I missed this earlier, but yes, I still shoot film... The last one I
finished (in for development now) was a roll of the new(ish) Kodak Elite
Colour 400UC...
- T
On 9/27/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two Lawrence Livermore Labs. One is classified, the other
isn't. I believe it was done that way to confuse people...
I don't understand.
--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
--
You have to hold the button down -Arnold
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 9/27/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two Lawrence Livermore Labs. One is classified, the other
isn't. I believe it was done that way to confuse people...
I don't understand.
--
Scott Loveless
One LLL is the LL Rad Lab. I don't know what
keith_w wrote:
One LLL is the LL Rad Lab. I don't know what the other one is called.
The Rad Lab did all manner of weapons research, as I recall, and all
highly classified...
So let me get this straight. You know what they did in the top secret lab
but you have no idea what they did in the
Tom Reese wrote:
keith_w wrote:
One LLL is the LL Rad Lab. I don't know what the other one is called.
The Rad Lab did all manner of weapons research, as I recall, and all
highly classified...
So let me get this straight. You know what they did in the top secret lab
but you have no idea
Come on now, Keith, Scott was expressing confusion... English IS your
native language, isn't it?
Jokes and the Internet. If it is not idiotically childish no one gets it.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
keith_w wrote:
keith_w replied to me as follows:
Tom Reese wrote:
keith_w wrote:
One LLL is the LL Rad Lab. I don't know what the other one is called.
The Rad Lab did all manner of weapons research, as I recall, and all
highly classified...
So let me get this straight. You know what they did in
It's true, you can look it up.
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 9/27/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two Lawrence Livermore Labs. One is classified, the other
isn't. I believe it was done that way to confuse people...
I don't understand.
--
Scott Loveless
That's part of the beauty of it. If you're a spy, you know what they're
doing in the classified lab, but not the details.
You have no idea what they're doing in the unclassified lab, so you
spend all your time trying to find out...
(Ok, so that's not exactly correct, but, it's still funny).
In a message dated 9/28/2005 4:56:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One LLL is the LL Rad Lab. I don't know what the other one is called.
The Rad Lab did all manner of weapons research, as I recall, and all
highly classified...
keith whaley
Now they claim they
graywolf wrote:
Come on now, Keith, Scott was expressing confusion... English IS your
native language, isn't it?
I know that, I _knew_ that, and yes.
WHy did you feel it was necessary to point it out to me. Did I miss
somethng here? I don't think I said anything to put him down or make fun
Tom Reese wrote:
keith_w replied to me as follows:
Tom Reese wrote:
keith_w wrote:
One LLL is the LL Rad Lab. I don't know what the other one is called.
The Rad Lab did all manner of weapons research, as I recall, and all
highly classified...
So let me get this straight. You know
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 04:55:25AM -0700, keith_w wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 9/27/05, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two Lawrence Livermore Labs. One is classified, the other
isn't. I believe it was done that way to confuse people...
I don't understand.
--
In a message dated 9/28/2005 12:38:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's just a separate section within the main Lab campus.
It's easy enough to spot - it's the part with razor wire
surrounding it, guard turrets at the corners (staffed by
guys who look link they have *no*
Gee, I thought that was all done in that non-existant town in Tennesee,
Oak Ridge.
I lived there for a while. They really do have gun towers where other
towns have welcome signs. The gun towers weren't manned at that time,
but I do wonder about now?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
I bought a scanner four years ago with the intention of scanning all my
slides. The job is barely started. I find scanning ONCE to be a major
headache. But I suppose it depends whether you are scanning one or two,
or thousands.
John
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 04:45:24 +0100, Rob Studdert
years ago. I get great scans by just pushing the button. I
don't think commercial operations can give me a better quality scan.
YMMV
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film?
On Sep 27, 2005, at 4:04 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
You'd be surprised at what you're missing ... but there's a difference
between a commercial service and those who provide truly high quality
scans made on top quality equipment.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller
I got tired of paying ever increasing prices for scans and bought
That's true, Shel. But finding someone who can actually produce great scans is
a problem for most of us. I tried a $100 drum scan from the top pro lab in this
area, and it was mediocre at best. A lot of correction was required. I'm
currently working on a project with a very good photo
On 27 Sep 2005 at 5:52, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
You'd be surprised at what you're missing ... but there's a difference
between a commercial service and those who provide truly high quality
scans made on top quality equipment.
True, pro-scans here off any type of gear are generally nothing to
With current true drum scanners (the Imacon ain't one of them) costing
between $35,000 and $80,000 the number of scans you can get at $45 each
is between about 80 and 1800. At the 80 figure many folks would probably
be better off buying, at the 1800 figure it would be a toss up.
