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

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

"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...) |

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

"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

"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

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

"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.

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/

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.