nick_l.

<p>I enjoy the colors and tones I see when looking out of the tinted windows of my car, especially in bright daylight. The colors are still saturated, but with muted, manageable contrast and no glare. At first, I thought that the windows acted simply as a ND filter, and that I could achieve the effect by reducing exposure. But the ND filter did not have the same effect. Would a polarizer more closely approximate the effect I'm seeing? I can't tell if my car's tinting laminate is polarized or not. </p>

<p>ScanCafe's website now says they do medium format 120 BW scans at $1.99 per scan.<br>

Wish they had told me about this last month, because they refused to scan my 6x6 BW order and sent the negs back to me, which I just received yesterday. Now I've got to repackage them and send them in again. They could have done a better job communicating about this.</p>

 

<p>Had a bizarre experience with Target last week. After dropping off four rolls of film for development and CD burning, and after specifically being given reassurance that they'd be ready in an hour, I ended up waiting an extra hour for them to complete the processing. No big deal, right? But when I asked if I could pay the "next day" price instead of the "one hour" price, since they failed to deliver on time, the customer service reps told me that my four rolls of film had exceeded their workload, because their Noritsu QSS-#### "was only capable of processing one roll every 20 minutes." <br>

How can this be? I didn't even ask for prints. Under those circumstances, the Target photo center would only be able to process 36 rolls in an entire 12 hour workday. God forbid they should get other customers besides myself asking for the same service.<br>

Total cost for processing and CD burning of 4 rolls: $29.99. This seems far off the mark compared to quotes I've seen elsewhere. Is my particular Target store (Falls Church, VA) an aberration? Are Wal-Mart and Costco better options?</p>

 

I'm going to give a contrarian answer here and suggest you still strongly consider the D80. The D80 is a screaming good deal right now for what it is, and according to some outlets (such as Ritz Camera where the D80 body is now $620 NEW while the D90 is $1,300), the price differential is closer to $600-$700. All this for a camera that has the same great body and viewfinder (which itself was significantly improved over the D70).

 

Sure, the D90 will win out in some parameters, but a lot of people thought the D80 was a significant upgrade from the D70 when it first came out, including on high ISO noise. Whether the 800 image quality is improved enough to warrant the extra $600 is really up to you. The images I've seen from ISO 100-400 seem comparable, and while I'm sure the D90 is better at 800, I don't have a need for HD video or some of the other bells and whistles that drive the D90 cost up.

 

Bottom line: The D90 is a great camera and I'm sure you'd be happy with it, but the D80 is awfully close for half the price. It's just a steal. People will say you'll regret not buying the top model, but it won't be long before the next D-XX will be the latest and greatest.

This answer is two years late, but if anyone still agonizes over whether to mount slides for scanning: Get them unmounted, scan them, then mount them yourself afterwards. Gepe makes plastic mounts that show the entire image without cropping, so you get a better mount if you DIY.

Jose -

 

All of the photographers you mention used negative film. There were two outstanding

books edited by Sally Eauclaire in the late 1980s that featured portfolios by all of these

artists and included the technical info in the appendices. The books are "American

Independents" and "New Color/New Work". Sternfeld, Misrach, Meyerowitz, Epstein, and

Shore all used Kodak Kodacolor or Vericolor film for their portfolios in these books, either

in 8x10 sheets or in medium format (Meyerowitz used Kodachrome for his 35mm work).

Almost all of them said they shot the films at half the ASA/ISO rating. The majority of the

other 20+ featured photographers also used negative film in medium or large format

(William Eggleston, Jim Dow, Len Jenschel, and William Christenberry among them). This

doesn't exclude the possibility that some of them used chrome at different points in their

careers.

The 23mm wide lens is a great idea. I can't see why fixed focus is a drawback. It cuts out

focus lag, and DOF will be extraordinary in almost all instances (it's less than 4mm long!).

Focusing would be pointless. Normally people would kill to have a Schneider prime lens.

True, lens brand labels don't mean as much these days, but the samples on the review site

look quite sharp.

 

One quibble - the stitched panorama seems not as good as the single 23mm shot - perhaps

the distortion software interferes with the quality.

Vincent,

 

If 35mm film still works for you, that's fine. I appreciate your comments and, not being a technophile myself, it's great that you're resisting the mass movement to digital. I would not knock your results without first seeing them.

 

It's just that I am sitting now in an office which has a number of $1,000+ "art prints" on the walls which are clearly 24x36, clearly shot with 35mm film, and clearly blown up way beyond their capacity to maintain detail. I've seen the best that 35mm street photography has to offer in MOMA exhibits that looked just fine at 12x18 max., but look overblown if they went much larger than that. It all depends on what your standards and goals are. Street photographers should keep on using 35mm film. But I don't see the point of landscape photographers taking the trouble of using a heavy tripod, mirror lock-up and a cable release, and then using 35mm to keep the weight down. That's sort of like sprinkling NutraSweet on your chocolate sundae :)

"When it comes to using film, you are all wrong. I would recommend sticking with your Nikon 35mm. With todays scanners you can easily print up to 24x36 from 35mm originals.... I actually have several 40x60 Lightjet prints that look outstanding."

 

Are we talking inches or centimeters here? If inches, I don't believe you. It doesn't matter what scanner you have, you cannot get good 40x60 prints, or even 24x36 prints from 35mm film --- unless you're making compromises on sharpness and tonality and assuming people will look at your pictures from at least 20 feet away.

 

Re the original question: It comes down to which part of photography you enjoy more - the end result or the actual process. If the latter, then MF wins simply based on the big, bright viewfinder you get as opposed to the stamp-size DLSR image. If it's only results you want, well, it's still debatable, but if prints are no bigger than 11x14, then 6MP DSLR is hard to beat. As others above have remarked, MF is a 'zen' thing, especially square format.