One of the
Hi Paul ...
Your comment reminds me of the time I went into a highly-regarded
restaurant in St. Louis. I saw that there were some fish dishes on the
menu and I asked the waitress if they prepared fish well. She
enthusiastically replied that they sure did! When the fish arrived it
was terribly
A little town like Berkeley! Shel, you make it sound like some dorp in
the back of beyond. It is, I believe, one of the top university towns in a
country with reputedly the best universities in the world. It would be
surprising if it didn't have lots of wonderful things going for it.
John Forbes wrote:
A little town like Berkeley! Shel, you make it sound like some dorp
in the back of beyond. It is, I believe, one of the top university
towns in a country with reputedly the best universities in the world.
It would be surprising if it didn't have lots of wonderful
On 27/9/05, keith_w, discombobulated, unleashed:
It's a small university town, filled to the brim and overflowing, with
aged old hippies and *far* left liberal souls...
Isn't there a linear accelerator there? IIRC it runs across / under the
freeway? Going purely from memory of 30 years ago
Cotty wrote:
On 27/9/05, keith_w, discombobulated, unleashed:
It's a small university town, filled to the brim and overflowing, with
aged old hippies and *far* left liberal souls...
Isn't there a linear accelerator there? IIRC it runs across / under the
freeway? Going purely from memory
True ... but it ~is~ a small town, both in terms of area and in population.
However, it has some of the best restaurants in the San Francisco area, a
wonderfully diverse population, a deep cultural life, a large number of
theaters, a great university, some wonderful social aspects, art everywhere
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:42:24PM +0100, Cotty wrote:
On 27/9/05, keith_w, discombobulated, unleashed:
It's a small university town, filled to the brim and overflowing, with
aged old hippies and *far* left liberal souls...
Isn't there a linear accelerator there? IIRC it runs across /
In a message dated 9/27/2005 2:56:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think there is one, 10 to 15 miles south, and a tiny bit east of the
north-south peninsular freeway, behind some of the ubiquitous hills...
I drove by there, northbound, some couple of years ago, and ss I
True ... but it ~is~ a small town, both in terms of area and in population.
However, it has some of the best restaurants in the San Francisco area, a
wonderfully diverse population, a deep cultural life, a large number of
theaters, a great university, some wonderful social aspects, art everywhere
Returning to the question: well, some people do but not me.
Just thought I'd throw that in there to quiet down the political
scientists.
Godfrey
In a message dated 9/27/2005 5:33:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True ... but it ~is~ a small town, both in terms of area and in population.
However, it has some of the best restaurants in the San Francisco area, a
wonderfully diverse population, a deep cultural life, a
When moving back to the SF Bay Area from Pasadena in 1988, I asked a
friend who lived in Berkeley whether it would be a good place to look
into as I was going to be working in San Leandro, just a few miles
south. His response was classic: Well, anyone who lives in Berkeley
goes to San
There are two Lawrence Livermore Labs. One is classified, the other
isn't. I believe it was done that way to confuse people...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/27/2005 2:56:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think there is one, 10 to 15 miles south, and a
On 27/9/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
You're thinking of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,
which is in Palo Alto (as is Stanford), not Berkeley.
It does indeed run under 280, and can (briefly) bee seen
from the freeway. It's not particularly impressive from
the outside,
On 27/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I was going to be working in San Leandro
Hey Godders, when I was but a lad, we sailed from there many a weekend.
My dad built a 23 foot sloop and it was berthed at San Leandro. Sometimes
we would make Angel Island and stay til Sunday
Now the world does! :)
Tom C.
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film?
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 05:17:01 +0100
On 27/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I was going
On Sep 28, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
You'd be surprised at what you're missing ... but there's a difference
between a commercial service and those who provide truly high
quality
scans made on top quality equipment.
Which is exactly what I meant... under the assumption that a
On 25/9/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I feel an ill wind blowing. I just hope this thread isn't included in
my promise not to respond to the idiotic threads regarding lens
compatibility any longer or I'll owe Cotty a pint.
VERDICT, oops I mean: Verdict - -
One pint and
September 2005 3:25 AM
To: John Forbes
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film?
I concur. My two *istD bodies have a combined total of around 40,000
images. Neither one has had a hiccup through the entire time. That is
about 1,100 rolls of film. Far more wear and tear than I ever put on my
film
I shot two rolls of slide film the other day using my LX and underused
35-105 lens. i had a wonderful time and am looking forward to seeing
the results. I had the ist D along for the ride but only shot three
shots with it...
