If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
"Julian Barkway" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" spake thusly to the assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation: But jjs is right: Fuji 645s are expensive. You'll look at the slides from it, and they'll look sharp. You'll pull out your best loupe, and they'll still look sharp. You'll put one under a 60x microscope, and it'll still be sharp. And then you'll by a Nikon 8000 or 9000, since that's the only way you can get the detail off the slides. a) Assuming you want to scan the shots in the first place and I do: don't have space for a darkroom, and wouldn't want to do color chemistry even if I did. And photography is about making one's own prints. b) assuming one of the more recent flatbeds doesn't actually meet your requirements... Tried that. Not even close. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
Bob Monaghan wrote:
Hi Stacey! yes, some years ago PopPhoto reviewed the available P&S 35mm cameras, and was surprised to discover the Olympus stylus with the fixed f/2.8 35mm lens outperformed many of the competitors at two or more times the price ;-) Lots of features too, for a $75-ish camera NIB ;-) The nice thing is it doesn't have an f10+ zoom that forces you to use 800 asa film. -- Stacey |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
"David J. Littleboy" spake thusly to the assembled
multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation: a) Assuming you want to scan the shots in the first place and I do: don't have space for a darkroom, and wouldn't want to do color chemistry even if I did. And photography is about making one's own prints. b) assuming one of the more recent flatbeds doesn't actually meet your requirements... Tried that. Not even close. Now I'm curious. Which one did you try? Looking through the various photo review sites, I'd say the latest hi-res flatbeds are catching up fast... -- | Julian Barkway, |"In the US, irony is a mark left on your clothes by | | Zurich, | a bad laundry service." - David Kennedy | | Switzerland +------------------+---------------------------------+ | | (Hint: Capitals are out...) | |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
David J. Littleboy wrote:
And then you'll by a Nikon 8000 or 9000, since that's the only way you can get the detail off the slides. If you shoot slide film to scan digitally. You and a few others assume because y'all do this, it's the only way to process film. -- Stacey |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
"Stacey" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: And then you'll by a Nikon 8000 or 9000, since that's the only way you can get the detail off the slides. If you shoot slide film to scan digitally. You and a few others assume because y'all do this, it's the only way to process film. We don't assume anything, we know that it's the best way to print color film. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
"jjs" wrote in message
... First, to put this On Topic: my wife and I are traveling very light on a cross-country trip, and I'm taking my SWC and Zeiss Ikonta 645 folder. But for her... The years haven't been kind to the eyes and she can't use the Olympus Pen-F anymore. She's looking for a point-n-shoot. Got any recommendations? Digital is okay, too. I just don't know squat about the little cameras. Suggestions would be very much appreciated. I assume the problem with the Pen F SLR is not the viewfinder per se, but using it to focus? In that case, does the answer have to be AF, or is a rangefinder going to be OK? Also, what sort of lens is she after - ie. did she use a number of lenses on the Peb F, or just one? If a number, most P&S answers are going to be a zoom - which probably means (very) slow at the long end. My own favourite is a Ricoh GR1, but these have just gone out of production. This is a 28mm f2.8. Lots of used options on the rangefinder front too - a Canonet or an Olympus RD would be attractive possibilities. Peter |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Stacey" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: And then you'll by a Nikon 8000 or 9000, since that's the only way you can get the detail off the slides. If you shoot slide film to scan digitally. You and a few others assume because y'all do this, it's the only way to process film. We don't assume anything, we know that it's the best way to print color film. Your opinion.. When was the last time you printed color film in your home darkroom? As I recall you didn't know what RA-4 even means! Doesn't sound like to me you have much experience with wet darkroom work, not enough to make such a blanket statement. Just because your digital darkroom seems -easier- to you, doesn't mean the results are better. -- Stacey |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
"Stacey" wrote in message
... David J. Littleboy wrote: "Stacey" wrote: David J. Littleboy wrote: And then you'll by a Nikon 8000 or 9000, since that's the only way you can get the detail off the slides. If you shoot slide film to scan digitally. You and a few others assume because y'all do this, it's the only way to process film. We don't assume anything, we know that it's the best way to print color film. Your opinion.. When was the last time you printed color film in your home darkroom? As I recall you didn't know what RA-4 even means! Doesn't sound like to me you have much experience with wet darkroom work, not enough to make such a blanket statement. Just because your digital darkroom seems -easier- to you, doesn't mean the results are better. It's really no contest, Stacey. There's a reason why wet labs are all switching to digital. You can't beat it for spotting, color corrections, and tone mainipulations, let alone compositing and other garbage effects. The valid reason for concern is longevity, although even RA3 and 'Chromes are notoriously short lived. Even that isn't worthy of debate; we only have to wait ten years to see for ourselves. All that used darkroom equipment is coming from somewhere, and it's not Uncle Joe deciding to finally clean out his garage. Wet labs are going digital, or going under. I picked up an Omega D5 for next to nothing. Only hobbyists have the time to make wet prints these days. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
On Thu, 20 May 2004 07:20:47 GMT, "MikeWhy"
wrote: It's really no contest, Stacey. There's a reason why wet labs are all switching to digital. You can't beat it for spotting, color corrections, and tone mainipulations, let alone compositing and other garbage effects. The valid reason for concern is longevity, although even RA3 and 'Chromes are notoriously short lived. Even that isn't worthy of debate; we only have to wait ten years to see for ourselves. All that used darkroom equipment is coming from somewhere, and it's not Uncle Joe deciding to finally clean out his garage. Wet labs are going digital, or going under. I picked up an Omega D5 for next to nothing. Only hobbyists have the time to make wet prints these days. Yes, that's been my experience here in the western burbs of Boston also. I'm not sure who does optical photo prints any more. I think I've shown on my "scan comparison" site that a good film scan holds its own against optical prints made with moderate skill in a home darkroom. I will cede one point to the Luddites, however, having recently suffered a costly hard drive failure. Guard your data, back it up frequently. Film degrades slowly and somewhat gracefully, but digital data can disappear instantly and without warning. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com scan comparisons http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OT but still photography
In article ,
"MikeWhy" wrote: It's really no contest, Stacey. There's a reason why wet labs are all switching to digital. You can't beat it for spotting, color corrections, and tone mainipulations, let alone compositing and other garbage effects. The valid reason for concern is longevity, although even RA3 and 'Chromes are notoriously short lived. Even that isn't worthy of debate; we only have to wait ten years to see for ourselves. RA4? What the hell is RA3? Chromes? Like Ciba? or E6? WTF are you spewing. I can understand the spoting part, but the sharpness is relative and usually a wet print, imaged optically wins,.....(this comming from alot printing experience - 22 years) All that used darkroom equipment is coming from somewhere, and it's not Uncle Joe deciding to finally clean out his garage. Alot of it is coming from semi pro; meets the ultra fast processing world of less than resolute,.... stay alive in the world of competive photo business. Wet labs are going digital, or going under. I picked up an Omega D5 for next to nothing. Only hobbyists have the time to make wet prints these days. Most good "wetlabs" retain the old and buy into the new.. My lab one of the biggest in Balt, does both. Maybe that will have to change but the same papers are used for both,.......the issue I see happening will be where to get chemistry,...not paper. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Digital Photography Community Forum Announcement | George | Digital Photography | 1 | June 24th 04 06:14 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
TheFAB Fine Art Photography Board is now open | SP | Advanced Photography | 0 | January 3rd 04 04:34 AM |
The Photography Questions | Tony Spadaro | APS Photographic Equipment | 0 | November 17th 03 06:32 AM |