PaulCoen

I was a Minolta shooter for years (US 500si/600si/5/7), and I've been picking up some working used bodies lately just to make sure I've got some on hand that work. One of them was a 7000 (listed in BGN condition) that I got from KEH for $16. I already have lenses (including the 28/2.8, the 50/1.7 the 28-138/4-4.5 and the 70-210/F4). I've been impressed with it overall. Having used the 600si/7, and the 7D when I first went digital, the push button interface isn't my favorite, but the camera works well, the AF is at least predictable, and the viewfinder is nice and bright. I was genuinely impressed with the 7000. I'd love to get my hands on a decent 9000 (when I've had issues with the older cameras, it tends to be the film advance mechanism), but those are a little harder to come by (especially with readable LCDs).

If the Dual III is made like the Elite II (and I think the internal layout may be similar), when you pop it open, the transport/scanner/etc. is a piece that sits in front of and slightly over a board that includes the internal power supply along with some other components. There's a ribbon cable that connects the front piece to that card, plus power supply cables, and then a cable for the front buttons / door sensor. I've had that internal power supply stop working - I had more than one unit to test with, so I experimented a bit. I'd suggest reseating the cables. Also, the Scan Elite II had a ferrite band added to the ribbon cable (part 2888-1034-01) and it's in the service manual as needed for "Noise reduction". It's possible you're seeing internal interference, not external. That was a later part substitution on the Scan Elite II - there was another part there previously. This is a long way to say that the interference COULD be generated from inside the unit if moving it, trying a different adapter, and changing out the USB cable all fail to help.

I'd be surprised if they add autofocus at that price point. It's one of the major selling points for the XL series, and a lot of colleges, museums, archives, etc, who could get by with the smaller form factor for photography would gravitate towards it. I could be wrong,. But we see from some of Apple's decisions about things like not being able to put an i7 in the previous 27" iMac (at least, it was the last , so it's the i5 or paying a huge premium for the i9). Now you can get an i5 or an 8-core i7, but not the i9. Most of these companies don't look to deliver value, they're about delivering "just enough" to increase margins at the lower level while protecting the larger margins at the higher price points.

I shot some Agfa Scala back in the 1990s. Loved it, and when I got access to a slide scanner, I found that it scanned really, really well. Having to mail it out to get processed prevented me from using it more. I haven't looked at today's stuff - in the grand scheme of things, I don't want to take on processing it, and I don't know how the mail outfits are (back in the original Agfa days, they had specific labs). It's more effort than I want to take on - I'm already shooting several different B&W negative films, plus Polaroid SX-70, 600, and (still) Packfilm. The beauty of the original Scala - in addition to how it looked - was that it was SUPER predictable, both in terms of how the film handled and the work the approved labs did. I've got enough unpredictability in terms of photography already :) If I happen to hear that the results are good and the service is predictable, I might give it a shot, though.

That's not bad - if you have Photoshop, and the "fading" is fairly consistent across colors, try duplicating the background layer, and change the layer from "Normal" to "Multiply". You can then adjust the opacity for the new layer to get the level you want. There are other (more sophisticated) ways to do it, but this has the virtue of taking about two seconds to see if it gets you close to where you want to be.

You might have trouble scanning negatives and getting the same look that you would have from a film lab without fiddling in Vuescan, and if you can get close, outside of it to finish. I use Lightroom Classic, so I just picked up the Negative Lab Pro plugin (there's a trial version). You can shoot your negatives with a DSLR/Mirrorless, or use Vuescan or Silverfast to scan as a negative. I used Vuescan, saved out as a DNG, and ran them through the NLP conversion. In spite of the extra steps, getting results I was happy with using old C-41 negatives was MUCH easier. I'm probably going to go back through to some rolls that just gave me fits years ago and rescan some. The software has color models that are a good match for Fuji's Frontier and Noritsu minilab scanners. Also gives you the option to save out an additional TIFF file for each, making it easier to do additional edits using Lightroom's (or another tool's) controls later. If you stick with the DNG, even post conversion, the slider functions are all reversed because it's still a negative "under the hood", even if the preview now shows a positive image. The plugin currently only works with Lightroom (Classic), either the standalone v6 or Creative Cloud - the developer has looked at the Capture One SDK, and it doesn't provide what he needs. There are a couple of other similar programs out there, at least one of which is a Photoshop plugin. Might not be for you (or anyone else :), but if you have Lightroom, the free trial doesn't take much work to figure out. It took me about five minutes to get up and running reading the guide.

Check with Brooklyn Film Camera. I bought a refurbished SX-70 Sonar from them in the fall, and it was in great shape. They do good work. Services — Brooklyn Film Camera

On the same day as Robert Frank. The Life of Fred Herzog, Vancouver’s Beloved Photographer | The Tyee Noted Vancouver photographer Fred Herzog dies at age 88

So I've got a Pro-10, and I'm printing from Lightroom. I have calibrated my display - I've got a BenQ SW2700. Scanning through the thread, I didn't see if you were using Windows or MacOS - I've got Windows at home. At least in Windows, the Canon drivers include default printing options that work really poorly with both Lightroom and Photoshop if you're doing color management in the applications. In the "Printing Properties" tab, there's a "Color/Intensity" section. Set that to "Manual". Click "Set" and then go to the "Color Matching" tab at set it to "None". Until I did both, I was getting weird color shifts. If you're using MacOS, this may not be an issue - I've only seen the PRO-1000 drivers on a Mac, and they're a bit different and I didn't see a similar set of options there. Not sure if that's a difference because of the platform or because of the printer model. Also, even with a profiled display, I find that I have to up the "brightness" slider in Lightroom's Print module, especially on glossy or semi-gloss paper, even with the right paper profile selected, etc. It's not really an issue with matte. I'd recommend using the Soft Proofing feature, especially if you're going to print the same image on more than one type of paper. If you save the settings, it'll make it easier to go back and reprint later.