Vic
On 26-Sep-05, at 3:01 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 25/9/05, Godfrey
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/09/26 Mon AM 02:02:51 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: anybody still shoot film?
Theoretically yes, practically no. Unless like others have said you can
afford
to buy a 12000 dpi drum scanner or alternately afford to pay ~US
On Sep 26, 2005, at 6:21 AM, mike wilson wrote:
Theoretically yes, practically no. Unless like others have said
you can afford
to buy a 12000 dpi drum scanner or alternately afford to pay ~US
$50 per scan
for the privilege. And then it wouldn't be usable unless all
colour/level/gamma
Resolution is not the only thing. Check out the link I posted
previously. The Imacon scan was done at 3600ppi and the drum scan at
2400ppi. The drum scan was indubitably better even on the monitor at
reduced size.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~diax/pages/mamiya_boot_scan_compare.html#
so folks won't
On Sep 26, 2005, at 7:43 AM, graywolf wrote:
Resolution is not the only thing. Check out the link I posted
previously. The Imacon scan was done at 3600ppi and the drum scan
at 2400ppi. The drum scan was indubitably better even on the
monitor at reduced size.
On 26 Sep 2005 at 13:21, mike wilson wrote:
This is what I find paradoxical about the whole digital revolution. On one
hand, there are statements like the above - 12,000dpi to extract anything like
the full information from a 35mm frame. On the other, there are the 6mp is
enough brigade.
On Sep 24, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
You'll have to forgive us, some here have been scanning personally and
professionally for well over ten years. I myself am up to my 5th film
scanner
purchase (current is LS-8000) and my first film scans date back well
over ten
years.
As
On 26 Sep 2005 at 23:41, Patrick Pritchard wrote:
As have I. But scanning *twice* is not really a problem, which is what
was implied by the original follow-up.
Maybe I spend too much time cleaning and positioning my films and spotting my
scans, not something I wish to do twice if at all
On Sep 27, 2005, at 4:04 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Yes, a high end scanner like the Imacon does a better job. If I
could afford one, I'd buy it.
If I had the money for an Imacon or a decent drum scanner, I still
wouldn't buy one.
I'd use a scanning service and pay a trained,
G'day All.
I have stayed with film for the time being.
The PZ-1p is super reliable even if it's hard on batteries.
From the traffic on this forum about *ist D body malfunctions, I am
holding off of investing in Pentax Digital SLR.
I don't have the Dollars to throw at a Digital or the patience for
On Sep 24, 2005, at 7:31 PM, Peter Jordan wrote:
Call me a luddite if you will, but every time I see a bright, sharp
set of Velvia trannys from my LX or 645 I am convinced that as far
as image quality goes, film still rules.
I know how you feel (except the Velvia thing). Nothing beats
On Sep 25, 2005, at 6:57 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I am choking at the possibility of scanning once. You are planning
to scan twice?
I'm on my third round of some stuff.
My first film scanner was an Agfa Arcus 1200 which goes up to
1200ppi. I wanted something affordable that could
Trevor,
The majority of people on this list would now appear to be shooting
digital, so most reports of camera malfunctions will concern digitals.
Furthermore, digital malfunctions are newsworthy, whilst film camera
malfunctions are not. I bet we've heard from every DSLR-owner whose
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all you're
doing is resolving more emulsion defects too. At 2820ppi, I can see
the grain clearly in ASA 100 film. Most of the benefit from 3000 ppi
upwards is in grain imaging, rather than
John Forbes wrote:
The majority of people on this list would now appear to be
shooting digital, so most reports of camera malfunctions will
concern digitals.
To be honest, I've been stunned at how quickly this list went from
predominantly film users to digital. Despite happily waiting for
On 9/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still shootin' film, and nothing but.
Oh I beg to differ Knarf, I personally saw you burn some pixels @ GFM.
Oh yeah...
Forgot about that. Well, that was with a borrowed camera, so it
doesn't count, does it? vbg
I suppose, to be
On 9/24/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you were female I'd marry you.
If you were a female, I'd run real fast in the other direction.
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Frank Theriault showed how cruel and insensitive he is when he wrote:
On 9/24/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you were female I'd marry you.
If you were a female, I'd run real fast in the other direction.
That would hurt my feeling if I had one.
You run real fast? HAR! You're
On 9/25/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would hurt my feeling if I had one.
You run real fast? HAR! You're so old they'd time your hundred yard dash
with a calendar.
