In article <rihrmcl49ueigqlsp73j7lml8f1q1atn03@4ax.com>, not my real pseudonym
says...
>
>On 17 Jul 2017 22:41:09 GMT, "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> wrote:
>
>>Virtually all of the images posted on this NG are TOTALLY
>>USELESS due to their small size and resolution.
>>
>>Usenet could be an extremely valuable historical repository
>>if only the posters had an inkling of knowledge about image
>>processing.
>>
>>All images not in digital format should be scanned in at
>>least 600 dpi. Anything less is, at best, a ludicrous joke.
>>
>>Sure, this will lead to large file sizes, but that issue is no
>>longer tenable, if it ever was tenable, on the contemporary
>>Internet.
>>
>>It sickens me to think of the gigabytes of visual information
>>that have been totally squandered due to a lack of competence
>>on the part of the poster. The argument that such posts are
>>"better than nothing" is a feeble argument in response.
>>
>>History cannot be adequately preserved with a "postage stamp"
>>image. All posters should educate themselves on proper digital
>>techniques or hire a competent consultant.
>>
>>I make no apologies for my roughness. History is far too important
>>to be entrusted to ignoramuses.
>
>By definition, a scanned image comes from a source that has already
>been preserved for history.
>
>If photographers wish to essentially donate their work into the public
>domain by posting full resolution originals, that is their choice,
>unwise as it may be.
>
>I don't recognize your nym as common here, much less attached to the
>type of posts you describe; thus your "roughness" carries very little
>weight.
"F. Russell" <fr@random.info That's just ole "Fabian" Russell...well known
screamer in comp.os.linux.advocacy comp.graphics.apps.gnuplot sci.physics
*
|
|