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 13:04:59 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:59:16 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:56:26 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Louie Powell	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:46:04 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Douglas	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:30:46 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Bob G	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:31:54 EDT
Re: Tri-X	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:34:46 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Frank Pittel	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:21:55 EDT
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	Ronin	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 12:03:31 EDT
Re: Tri-X	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 11:41:18 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Bernhard Ess	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 11:36:12 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 11:08:20 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Bob Salomon	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 10:33:52 EDT
Roll film back and focal length	Bernhard Ess	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 10:25:09 EDT
Re: matt parker from cottage grove oregon is a big piece of shit	http://tinyurl.com/ii35	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 06:18:02 EDT
Re: Tri-X	No One	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 15:36:24 EDT
Re: rebuild the cuntface of the spamming scammer matt parker http://tinyurl.com/452ch	http://tinyurl.com/ii35	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 05:36:14 EDT
Re: Tri-X	No One	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 15:32:07 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 15:17:13 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Nick Zentena	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 07:50:13 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Geoffrey S. Mendelson	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 08:06:00 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Stacey	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 02:20:28 EDT
Information about rec.photo.marketplace.large-format [27may2001]	Helge Nareid	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 06:43:42 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 14:27:48 EDT
Re: Clarify: T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Nicholas O. Lindan	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 14:36:34 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Argon3	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 13:29:01 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Richard Knoppow	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 20:45:37 EDT
Cheapest E6	No One	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 12:59:51 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Stacey	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 19:53:28 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Bob Monaghan	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 18:53:34 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 13:03:27 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Uranium Committee	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 22:40:13 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Tom Phillips	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 23:54:19 EDT
Re: What happens to film as it ages?	dr bob	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 10:22:51 EDT
Re: Anyone here ever submit to LensWork?	John Emmons	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 11:28:31 EDT
Re: Tri-X	No One	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 11:05:05 EDT
Re: Tri-X	No One	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 10:53:02 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 05:27:01 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 05:22:54 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 05:08:35 EDT
Re: Tray Development	Thor Lancelot Simon	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 11:19:26 EDT
OT: Anyone here ever submit to LensWork?	Matt Clara	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 08:54:51 EDT
Re: G-Claron 210 for 8x10"	Pay	Sat Oct 23 2004 - 08:05:13 EDT
Re: What happens to film as it ages?	dr bob	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 09:49:42 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Gordon Moat	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 13:57:39 EDT
Re: Meaningless drivel/NG's digress into Name calling etc.	Uranium Committee	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 11:17:25 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Donald Qualls	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 07:15:43 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 21:54:40 EDT
Re: G-Claron 210 for 8x10"	f/256	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:02:10 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 21:10:15 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	No One	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 16:03:39 EDT
Re: Tri-X	No One	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 21:03:17 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 20:34:47 EDT
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	jjs	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 19:33:30 EDT
Re: What happens to film as it ages?	Hunt	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 01:27:18 EDT
Re: Tray Development	Hunt	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 01:15:56 EDT
Re: sheet film developing is hard	Hunt	Sun Oct 17 2004 - 01:06:55 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Stacey	Sat Oct 16 2004 - 22:49:07 EDT
Re: Tri-X	No One	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 16:07:24 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	David Nebenzahl	Sat Oct 16 2004 - 19:00:21 EDT
Re: Tri-X	jjs	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 14:27:04 EDT
Question on Convertible Lenses	Dr. Ronin	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 13:56:12 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Jos. Burke	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 14:32:04 EDT
Re: Tri-X	jjs	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 12:36:47 EDT
Re: Ilex #5 shutter problem-Cable release!	Jos. Burke	Sat Oct 16 2004 - 18:57:08 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Argon3	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 11:37:29 EDT
Tri-X	No One	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 09:36:29 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Richard Knoppow	Sat Oct 16 2004 - 16:51:53 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	Nick Zentena	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 14:41:08 EDT
Re: Ilex #5 shutter problem-Cable release!	Richard Knoppow	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 07:27:08 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Nicholas O. Lindan	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 13:27:52 EDT
Re: Hardware is getting tiring. Time to shoot!	DanSMeyers	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 07:03:35 EDT
Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	David Nebenzahl	Sat Oct 16 2004 - 15:33:12 EDT
Re: rebuild the cuntface of the spamming scammer matt parker http://tinyurl.com/452ch	matt parker	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 06:23:52 EDT
build the cuntface of the spamming scammer matt parker http://tinyurl.com/452ch	matt parker	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 06:15:33 EDT
Re: parker from cottage grove oregon is a big piece of shit	matt parker	Fri Oct 22 2004 - 05:50:24 EDT
Re: What happens to film as it ages?	Donald Qualls	Sat Oct 16 2004 - 10:25:01 EDT