Okay, I'd cycle real fast, how's that. (you're right, BTW, I can't
run worth a crap).
cheers,
frank, who know
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On 24 Sep 2005 at 22:16, Patrick Pritchard wrote:
Not at the same time. I'm simply pointing out a fact: if you buy a
DSLR now, you are locked down to that DPI, regardless of what comes
out in the future.
There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all
I'm both touched and very worried!
- Original Message -
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film?
Peter Jordan wrote:
Call me a luddite if you will, but every time I see
On 9/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
knarf wrote:
I'm still shootin' film, and nothing but.
Oh I beg to differ Knarf, I personally saw you burn some pixels @ GFM.
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/gfm0529.htm
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
I concur. My two *istD bodies have a combined total of around 40,000
images. Neither one has had a hiccup through the entire time. That
is about 1,100 rolls of film. Far more wear and tear than I ever put
on my film bodies. You may ask why so many images - the ability to
shoot speculation
- Original Message -
From: Peter Jordan
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film?
I'm both touched and very worried!
Just make sure the white dress is in his size, not yours.
WW
On Sep 25, 2005, at 9:14 AM, mike wilson wrote:
There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all
you're doing is resolving more emulsion defects too. At 2820ppi,
I can see the grain clearly in ASA 100 film. Most of the benefit
from 3000 ppi upwards is in grain imaging,
On 9/25/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/gfm0529.htm
Damn you, Roberts!! LOL
(actually, that was a really fun hike, although right around that
point a was about to soil my undies, because here's where you were
standing when you took the pic,
Sunday, September 25, 2005, 8:58:31 PM, Godfrey wrote:
GD On Sep 25, 2005, at 9:14 AM, mike wilson wrote:
There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all
you're doing is resolving more emulsion defects too. At 2820ppi,
I can see the grain clearly in ASA 100 film. Most of
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at 9:14 AM, mike wilson wrote:
There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all
you're doing is resolving more emulsion defects too. At 2820ppi, I
can see the grain clearly in ASA 100 film. Most of the benefit
from 3000 ppi
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/25/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/gfm0529.htm
Damn you, Roberts!! LOL
(actually, that was a really fun hike, although right around that
point a was about to soil my undies, because here's where you
Well, anyone with an Imacon just send it to me. You just heard from two
experts it is worthless.
GRIN
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There comes a point
Well, in order to avoid grain aliasing, which is what you are most
probably seeing in 2800 DPI scans, you would have to sample at a
higher DPI. That said, I have seen grain aliasing at 4000 DPI with
most films, which is the highest I have scanned a neg :-( Even though
about all the film detail
On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:29 PM, graywolf wrote:
Well, anyone with an Imacon just send it to me. You just heard from
two experts it is worthless.
Who were they?
The real value of an Imacon scanner is not necessarily its high
resolution but its tonal capture, which is very very good.
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:29 PM, graywolf wrote:
Well, anyone with an Imacon just send it to me. You just heard from
two experts it is worthless.
Who were they?
The real value of an Imacon scanner is not necessarily its high
resolution but its tonal
You're insane, I say that, knowing I'm not particularly afraid of
heights, with the utmost respect.
Mark Roberts wrote:
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/25/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/gfm0529.htm
Damn you,
GD Please show me what you interpret as grain aliasing. I've been
GD scanning everything from Tech pan to Tri-X pushed to ISO 1600 for
GD many years. What I interpret as grain aliasing with grainy films (
GD ASA 100) is non-existent at 4000 ppi, I see no grain aliasing with
GD ASA 25-100
On Sep 25, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Frantisek wrote:
GD Please show me what you interpret as grain aliasing. I've been
GD scanning everything from Tech pan to Tri-X pushed to ISO 1600 for
GD many years. What I interpret as grain aliasing with grainy
films (
GD ASA 100) is non-existent at 4000 ppi,
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're insane, I say that, knowing I'm not particularly afraid of
heights, with the utmost respect.
Aw shucks, you guys say the nicest things...
Looking at these photos has made me realize just how beautiful that part
of the country is. Making me start
Three of the best scanning pros in the Berkeley area almost always scan at
more than 4000ppi. Kevin, the one I work closest with, has found that for
his setup 5800ppi is about ideal in most situations. Rob over at the
Lightroom scans at about the same resolution for the most part. Both, of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3434063
What was that, like about a thousand foot drop?
You be the judge. Here's a shot I took from that position:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/gfm0527.htm
You're both nuts.
No fair. You've
On Sep 25, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
... The Minoltas, Nikons, Epson, Canons, and whatnot
that most people use are far from high quality, imo. ...
