pphaneuf

The Olympus Stylus Epic is the one. Non-zoom, but oh, so good!

Ignore that last comment. D60-produced images are giving medium formats like 6x4.5 a run for their money, so cropping 35mm is *definitely* not going to give better images.

If there isn't much more information on film beyond 2000 dpi, why did scanners ever go beyond the 2700 dpi generation and into the 4000 dpi one?

 

I generally agree with 2000 dpi being enough, I'm just wondering what the heck is going on...

I generally like the B&W C-41 stuff (T400CN, XP2), as I don't do my own developing. I think it is really good for high contrast situations like night photography, I just love it there, but none of them have the high contrast that gives some B&W shots their punch. Desaturating slide film is what I usually do when I'm doing stuff on the computer, but I'd like to use at least actual B&W film in the camera, even if it is C-41.

 

So I have a roll of XP2 in my camera at the moment that I am exposing at EI 1600 and that I intend on having it pushed three stops. I'll soon find out if I can get some nice contrast that way (I'd rather get too much at first, as a proof of concept experimentation, then I'll tune the exposure and pushing).

 

Any others tried that before?

<p>Check out <a href-"http://www.photo.net/canon/eos-300">my review on photo.net</a> of the EOS 300 (Rebel 2000).

 

<P><big>Do not get the kit.</big>

 

<p>The 50mm/f1.8 is a great start lens, and so would be the 24-85mm or the 28-105mm zooms, for "non pro" work.

 

<p>Not the kit. If you do not have enough money, get the 50mm/f1.8. If you have the money for the zooms, then you have the choice between higher optical quality with the 50mm fixed lens, or more flexibility with the zooms.

 

<p>As to choosing between the two, I'd point out that it is rather expensive to get in the below-28mm range, and that getting a 100mm to 200mm lens (fixed or zoom) is probably easier. But check them out (the lenses and the prices, including those you might want later) and make your own mind.

I own the 50mm/f1.8 Mk II and the 100mm/f2.0 USM, and I find them both excellent, with the 100/f2 possibly being of ohmygod class.

<p>I have the EF 50mm/f1.8. It is fast enough, but not more. The sharpness is excellent, I mean, how could it be otherwise with a modern 50mm/f1.8. The highlight and the lowlight would be the light weight and the loud focusing motor noise. For its price, it is one of the best values though.

 

<p>Check out the <a href="/ezshop/product?product_id=341">ezShop page for that lens</a>, me and a few others wrote plenty of comments about this lens. I have to say that it <em>is</em> fine optics, no matter how the rest is.

Go for it, that would be great. It might also avoid getting huge numbers of comment, as each films would have its own page.

Just being able to say "I like this photo" would be enough. No way to diss a photo, can be used as a list of "bookmarks" to photos you like, etc...

HTTP/1.1 "Host" header-based virtual hosting would do, IMHO, no need for IP-based virtual hosting for that! If some people come and have browsers that don't send an Host header, then it's just too bad.

It would be nice if you could get a photo.net subdomain, like "pierrephaneuf.photo.net" or something like that.

20x24 feets, if you put it on a billboard over the highway, you won't see any grain. :-)

This looks like the 2450's little brother, notably cheaper (even with the optional transparency unit). I am interested in something like "digital proofing", for monitor output only (web, e-mail), and maybe printing medium format to Lambda (apparently, such flatbeds, even the 2450, don't have enough resolution and quality for 35mm scanning of that quality).

 

Any comments on that? Comparison between that combination and the 2450 would be welcome!

While I don't have heaps of time, like most people, I'd love to go in and fix something once in a while.

 

Making anonymous CVS access possible could allow people like me to check out the current code base, see if they can do something and contribute back a patch.

 

For example, it's been about 6 months I've been mentioning my availability to do some cleaning up on the photodb equipment tables content (removing duplicates, and so on) to Rajeev and Lisa. I have been told that as soon as some UI was written to do this, I would be able to do it.

 

While I have more experience with Apache/mod_perl/PostgreSQL, I could certainly hack some interface to do this kind of stuff.

 

Also, some people might like having access to the actual code of a working, popular web site for educational purposes. Some kind of web interface to CVS would be nice, though optional.

Scott, you're the man.

All this fuss about not having enough pixels, or what have you.

 

Anyone remembers that even the lower-end film scanners (I'm talking things like the Minolta DiMAGE Dual Scan II, not cheap flatbeds with transparency adapters) have enough resolution to resolve grain, even with slow film reputated to have low grain.

 

If you have approximately the same resolution, but avoid the grain, and also avoid an intermediary (the film), one is bound to get better sheer quality.

 

That said, I don't have the money for a D-30, though I would like one, and I like the looks and speed of Ilford Delta 3200, both of which the D-30 isn't close of (though the looks could perharps be simulated in PhotoShop, the speed couldn't).

Vadim Makarov's site has a pretty interesting page on this: <a href="http://www.vad1.com/photo/spotmeter.html">http://www.vad1.com/photo/spotmeter.html</a>.

It's most unfortunate that, like Bela Lugosi, Fuji Reala (not Superia-Reala) is dead.

Here's a listing of ideas I'd think are good. Some are from others and summarized here, others are from me.

 

<ul>

 

<li>Reducing the spread to something like 1-5 or 1-3 (aka poor/average/good).

 

<li>Increasing the number of rating dimensions (categories like "exposure" for example).

 

<li>Make the rating system go away. I'm not too in favor of this one, but should ratings prove (reasonably) unfixable, this would probably be preferable to keeping a stupid system.

 

<li>Make the "do not submit this photo for rating" checkbox actually do something. What the heck does this checkbox do?!? When I check it on a picture, people can still rate them, they are still listed among my choices when I want to submit a photo for critique. I didn't notice whether they go through the "rate yesterday's picture", too many pictures to find out conclusively.

 

<li>Make the "do not submit this photo for rating" checkbox checked by default.

 

<li>Eliminate self-rating.

 

<li>Require a working e-mail address to create an account on photo.net.

 

<li>Do not allow 1/1s and 10/10s, as they <b>clearly</b> are wrong (ever seen a <em>perfect</em> photo? or a <em>perfectly bad</em> one?).

 

<li>Allow rating only by photo.net subscribers. This would kinda defeat the idea of leveraging a lot of people in the community though.

 

<li>Add a "mark as interesting" feature to photos that will list it on the public home page of the user, so that the world can see what I find interesting (and for me, so that I can go back and check out details or whatever). Maybe this could be used as an alternative/replacement rating system ("N people find this picture interesting"). Note that this is only a positive system: you cannot say a picture is bad, only that its interesting.

 

<li>From the oh-my-god-that's-crazy department: add a meta-critique system similar to what Slashdot has. This would indicate failure of the photo.net community to me, as it previously seemed (to me) to be a community of serious photographers, and didn't waste too much of my (or others) time.

 

</ul>

I have the "Deluxe" version of the nice Olympus Stylus Epic, which, in addition to the useless panorama "feature" and the different color, comes with a belt pouch for the camera (I think you can get the pouch separately, if you have the non-Deluxe Stylus Epic).

 

It is one of the smallest 35mm camera I ever saw, with a nice 35mm/2.8 lens in front of it. Since I carry it on me all the time, I don't worry too much about it getting too hot in the car or having it stolen (it looks a bit like an older cellphone, not too obvious black leather). It also has a weatherproof body, it can probably resist some amount of wetness. It can be had for around $100 I think.

 

I also carry a cheap tripod in the trunk, which is better than nothing. I do look a bit weird with the minuscule Stylus Epic at the top of a tripod.