Tree on Volcano Slope, 2004

and cloud-covered sky made for this high-contrast situation.

I like the angles, Steve! Makes it hard to figure where level should be. I see you're still shoot film on occasion, or maybe most of the time! :-)

By level do you mean ps level or horizon level?

 

Mostly film. I have an Olympus E-10 digital 4mp camera that has a great lens, but just don't like messing with batteries. I almost never use the lcd when I do use it; and when I do, I am always using up the battery. Prefer film, as I have a great digital film scanner and that makes all my cameras ultimately digital...

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

Oh, I meant horizon level, Steve. Very intriguing.

 

Know what you mean about batteries - same problem with my SONY DSC-F828 especially during winters. Have you played with newer DSLRs? They are much less troublesome. In fact, batteries have been completely transparent with the D70; I have a spare and never had to use it on outings of 500+ pictures.

What does DSLRs mean (Digital Single Lens Reflex?)?

 

I would like a D70, but with a 4000dpi Nikon scanner, my film cameras are all essentially digital and I like the look better than pure digital. I get grain and film effect and all the goodies with a film scanner that are missing with a DSLR?. Plus my wide-angle lenses are truly still wide-angle. As I understand the D70, a 35mm is more like a 50mm?

 

best wishes,

 

Steve

 

ps. regarding level in this photo. Good point. I believe this is accurate; that is based on slope of right hill. Feels right, I guess, from my memory.

That's right Steve (about the acronym), and the D70 does only use a portion of 35mm lenses giving a 1.5x equivalent length. I have the same issue with an old fisheye lens, fortunately extreme wide angles isn't one of my interests, yet.

 

I want to dig out my old FM every time after our little exchanges, but always put it back after thinking about the cost and hassles of processing and scanning - one does tend to get spoiled by the ability to shoot indiscriminantly. :-)

Are you saying the D70 only can use some Nikon lenses (not all). I know it can't use AIS or AI manual lenses. But, how 'bout auto-focus lenses, can it use all of them?

 

The trick to film and scanning is to have a fast and excellent quality scanner. Mine is a Nikon 4000ED. 4000dpi or 55mb-sized files in full resolution, often times seeing grain of film before pixalization. Takes one minute to scan a 1-pass image. About 5-minutes for 4-passes, which is what I usually use.

 

Ice and Gem are two nice features that get's rid of dust and auto compensates for any color and balance. Tri-x scans (b&w) has to be manually made dust-free. Otherwise, excellent digital gear!

 

Steve

Well, Steve, I'm using an older 35-135 1:3.5-4.5 AF that works just fine, so presumably others will as well. If you haven't read Ken Rockwell's in depth review of the D70 and D70s, it should answer all your questions. His site is quite content rich and worth poking around.

 

I've read good things about the 4000ED - sure beats my old Epson flatbed with a negative/slide adaptor! Who knows; I might just catch film fever and play a bit. :-)

Film was it until just a few years ago. My archives are only film. Many of the photos I have posted are from before digital existed as mainstream, thus a few of the past. Today's digital photos don't have history or are not history yet. Some day they will be, but film is all there was from the 90's and before.

 

I will check on the D70 site. I have actually held one and shot with it at the local photo store. I think they were on sale with lens for $999.00 not too long ago.

 

r,

 

Steve

I went to the D70 link you suggested. I went to this link from there. You might want to read it regarding film vs. digital. Interesting....

 

http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=Photo_Talk803&page=2

 

r,

 

Steve

I read that a while ago, Steve, also referred from Rockwell's site. It's what got me thinking about archiving my best shots on film (from digital files) but haven't gotten around to it, and your reminder has prompted my revisit of the matter.

 

I never placed much importance on technical issues such as resolution or sharpness, at least not beyond a certain minimum acceptable level. It's in part because (I think) these things can often be a fruitless quest for the holy grail which in itself is a constantly moving target, but more importantly, if one buys into it, one becomes set up for an exponential escalation in time and equipment costs which I'm not prepared for - being an amateur n' all.

 

I know the subject has been beaten to death many times, but I will say that if not aggressively enlarged, my prints have never received complaints (of technical issues) from the limited viewing by others. Mind you, these are mostly friends and family, but them's the folks I makes images for. :-)

You have some great photos. My read on that from the article would be that these "great" photos in order to be reproduced would need to have a minimum quality level to generate a proper print. It sounds as though you have met that level.

