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

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Gordon Moat	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 04:19:21 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	jjs	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 11:48:11 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Bob Salomon	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 11:01:06 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Hemi4268	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 10:40:50 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	jjs	Thu Oct 21 2004 - 10:54:47 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Gregory W Blank	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 19:41:11 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Uranium Committee	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 21:15:22 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Uranium Committee	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 21:10:23 EDT
Re: Tri-X	rafe bustin	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 08:06:25 EDT
Re: Anyone here ever submit to LensWork?	Matt Clara	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 07:46:58 EDT
Re: G-Claron 210 for 8x10"	Jos. Burke	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 21:19:44 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Matt Clara	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 20:06:39 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Donald Qualls	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 06:38:07 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Gregory W Blank	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 19:45:24 EDT
Re: Ball head for (old) Linhof tripod	Bob Salomon	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 06:16:18 EDT
Ball head for (old) Linhof tripod	Malcolm Stewart	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 06:05:05 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	JC in Ireland	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 20:18:18 EDT
Re: More on the restart	Tom Phillips	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 18:35:25 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Gregory W Blank	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 18:47:17 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Nick Zentena	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:36:36 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Nick Zentena	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:39:25 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 19:01:16 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Donald Qualls	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:50:31 EDT
Thanks to all three who replied	JC in Ireland	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:43:11 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Matt Clara	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:29:25 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Argon3	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:14:29 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Mark Cudworth	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 17:35:51 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Argon3	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 17:12:20 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Gregory W Blank	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 18:27:26 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Donn Cave	Tue Oct 26 2004 - 01:35:12 EDT
Re: Clarify: T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 16:20:22 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Donald Qualls	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 10:41:32 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Gordon Moat	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 15:59:15 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Bob Salomon	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:27:52 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Gregory W Blank	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:29:19 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Gregory W Blank	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:27:41 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Gregory W Blank	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:24:50 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Frank Pittel	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:15:00 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Bob G	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:14:18 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Gregory W Blank	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:19:06 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Frank Pittel	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:11:53 EDT
Re: Tri-X	rafe bustin	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 09:10:47 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	Bandicoot	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 15:30:26 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Donald Qualls	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 07:44:01 EDT
Re: throw a molotov cocktail through the window of matt parker	matt parker	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 05:20:15 EDT
Clarify: T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 12:14:18 EDT
Re: lens board: copal what?	Bob G	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:59:18 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	sally	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:53:33 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	sally	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:52:04 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	sally	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:39:59 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Nicholas O. Lindan	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:06:51 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:00:22 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 10:56:05 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 10:55:07 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 10:53:35 EDT
lens board: copal what?	Art Reitsch	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 09:58:11 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 10:07:04 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	Tom Phillips	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 09:51:06 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Matt Clara	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 09:20:48 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Tom Phillips	Tue Oct 19 2004 - 09:02:16 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	Tom Phillips	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 20:35:53 EDT
Re: More on the restart Nice Portrait!	Jos. Burke	Wed Oct 20 2004 - 21:31:45 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Frank Pittel	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 19:47:59 EDT
Re: G-Claron 210 for 8x10"	f/256	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 18:24:51 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	Nicholas O. Lindan	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 17:54:45 EDT
Re: G-Claron 210 for 8x10"	Shelley	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 17:33:26 EDT
Re: G-Claron 210 for 8x10"	Andrew Koenig	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 17:23:54 EDT
G-Claron 210 for 8x10"	Pay	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 17:14:12 EDT
Re: Strange Lens ... or broken?	jjs	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 17:04:29 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Donn Cave	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 00:47:56 EDT
Re: Strange Lens ... or broken?	Argon3	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 16:56:26 EDT
Strange Lens ... or broken?	jjs	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 16:29:30 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:36:21 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:16:40 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Tom Phillips	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:28:26 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Douglas	Mon Oct 25 2004 - 00:19:02 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:27:11 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Donald Qualls	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:46:13 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	No One	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:24:06 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Donald Qualls	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:42:21 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Donald Qualls	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:37:19 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:22:00 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	No One	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:15:54 EDT
Re: Tri-X	No One	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:12:40 EDT
Re: Roll film back and focal length	Jos. Burke	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:41:02 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:19:33 EDT
Re: Cheapest E6	Gregory W Blank	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:15:59 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Douglas	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:59:48 EDT
Speaking of sheet films (Tri-X /Bush thread) --Hows the J&C House brand in 4x5 thru 11x14? Efke sheet films?	Jos. Burke	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 22:59:39 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Douglas	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 21:40:30 EDT
Re: Tri-X	jjs	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 21:45:34 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Tom Phillips	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 23:35:31 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	Hunt	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 19:28:51 EDT
Re: moving up to this format - advice welcome	Argon3	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 14:25:10 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 14:19:59 EDT
Re: Flaw in T. Phillips "Digital is not photography" argument	jjs	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 14:17:05 EDT
Re: Tri-X - Now very very OT	Uranium Committee	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 18:45:37 EDT
moving up to this format - advice welcome	JC in Ireland	Mon Oct 18 2004 - 14:05:04 EDT
Re: Tri-X	Donald Qualls	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 18:26:26 EDT
Re: Question on Convertible Lenses	Donald Qualls	Sun Oct 24 2004 - 18:29:10 EDT