I'm the only one who knows how to even find the preferences on that machine. I know I didn't turn it on. I don't think Quark turned it on, because it's a pre-OS-X version, plus, it was print monitor that was squaking, not Quark. That leaves the only other possibilities as either that it was on by default, or that our building was built on an indian burial ground, a possibility that I'm not about to discount.
My god...he's gonna do the whole speech.
Buffy ,'Chosen'
Buffistechnology 2: You Made Her So She Growls?
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
DXMachina - Jun 16, 2005 2:52:06 am PDT #3412 of 10003
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Gris - Jun 16, 2005 6:47:06 am PDT #3413 of 10003
Hey. New board.
That could be cool! Maybe you'll get ghosts.
§ ita § - Jun 16, 2005 7:26:15 am PDT #3414 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Kodak to stop making B&W paper. I guess the digital SLR is looking better and better.
I need to see if there's a digital that can share lenses with my optical. Of course, it's been so damned long since I used my SLR, I don't remember what it is.
tommyrot - Jun 16, 2005 7:33:30 am PDT #3415 of 10003
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
I need to see if there's a digital that can share lenses with my optical.
There are a lot of digital SLRs that do that. Some digital SLRs even come without a lens so you can use your existing lenses if you want.
I have an older HP digital SLR. I can attach a regular telephoto or wide angle lense to it, although I have yet to do so.
§ ita § - Jun 16, 2005 7:36:50 am PDT #3416 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
There are a lot of digital SLRs that do that
It's not the digital I'm wondering about, so much as my traditional SLR for which I've already bought good lenses -- that's the compatibility angle I need to start shopping from.
I think it's a Nikon, but it's been in that bag forever. Since shortly before Burrell's first MonkeyPants was born, for sure.
Sue - Jun 16, 2005 7:53:50 am PDT #3417 of 10003
hip deep in pie
Kodak to stop making B&W paper. I guess the digital SLR is looking better and better.
They aren't the only producers of B&W paper left are they? I think I usually used to buy AGFA.
I think the digitals would share lenses with more electronic SLR's than older manual SLR's
§ ita § - Jun 16, 2005 7:56:52 am PDT #3418 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think I usually used to buy AGFA.
I'm an Ilford girl myself. But it does sound like an early death knell.
Sue - Jun 16, 2005 8:02:41 am PDT #3419 of 10003
hip deep in pie
But it does sound like an early death knell.
I have to admit that I bought an enlarger a fwe years ago, and I have never used it, because I don't have a suitable set-up and I'm leery of the chemicals.
§ ita § - Jun 16, 2005 8:09:26 am PDT #3420 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I am leery myself of running my own shop for the same reasons -- so I really need to sign up for a community college class or something so I can get back to it. I like the dark room.
NoiseDesign - Jun 16, 2005 8:24:15 am PDT #3421 of 10003
Our wings are not tired
I think the digitals would share lenses with more electronic SLR's than older manual SLR's
It is a bit tricky exactly which lenses, but typically as long as it's a lens than can work with the autofocus system then they transfer. Canon and Nikon digitals both do this. However since the CCD on the digital cameras is smaller than the 35mm film plate it has the effect of changing the working length of the lens. I think it's around a 1.5 conversion. So a 300mm lens becomes a 200mm.