m_kevin_johnson

<p>I could provide my first 35mm shot with a K1000 in 1977 when I was about 12 but not my first image becasue I used a 126 camera several years before that one. I lost nearly ALL those negs in a basement flood so I only have a few I scanned from back then. I do have a likely canidate of my dad playing the mandolin on our picnic table too late in the day for my camera with no flash.<br>

I worked all summer cutting lawns to by that K1000 and I still have it to this day and it still works as well as it did when I bought it.</p>

<p>I could provide my first 35mm shot with a K1000 in 1977 when I was about 12 but not my first image becasue I used a 126 camera several years before that one. I lost nearly ALL those negs in a basement flood so I only have a few I scanned from back then. I do have a likely canidate of my dad playing the mandolin on our picnic table too late in the day for my camera with no flash.<br>

I worked all summer cutting lawns to by that K1000 and I still have it to this day and it still works as well as it did when I bought it.</p>

<p>D7000 - Giraffe Bull at Silver Springs</p><div></div>

<p>I am also finding with in this discussion that it should be pointed out that "end users" are taking e-mailed files that are made to be say 2 inches by 3 inches and printing them to 8 x 10's and saying how great they look. In all my years of working in a photo lab (over 28 professionally now) if I had handed one person those prints I would have been out of the business right then and there.</p>

<p>Perhaps it may be "Cheaper" at times because many end users are working and making it look Cheap. I think that the professional and many others know it may overall cost less but that there are also many expenses to recoope as well. I know 70mm roll stock is not as easy to get as it once was but I will say it seems when I shoot a special occasion for someone that most of the time they pick the photos I scanned from my Hasselblad over my digital camera. That may not be the case as often now that I have my D7000 but it is worth noting it anyway. I have never added up or even paid attention to my final costs. I figure the cost of putting a few hundred photos on a SDHC Card in RAW & JPG format will run me a little less than the film.<br>

<br />I always suggest to people to shoot on the SD card and save a copy to at least one Hard Drive as well as their "working copy". Then make a "Contact Sheet" in Photoshop and have it printed (or print it) and put them in a binder with the card and sheets numbered and get a new card. NOT to delete them and continue shooting just in case somethign fails you have the main file still. That is as valuable as the original film (WHICH I AM FINDING PEOPLE ARE TOSSING OUT NOW TOO). I offered the guy that shot my wedding $500 for the negs for 10 years and then finally I wrote a check and mailed it to him. He returned my check with a letter that he threw all his negs away a year ago...............<br>

So, there are times that a cost savings may not be..........</p>

 

<p>Also as a side note to give thought as to "format" this is a real debate in the aerial mapping buisness as well but I am finding (and glad of it) that the bulk of people still prefer film. As a comparison at a scan of only 12um (2116ppi) from a 9"x9" aerial image you end up with a 1.2G photo in color at 8 bits or about a 2.5G photo at 14 bits. Try doing that every 1.5 seconds! <br>

The main savings comes in flight time though. You can be flying at the same altitude with the Digital Aerial Cameras to get the same 12um image but it is much smaller coverage area so you need to fly 4 times as many photos and lines and thus you spend a LOT more time flying and then the clouds pop and the day is done.<br>

I actually use both film and digital for my own use and both have advantages but the long and short is that it is what you prefer to work with and are used to maybe. It does help that I own a photo lab and in that photo lab I have a Chromira 50-5X though. It helps a lot when I want to make prints and I have a 40"x80" to print because I can make 10 - 8x10's along the edge of what would mostlikely get tossed anyway.</p>

<p>DF I can get a couple more up that my grandfather shot see the bottom of <a href="../photos/M_Kevin_Johnson">http://www.photo.net/photos/M_Kevin_Johnson</a> </p>

<p>Most of that comes from many labs running so little film. It is a shame when peoiple do not care at all about what they are working with. Things can happen but in general terms people that are running the film should be a bit more attentive to what they are doing. Most of the stuff we do here is "long roll" unless it is some of my own personal film but I have seens some really really dirty film sent from people to me to see what I can do with it. One guy I spoke with not too long ago said "how do you keep the film so clean because you can not be running too much film these days". I responded we are runnign nearly twice the amount of film as we were 10 years ago. As some of the places turn off their rarely used machines and there are less and less doing it you will find that there will be the better quality ones that will continue to run the film in their machines.<br>

I have tossed the thought a few times of brining in a D&D machine for the future for both E6 & C41 but that is not the market that we have ever really tried for and I would rather my friends that own labs eat as well!<br /><br />Kevin<br>

