No, the best way is to project it. That is how slides were meant
to be seen, just like movies. After all, 35 mm photography originally
used leftover 35mm movie film.
Another way is to dupe the slides by copying them onto print film.
Vericolor was the standard for that, but I found that Ektar was
.> Even then, it doesn't match the
That is one of the reasons (cost) why most amateurs I know shot slides
before converting to digital. Much cheaper than prints.
For 4 x 6 I had good results duping kodachrome slides onto Ektar
25 using a slide copier. No more Ektar though.
For black and white, I doubt that digital can hold a candle
to 2415 developed in Technidol.
But in terms of throughput, there is no doubt that you can
crank out hardcopy fast with digital, and for a low unit
cost too, after the equipment is paid for.
Those are factors I refer to as convenience, as opposed
Folks at my photo club typically project their images to show
them to the club. Compared to Kodachorme slides, the
digital slides are dull as dirt.
Yes. Once you've bought the equipment, you shoot a crapload
of photos cheap with digital.
Most amateurs around here shot negative film, but, then, it sometimes
seems as if shooting half a roll and leaving it in the camera a year
or two was the norm. Most of my editors, those who wanted color in
those days, wanted transparencies.
I'm trying to remember the ASA of 2415. I used to have charts on all
of those, but they went along with the darkroom gear.
Shouldn't be. They won't be as good as Kodachrome, but...
In constant dollars, the $722 I paid for a Pentax K10D body last year
is well under what I paid for a Canon F1 in '70 or '71. In fact, so is
the price of today's K20D, currently at around $1,200 street. My *istD
cost, IIRC, about $1,700 someting like four years ago, but with a
16-45 lens that was pretty decent. If you jump on the top of the line
Canon offering today, the body costs about $8,000. That's probably
double what the F1 cost (I seem to have $415 banging around in my
memory, which may or may not be true) in constant bucks, but you also
don't have to worry about a bulk back and a motor drive, so, again,
digital is little more, if any, expensive even for the high end
gear...until you get into Hasselblads and Phase 1 backs, where it gets
rough enough to scare even GWB. I had both the bulk back and motor
drive eventually, but hated to use the back because it was so bulky
and added a loss of balance as well as weight. The motor drive was
fast enough to create a problem with rolls of film. Something under 10
seconds and reload. So it wasn't worth much without the back.
Loved that camera, got some great shots with it, but I don't miss ANY
Why always such a potty mouth? The term 'prosumer' was coined
years ago to signify equipment that lives at the high end of
consumer and/or at the low end of pro gear. It is the best of
former and the entry level of the later.
And every pro uses only 22Mp? I don't think so. Nikon's highend
full frame CCD camera (D3) is only 12Mp. Only Canon has a 22Mp
camera in DSLR format ... well, that's not quite right if you
consider the new Hasselblad.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
I hope the term dies away quickly.
Equipment is neither amateur nor professional. Marketing
terms (by intent) don't convey the information about features
that a purchaser needs and merely cloud the issue.
E.g. what is an amateur table saw, a professional table saw,
a semi-professional table saw or a 'prosumer' table saw?
Prosumer. The term was originally applied to what are now called
bridge cameras. (I agree: it made my skin crawl the first time I heard
it, and still does.) Oddly enough, no one makes them any more because
standard point & shoot digitals have caught up on some of the
features, and low end DSLRs have dropped in price to the point where
the "prosumer" is outmoded. I paid just under $1,000 about six or
seven years ago for a Minolta D7i 5 MP prosumer. I did two books with
that, and a couple of articles, but I was never happy with it--try
shooting a horse race with a camera that has the kind of shutter lag
P&S digitals are famous for. Car races are nearly impossible. So I
went to a Pentax *istD, not quite five years ago.It is a 6 MP, but can
turn out super 20x30 prints every time I get it right. I'm using that
and a K10D now, with a 10 MP sensor, which has been the main shooting
camera for my new book. I hope by year's end to see what Pentax's K30D
is like. Currently, they have a 14 MP K20D as top of the line. I don't
expect the new CMOS sensor to be changed, but there are a couple of
features I'd like to see improve before I drop another $1,500 or so on
a camera body (the K20D has just now dropped to about $1,150 at top
dealers; the K10D is under $600 in some places, which means I may buy
a back-up K10D body and sell my *istD).