There I agree with you, and my statements are made based on what I
see as output from these scanners, which are affordable and
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at 9:14 AM, mike wilson wrote:
There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all
you're doing is resolving more emulsion defects too. At 2820ppi, I
can see the grain clearly in ASA 100 film. Most of the benefit from
3000 ppi upwards
On 9/25/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/25/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/gfm0529.htm
Damn you, Roberts!! LOL
(actually, that was a really fun hike, although right around that
Mike, you do talk rubbish at times. :-) The grain is NOT the photograph,
in any practical sense. If it were, why would film manufacturers seek to
reduce grain?
John
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:44:19 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at
I think they are trying to reduce noticeable grain. Creating a smoother
image.
John Forbes wrote:
Mike, you do talk rubbish at times. :-) The grain is NOT the
photograph, in any practical sense. If it were, why would film
manufacturers seek to reduce grain?
John
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005
On 25 Sep 2005 at 12:33, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
There comes a point when increasing scan resolution that image
quality does not improve but the grain becomes more apparent. Keeping
scan resolution just under that point is my goal, because otherwise
the grain's appearance starts to
On 25 Sep 2005 at 22:44, mike wilson wrote:
The grain is the photograph. Therefore, anything that improves the
grain image improves the picture quality.
Only if you wish to purposefully reproduce the grain by digital means.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:27:39 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
y http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3434063
What was that, like about a thousand foot drop?
You be the judge. Here's a shot I took from that position:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/gfm0527.htm
You're both nuts.
I suppose, to be more accurate, what I meant was, all of my equipment
is film, or something like that.
Ah, now your secret is out. the rest of us use cameras. ;)
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film
John Forbes wrote:
Mike, you do talk rubbish at times. :-) The grain is NOT the
photograph, in any practical sense. If it were, why would film
manufacturers seek to reduce grain?
To change certain aspects of the photograph. What is it made of, if not
the grain?
John
On Sun, 25
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 25 Sep 2005 at 22:44, mike wilson wrote:
The grain is the photograph. Therefore, anything that improves the
grain image improves the picture quality.
Only if you wish to purposefully reproduce the grain by digital means.
Until you can, the digital output is not a
On 26 Sep 2005 at 0:48, mike wilson wrote:
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 25 Sep 2005 at 22:44, mike wilson wrote:
The grain is the photograph. Therefore, anything that improves the
grain image improves the picture quality.
Only if you wish to purposefully reproduce the grain by
theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still shootin' film, and nothing but.
Oh I beg to differ Knarf, I personally saw you burn some pixels @ GFM.
Oh yeah...
Forgot about that. Well
At 2:27 PM -0700 9/25/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
... The Minoltas, Nikons, Epson, Canons, and whatnot
that most people use are far from high quality, imo. ...
There I agree with you, and my statements are made based on what I
see as output
An interesting comparison can bee seen at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~diax/pages/mamiya_boot_scan_compare.html#
Click on the Imacon scanned image to see the drum scanned version. Go
back a page to see the scanned Mamiya 7 slide vs. a Nikon D2X digital shot.
A note on Shel's post the Heidelberg
Sorry here is the link to the main article, no way to go back from the
scanner comparison page:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~diax/pages/start_mamiya_nikon_uk.html
An interesting comparison can bee seen at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~diax/pages/mamiya_boot_scan_compare.html#
Click on the Imacon
, September 25, 2005 8:03 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film?
On 26 Sep 2005 at 0:48, mike wilson wrote:
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 25 Sep 2005 at 22:44, mike wilson wrote:
The grain is the photograph. Therefore, anything that improves the
grain image
On Sep 25, 2005, at 4:48 PM, mike wilson wrote:
The grain is the photograph. Therefore, anything that improves
the grain image improves the picture quality.
Only if you wish to purposefully reproduce the grain by digital
means.
Until you can, the digital output is not a faithful
On Sep 25, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Steve Sharpe wrote:
I am considering a scanner to do my 645 negs and slides. Is there
anything out there that can do a half decent job for less than
$500? I'd be looking for something that would allow me to make a
decent 8X10. I've been looking at Epson's 4490
On 25 Sep 2005 at 21:05, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
This is beyond my understanding.
The purpose of scanning is to create
a digital representation that
ACCURATELY shows exactly whats
on the negative and if grain
is there then it not only should
resolve the grain, it should resolve
well beyond
? --- because I DO.
jco
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:33 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: anybody still shoot film?
On 25 Sep 2005 at 21:05, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
This is beyond my understanding.
The purpose
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
