pics

<p>Looks like he has some other very interesting articles on there as well. Thanks for the link.</p>

<p>Jeff, I'm not sure what that photo illustrates other than the ability to make photos with film that are soft, blurry and have weird color shifts. I wasn't saying it was impossible to do so, rather that it's not indicative of a universal look film is known for. </p>

<p>Like what others have mentioned above, what passes as a "film look" today is largely the interpretation of people who have never shot much film with the intention of extracting the levels of quality it is capable of. Soft and grainy with significant evidence of defects is far from what experienced people were achieving with film at it's peak. While each film stock does have a different look to it, Fuji and Kodak went to extraordinary lengths to make results results as clinical and predictable as possible. Only in the last several years has the "film look" come to be defined as soft, unsharp with wacky and inconsistent color shifts. This is either due to lack of knowledge, the use of seriously low quality off-brand film, or an effort at artistic expression that purposefully utilizes film in a way that reduces its quality. In the past, that look would have been evidence of a significant mistake on the part of the shooter or some seriously defective film that would have been returned for a refund.</p>

<p>It's also very possible that the poster is a member of various groups (digital and film) and while uploading the photo to different groups he accidentally clicked on one of the wrong groups on his list. I've done it before myself. Since they didn't try to hide the fact that it was a photo made with a digital camera I imagine that is the most plausible reason. It's also possible that they used a Sony digital camera to capture an image of a print or as a "scanner" for a film negative.</p>

<p>"While they may not have the output of a strobe, we don't necessarily need that much output with modern cameras."</p> <p>The ability to overpower the sun is an important factor of an artificial light source for many photographers. The high ISO capabilities of modern cameras don't come into play in this area. Continuous light sources (LED or otherwise) range from not ideal to totally inadequate for outdoor bright sunlight shooting. They also obviously lack the action stopping capabilities that many people look for in strobes. By and large the rise of LED lighting is due to the increased interest in the video side of things. Of course they can be adapted for various still photography projects (studio portraiture etc.), but for most people they aren't going to be a replacement for strobes.</p>

<p>As someone who used to print frequently in the darkroom, home inkjet printing was something I researched quite a bit and was eager to get into. 7 years later and I have yet to give it a go. For every person who has had zero problems with their Epson there seem to be one or two others who have it clog up after sitting idle for more than a week. Even less enticing is that the remedy seems to be for printers to waste copious amounts of expensive ink to "heal" themselves. Of all the things digital has revolutionized (technologically speaking), home inkjet printing is seriously lagging in my mind. For the infrequent amount of printing I do they seem like temperamental money pits. I send my files out when I need prints.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I'm reasonably certain that Nikon knows enough not to design a camera like this so I doubt this issue is a design problem but rather a quality control problem at the factory. If it is only happening on certain cameras then it means D750s are leaving the factory with AF sensors that are being recessed to varying depths within the body. I'm not an engineer but to me this indicates some sloppiness in the assembly and manufacturing phase. Telling people to use a lens hood is a little weak if you ask me. Hopefully they get to the bottom of the issue quickly because whether the criticism is warranted or not, the perception is growing that it is best to avoid first releases of Nikon equipment. My theory is that these issues have become more prevalent as they increasingly began moving more production/manufacturing out of Japan to other countries but I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that.</p>

<p>Cholla Cactus in Joshua Tree National Park</p><div></div>

<p>From Joshua Tree National Park</p><div></div>

<p>One thing I also use to do is to use clips to hang the negative strips at a 45 degree angle instead of straight up and down. Rather than the water running down the entire length of the film where it can dry out and leave drops during its long trip to the end of the roll, it quickly travels to the edge (out of the image area) and travels to the end of the strip out of harms way.</p>

<p>I also understand your points Alex. Leica is certainly competent in the optics/precision machining field, but I'm not so sure about their digital technology competence. As far as I know they have never produced the sensors for any of their digital cameras and have relied on outside firms for that.</p> <p>Even if they do have the ability to do it I don't see it happening for many reasons. As you mention, there is a demand for film scanners, but in my opinion there is not a large demand for the type you mention. As with many things regarding film nowadays, a large chunk of the new found enthusiasm seems to be from a younger crowd who grew up with digital and are enamored by the "old school" technology. They usually don't buy new expensive film cameras either and I wouldn't be surprised if the last Nikon F6 was made years ago but the surplus is sitting in a warehouse somewhere selling slowly over time. Generally they seem to be ecstatic just to have any image appear on the negatives period. Odd/wonky colors effects shot on low quality film that would have been considered defective or representative of poor technique years ago are in style now. It seems to be more about the culture and making a statement rather than extracting the highest level of quality out of excellent film that has decades of development behind it from companies like Fuji and Kodak. Any old flat bed scanner will do for them as there is little point in a high end scanner to work with negatives that look as if they were shot out of a Holga.</p> <p>I don't know how many film scanners B+H sells at any given price point, but I imagine that if the demand was high enough to justify producing something like the defunct Coolscans (at a profit mind you), Nikon wouldn't have stopped making them (or another company would have filled the gap). I just think that people such as yourself who shoot film with the idea of producing a high quality/resolution final product, and are willing to pay $4K for a scanner to do so, are few and far between. The handful whose livelihoods depend on it fill the market for the $20K Flextight scanners I suppose. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot medium format film on occasion and would love to have something like you mention, but sadly I think its time has passed.</p>

<p>I think it would be difficult for a company like Leica to produce them at a price point that would sell in large enough numbers to generate even a small profit. Certain components they could design and produce in house, but I actually think there are quite a few things about digital scanning technology that Leica doesn't have any expertise in and would have to be sourced from outside companies. In the end I think it's mostly a dead market regarding the demand for high end consumer film scanners. Such machines were in demand when there were a decent number of pros and experienced amateurs shooting a hybrid workflow during the film to digital transition years, but most of them have moved on to 100% digital now. The vast majority of the remaining people in the market for film scanners today are average folks who want to digitize old family negatives they found in the attic. A low to mid-range flatbed gives them acceptable and affordable quality for such a purpose and I know very few people who even own one of those.</p>

<p>Another shot near the Salton Sea.</p><div></div>

<p>Lil Judd,<br /> Yes its a great place to shoot although the area is a sad ecological disaster due to pollution and a shrinking shoreline from the lack of water running into it these days. It's pretty popular destination for bird watchers this time of year though</p>