For my type of pro use, the advantages of digital are obvious. I shoot
some vintage sports car races; I shoot many cars, vintage, hot rod and
custom; I shoot woodworking in several forms. I also fool around and
shoot pleasure shots around here, though not as often as I'd like. I
doubt I'll ever be able to justify anything larger than a 14 MP
camera. That's an APS-C sensor, not 35mm full frame. The 21 and 22 MP
full frame sensors are far too costly for my work, as are most of the
Nikon and Canon offerings, though some of their bodies would do better
shooting races than either of my Pentaxes. Of course, I was shooting
motocross back around '70 or '71 with a Canon F1 35mm, mostly using a
Canon 135mm lens, and Tri-X pushed to 800 on dull days. I used a motor
drive and bulk back with some frequency, and often shot more than 500
frames on a weekend. Now, I go to a race and shoot about 1,200 frames
a day. I don't have to endure the red glow and hypo stink of a
darkroom, making my already sore knees hurt worse. It takes me less
time to process and examine 2,000 shots on-screen than it ever came
close to doing developing 500 shots and printing out 14 or 15 contact
sheets, which then had to be examined minutely to see what was and
wasn't sharp--no AF in those days--and then have prints made, and on.
Now, I sit here, pop the images up on a viewing program, delete those
that didn't work, convert those that did to JPEGs (about a half second
process), and type in a short caption. That goes on a DVD or CD and
goes to the publisher. The mailing cost today for 50 photos to one
publisher is just about the same as the mailing cost back then was for
50 5x7 and 8x10 photos, but the envelope's a lot smaller and lighter.
Oh, yeah. If I blow a shot, get it a couple, three stops off, I can
work with it in Photoshop or Paintshop Pro. It can nearly always be
saved. Same if the color is off.
Another point: my lead camera (a K10D) offers ISO speeds from 100 to
1600. I can change 'film' speed with just a quick twitch or two, and
save some scenes that might otherwise not be possible at all in 35mm.
My *istD offers ISO speeds from 200 to 3200. Some of the more costly
new cameras are said to offer speeds upwards of ISO 25,000.
Where did I state that every pro used a 21 or 22 MP camera? You made a
statement about a 10 MP being state of the art. That's nonsense. At
the moment, 21-22 MP is, in 35mm sized frame. APS-C champ is 14.2 MP
in the Pentax K20D. Medium format is about 39 MP, IIRC. AFAIK, only
Canon has bodies with sensors that exceed 20 MP. I'm not sure, why
Nikon chose to stop at 12, but I do know it has a 64 frame buffer, so
you can literally keep shooting until your card is full. Canon's big
shooter lets you change back to about a 12 MP level to get the immese
buffer. With a 16 GB card, that's a lot of shots. I get 976 raw+JPEG
out of my 10 MP Pentax. I don't bother to learn much more about
theCanons and Nikons, as they don't fit my plans, now or ever. They
are far too costly, and the lenses are almost as murderously expensive
as the bodies. Too, I'm still trying to figure out how they coordinate
the 51 AF points in the Nikon D3. Sometimes I wonder if maybe just
one easily movable point might not be better. Put it where you want
the focus and shoot. Startling. A great similarity to the old split
screen/microprism collar days, something I miss.
I dunno about the D3, but the D80 has the ability for you to decide
which of the focus points you want to emphasize (assuming you don't
want the camera to choose). You can also decide whether that
point is statically focused or whether the camera will follow
movement to keep a subject in focus as it moves across the frame
or you move the camera across the subject.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
As I'm tone deaf, I won't comment on music, except to say most of what
has come out since about '75 makes me cringe.
As far as photography goes, if the poster wanted to do a comparison,
he might well have considered size to size, instead of the age old
bullshit of taking a 4x5 view camera and expecting a much smaller
sensor to match it, then bitching when it doesn't. Those sensors more
than match 35mm, which is the intent. A scanning back comes close to
the 4x5 quality, but is even less portable and ain't quite there yet,
though probably 95% of studio photographers now use a Phase II back on
Hassleblads for their work.
Well I posted a long diatribe against his rant, and the webserver broke. :-)
Here's the short version of it:
Comparing *ANY* SLR to a view camera is pointless and misleading. Neither a
35mm SLR or a medium format SLR (or TLR) can compare to a view camera, and
it has nothing to do with digital vs. analog. In time it will be possible to
buy an affordable digital back for a 4x5 view camera, and life will go on.
Something I found telling about the article was that he was frustrated and
ready to give up on the computer as an editing tool, because after recently
getting into digital photography for the first time, he wasn't as competent
at it as he was after 30 years in the darkroom.
There's more crap out there in any field you could imagine, but there's
also probably more great stuff as well. There are talented artists and
musicians and writers and poets and craftsmen taking their fields in new
and interesting directions ALL THE TIME out there!
One thing to keep in mind: Cultural progress is a measure of the positive,
not the ratio between positive and negative. If the RIAA generates a
thousand Britney Spears clones, it won't change the fact that Sarah Slean
is out there, writing poetry and songs. Rocky LXVII, "Balboa Breaks Out"
won't diminish the impact of movies like Amelie, Howl's Moving Castle,
or (possibly) Pan's Labyrinth. Good is good, no matter how much bad there
is surrounding it.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.