AerialPhotoLab.com</p>

<p>It is a shame to see this go. I have images that my grandfather shot in the 50's that look like they just came back from the lab. Kevin</p>

<p>Has there been any software updates to the actual camera that would allow use of more then a 2GB card on this camera or is 2GB the highest that can be ever used?</p>

<p>A couple days ago my wife asked me about a book on lighting and setting up family groups to give ideas for arranging the people (so far the maximim I did at one time was about 10-12 ish). I told her the old book I have only showed a few set ups and it used nudes in it. I would like to get her a book that shows some ideads for when she helps me and hopefully with out a lot of nudes in it. I have gotten some really nice ones but I think she just would like some more ideas is all. If you have a suggestion on a good of the many books out there just let me know. I have two "portable studio" set ups that I take with me thought I normally only take one but I have been able to not have to deal too much with a shadow so it is more of arranging them. Some of the best ones I like anyway are outdoors on a overcast day (also makes it easy fro lighting).<br>

Thanks,<br>

Kevin<br>

<b>URL signature deleted. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

Yeah when we find "film is dead" let me know. I process about twice the film then what I processed 10 years ago and we were busy 10 years ago!

 

Kevin

I am glad to know it is not just me! I just searched this out and found the posting. (as I am saving teh photos from my SD Card. I have started to see this on occasion. At first I thought it was a light reaction to a certain type of lipstick becasue I saw it on two women at one wedding. Now I see it popping up here and there on my P880. I had never seen it till this camera but yes I agree it is really BAD!

I would assume the easiest way is to make the color look the way you want before printing in photoshop using the level adjusting tools. I would specify to the lab that you DO NOT want them to do any correction though. I have some old slides for example that my grandparents on one side used Ektachrome which are nearly ALL totally red. the other side used Kodachrome and they are like the day they were processed.

 

Kevin

Is there anyone in the general Daytona Beach area that is using one of these?

I am having software conflicts that I have not been able to resolve and thought

that there may be a computer and imaging person around here that may be able to

drop in and give me a hand getting one or both functioning.

 

I can get the 3570+ unit to begin the process and start the "calibration" but

shortly after it starts is says photoshop generated errors and so on. Best I

can tell I made sure I have all the stuff I am supposed to there. It is a

shame that there is not a USB connection for this thing :).

 

Thanks,

Kevin

MKJ@AerialPhotoLab.com

Keith,

 

I run the typical e6 Chrome films here (wide long rolls) and I must say when I look at them yes they are fine. That said when I scanned all of the photos that my grandfather took starting in say 1950 ish everything on Kodachrome looks like the day it was shot. All of the times he used Ektachrome (or similar) the colors faded and it just did not look good. My parents wedding happened to be one of those times. It took a lot to get something out of them and VIA scans I could but NOT from direct film to paper.

 

I realize that the E6 chrome films are not like they were in the 1950's but still I would have to say that I can totally agree with someone that feels that they want to use Kodachrome! I would guess that the older Ektachrome and similar films the fading colors may have had more to do with a chemical issue that has been solved but regardless we know what Kodachrome will do.

 

Kevin

If you are able to use a 70mm perf film you may wish to try the Agfa X400. That one scans very well. It is clear based and you may find the contrast a little higher then the orange masked films but I have been very happy with it though I often go with the X100. These are "Aerial Films" but they also do very well on the ground with my Hasselblads. In fact I used some of the X100 on a friends wedding one time. Direct from film a full frame 40x40 is nothing for the film.

 

Another route would be to use 400 and push process. I can not say exactly for the Kodak films anylonger but the Agfa C41 films ideal grain processing temp is 4:05 which is about a 1/3 to 1/2 push already.

 

Kevin

I do not run D&D but roller transport here but with all the people dropping E6 processing we have had a lot of inquiries. We have never offered mounting of 35mm so far. We run a little pro stuff but not too much most of it is large wide roll. If folks are interested you can drop me an e-mail about it and what you have been paying and I will see if we can help you. We have a total of 5 machines but only three are installed right now. We were planning to buy a building around the corner (5000 sq ft) but that fell through so I may go ahead and install the rest of them soon.

 

Kevin

Jasen, yes I may try that in the future. I THOUGHT that is what would be with the set I got but I will not go into that right now. One thing I noticed is that to use the telephoto you need to remove the UV filter, remove the len shade, remove the ring around the lens mount the tube and then mount the lenses. A draw back for sure but when I looked at the results of that lens ..............