 

That said, the vast majority of my portfolio is save in original form first on negatives and then in the largest scan size of 4000dpi. should I ever get a request for a print, I guess I would be ready to create a large one.

 

The article was interesting. I know Margaret Meehan got a request to publish a photo, but I believe she told me that the publisher declined after seeing the photo was not large enough (pixels) to make it something they could use. She could possibly clarify if she reads this?

 

Anyway, keep on posting great photos.

 

r,

 

Steve

I must have heard you calling my name. :)) Yes, the file size was not large enough. Steve Hawk (formerly of Surfer Magazine) said his photo editors needed photos of much higher resolution than my little Canon digital can do. deep blue Since he was an editor and not a photographer, he did not realize this when he requested my photo for the book. But I still have the bragging rights. I am digressing to film, slowly, but loving every minute I get to spend on it.

I love the contrast in this photo Steve, and the angles of the hills. I want to straighten that main tree and make it go upright, also, but the rest of the trees and hills would then be all lying at an unusual angle. Interesting find and capture.

Been a while but I remember Margaret's Canon - some nice pictures came from that. I can also see why 1.3MPixel might not be adequate for book printing of reasonable size.

 

The whole business of the importance of serious resolution still isn't very clear to me, but I suspect pixel quality including color depth and a host of other factors matter a great deal to the perceived final print quality, in addition to subject matter. Many of my pictures are not tack-sharp by intent, thus more forgiving of software resampling (enlargement) for much bigger prints than the original file size might suggest possible, especially if there isn't a lot of detail to begin with.

 

I wonder how some pro cameras such as the Nikon D2Hs (4MP) fair on this issue - surely no pro would accept 5x7 maximum prints from these things.

 

Congratz, Margaret. Being asked is often more flattering regardless if it's carried through. :-)

Have a look at this, Steve. Quite interesting.

I have not read all of the above or the links. But yes, it is a matter of resolution. DSLRs with more mega pixels (higher resolution) are being used professionally. I think the Pros probably shoot in RAW format, as well. Photoshop as the darkroom is easier and less messy and smelly than wet darkrooms. Photoshopping is getting to be a whole profession of its own, just as printing is for the labs. Photoshopping extends to creating animations , fine art and graphics.

With regard to RAW format and how things are still evolving I found this an interesting read -- MS will be developing software to support RAW format in XP! RAW

I have printed out a few family shots larger than 5 x 7 and the people I have sent them to are quite pleased with the results on a 8 x 10 size - depending on the cropping I did - shot with my little 1.3 megapixel Canon. This is not a top of the line printer I use either, but I am not trying to do professional work. I have so much to learn yet. But the printers for digital are, of course, another profession, just as the labs are now for the analog cameras. Some of the labs do both - analog and digital. Labs to have black and white film developed are becoming more and more scarce. This arguement can go around and around in circles like a dog chasing its tail. I am pretty sure there is information in the forums here on this, but I have not delved into it since I was trying to figure out what scanner and printer I needed for my level of photography and the depth of my pockets. The lens and media for recording (CF Cards) for digital cameras are still evolving, also. So I am holding off for a while yet, before I go for a good DSLR - at my level of photography, of course. And then there is the matter of medium format and large format... on and on, and whatever rocks your boat!

Too much homework for me... ;-)

 

Read both links. Interesting that raw will be in the new OS from MS and that DX2 is quite the camera!

 

Maggie has a Hassy which I can't wait to see some results. The ultimate film camera and the envy of us old salts. Put that puppy to work eh MM?

 

Thanks for the comment on the crooked tree or hills or sky, I am not sure. The black ground is lava. I had no clue that the mountains north of Flagstaff were volcanic (and recent) in nature. Quite the site.

 

I am sticking to my film as long as the scanner keeps on ticking. I might throw in for a d70 Nikon or the next generation, but my F5 and F3HP and Leica work well for me. The above photo was from film and expressed itself adequataly I believe?

 

In any event, thanks for visiting....

 

Steve

sssshhhhh. :)) I did get my Holga going, but there is no worries about breaking it. Its great fun.

 

Got a new camera bag a few days ago.. for half price. woo hoo! Its a Lowepro top loader. My 35mm Canon and lens fit into it just nicely. It is so much lighter than my big bag.

I once bought a very large and nice photo bag. Still have it. Holds lots of "stuff." Loaded it up and was ready to go for a "photo-about" (sort of like a walk-about). The bag even had shoulder harness like a rucksack. Went to lift it and left it home. Now stuff it under a table as storage only. Nice bag.

 

Steve