 

Kevin

I forgot to add, GET THE P20 flash. I wish it held 4 batteries but it REALLY helps with taking images indoors such as at a church or lower light home setting. I carry along an extra charged camera battery and at least an extra 4 AA's for the flash.

 

Kevin

I have one and I am VERY happy with it. There are a few things I would have done a touch differently though. The main thing is when using the AUTO mode to allow it to get set in fine and stay there. The way I work around that is to use the "P" mode (program) all the time.

 

I LOVE the lens on the camera. I often need to get a bit closer then a 140mm (eq) will get so I purchased the telephoto and wide angle as part of a package. I AM NOT HAPPY with the telephoto lens at all! I have YET to try the wide angle one though. I knew I would likely never use that lens but it was part of the set. The telephoto that came with my package was NOT a kodak one which may be part of the issue but the only place that it is sharp is in the extream middle of the lens. It has a HORRIBLE drop off to out of focus extreamly fast. The telephoto I have is a "digital high definition 2X for a P880 (see the image). I do not know about the wide angle but that lens was NOT worth even a penny from what I see on the images. I do wonder about the 1.4X or so. I figure that may be a lot better.

 

In the program mode you can custom set various things and they will stay that way. For example you can adjust both an exposure and flash setting. One thing I wish it could do is be able to utilize an external flash in the "super macro" setting rather then just the flower setting. I have not found a way around that for shooting a 1/4 inch flower in the studio.

 

For print size I always keep the file to be at least 300 dpi at printing. I ran one test to see how the image would look at a 20x24 (from exprint.com) because they said it would take to a 24x36 with no issue but I did not see how that was possible. At 20x24 I would call it acceptable from a few feet away but when I look at it closely I would say it is pixelated mainly seen in face where you have rosey color to regular skin tone. Then again that is why I own and run a film lab I guess. I think overall people have come to accept stuff that they never would have 5 years ago because they are so used to ink jet plots now. If you are 11x14 and smaller it will look REALLY good.

 

Overall I really am glad I bought the camera. BUT I would NOT buy the extra lenses that I got. I would love to know whoat folks think about the regular kodak telephoto made for it though.

 

Kevin<div></div>

I would not worry about E6 you may need to consider WHO's E6 but it will be there. We often run 85,500 sq inches a day. but we run Roller Transport because rolls are so long NO dip & dunk at all.

 

Kevin

I considered setting one up here till I looked into the process. I do not mind odd & unusal set ups, configurations and such but after a day of reading I said forget it! Unfortunately the route K has been taking on films and chemicals has been rather surprising. I USED to be an all Kodak lab. For that matter K tried to get me to not set up an E-6 wide roll machine stating "there is no where near enough work" I just bought my 6th E6 machine though I only have 2 installed this very second. I pulled one so I could do some work on it.

 

Kevin

By chance do any of you know of a person with an E6 processor that is

or was set up as a roller transport machine that is at least 22

inches wide? We run a lot of wide roll E6 and I would like to do

double strand. Worst case hopefully I can find a 3rd 12 inch wide

machine.

 

Kevin

In case anyone reads this I did just go ahead and pick up the regular Kodak P20 flash to go with the system. I have to say I am wonderfully impressed with these two together. My first few shots I took with the camera I had considered sending it back. After doing a little playing around and I took it off auto and put it on program (and keep it there) so that I can set it to the finest setting I am now very impressed. In the fully auto mode you have to change to Fine on every photo.

 

IF you get this system the flash is WELL worth the money. I will try to take a shot or two in one of the worst places I have shot in and see how it does. My Hasselblads do great with the flash but then again I tell it what to do. This says it is good for about 30 feet or so with the P20 so we'll see. I was impressed too that it did not completely blow out items when closer too.

 

Kevin

I am wondering if anyone has used the P880 with an external flash.

The PC sync is perfect (actually at close range blows away items)

but I can not seem to get the hot shoe to fire. It seems that the

Hot Shoe is for a standard flash. In reading Kodak's info they

recomend that you utilize a P20. I already have 3 or 4 other

flashes and wanted to see if these do the job. From what I found

you just need to turn ON the external flash (which actually is

supposed to be defualt) but I 1) can not find where it is done or 2)

the camera actually REQUIRES the P20.

 

If anyone knows for sure I would love to know if it is me or normal

because it requires the P20. (I have been through the manual in all

places refering to flash). I do not have a problem with getting the

P20 flash but I do not want to spend the money only to find out I

missed something easy.

 

Thanks,

Kevin