I'm currently using a Domke F-5XA for when I'm using a Sony a6500 with a couple of small lenses (16-70 F/4 being the largest or maybe that lens and a flash. I've got a 5XC for the same camera with a longer zoom, extra lenses and the flash. Works well enough.

Try resetting your lightroom preferences before messing with a catalog restore. How to set Lightroom Classic CC preferences After you reset, you may have to browse to the catalog location - you may get prompted or you might have to do it from the menu after it launches. I don't think I've had to do it since Lightroom 6, so I don't remember the default opening behavior after a reset.

Saul Leiter - "Early Color" and "Early Black and White". I'd recommend the first over the second.if you had to choose.. Francesca Woodman, "On Being an Angel" by Tellgran. SFMOMA's Gary Winograd retrospective, Stephen Shore's "Uncommon Places". Inge Morath "First Color". Davis' "Clarence John Laughlin: Visionary Photographer". And I'd echo the Herzog recommendation above.

One of the great things about the 7 (I bought one when my 600si developed a front dial fault) was that you got the same basic layout with a camera that was pretty much the fastest AF on the market for a long time. The 600si - while I loved the camera - was pretty slow. I had a bunch of little lock/recompose angle tricksI used to use depending on the scene to force the sensors to grab onto something at the same distance.

The Metz Mecablitz m400 is great - capable, bounce/swivel, manual controls, and it fits and balances great on the a6500. I picked one up using Amazon reward points in early September this year, and I'm really happy with it. None of the Sony offerings seem to fit the a6000/6300/6500 as well.

Actually, the Minolta hotshoe had a few real advantages in terms of being able to easily (one handed) slot the flash in and not have to tighten anything. It also didn't have the fiddly, delicate metal contacts you find at the front of the current Sony ISO mount - and if you had the shoe cover on there, if a raindrop hit the top of the cover it couldn't get under it and cause a problem. Not so much with the ISO shoe on the A6500 - even a single good-sized drop of water WILL get in under the cover if it's in place.

I find the a6500 pretty pocketable (coat) with the smaller Sigma aps-c e-mount primes - the 19/30/60 DN lineup. The 30 and the 19, especially. They're great lenses for the money. However, they don't have lens-based image stabilization, and the a6300 doesn't have IBIS,

By the way - if your computer supports Windows 10 and is running with a valid Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 license you can still upgrade. Go to Microsoft and download the Windows 10 media creator, and either upgrade in place, or make bootable USB install media with a thumb drive. It'll happily upgrade you to Windows 10 of the same edition (Home or Pro), contact Microsoft's server, get an updated license key and activate. There have been a number of articles this year about it in various publications and blogs - clearly Microsoft doesn't really care. So for anyone who didn't upgrade "in time", you still can. If you just don't want to use Windows 10, well, obviously this doesn't matter. Also, maintaining software for multiple versions of an operating system is expensive - it potentially burns a lot of developer hours squashing bugs that only show up on the older operating systems, working around differences programming libraries (including the graphics libraries), and slows down the introduction of new features, since it may be difficult or impossible to fully implement them on older platforms.

They're not worth much, but they weren't bad cameras - especially for the price. I picked one up for nostalgia purposes last year - this was the first camera I used as a kid. I have a supply of Magicubes anyway, since I also have a Polaroid Big Shot. And while the lens wasn't great, if you were using decent film and there was good lighting, you could get some pretty good shots. Not having much to fiddle with forced you to focus on composition, which isn't the worst exercise. I've got 126 negatives from the mid 1970s that probably look better than shots from a 1 or 2 megapixel P&S digital camera. I also think 126 film's square format was a plus. When I first started using 35mm cameras, I found that I missed it. I saw a brief interview with Todd Gustavson from the George Eastman Museum about the format (might have been in the BBC's "Genius of Photography" series), and he pointed out that it had a bad rap. If I remember correctly, he went back and looked at test shots taken and found that there weren't any quality problems - focus was fine, etc. Apparently some manufacturers of both 126 cameras and film cartridges weren't great on QA, but it wasn't an inherent issue.

A gaming card isn't necessary, but (in Nvidia terms) having a higher number of CUDA cores will help with any operation that uses GPU offloading. As some folks above have noted, some Photoshop features are now using it. A 1060 is a fairly mainstream card - it's not especially over the top. As software makers push more and more to GPUs it'll be even more useful. I don't think you'll be unhappy with it. I've got the same BenQ display you have. I was building a new computer about a year ago, somewhat for me, but also so the kids' games would play. The 1070 based cards were hard to come by so I ended up going up to a 1080, luckily just before the prices shot up due to demand from cryptocurrency miners. I wanted to make sure I wasn't going to have to touch the hardware for a few years. It's worked well for Photoshop (much better than the old GT 610 in the previous computer), plus it's given me some flexibility when playing with rendering applications like Blender.

There's Geoffery Crawley's FX-55 developer formula - he released it for free back in 2008, as long as credit was given to Amateur Photographer. IIRC, it's pretty inexpensive to make, It's an ascorbate developer, and before you combine it the shelf life is pretty long. FX-55 | Pictorial Planet

I'm trying to create transparencies - I'm not trying to do negative reclamation, emulsion lift, etc. I've been trying to follow the directions in Adams' "Polaroid: The Complete Guide to Experimental Instant Photography" and a couple of other sources, mainly 1) Trimming the edges 2) Heating the print with a hair dryer 3) Peeling away the backing. What I'm running into, depending on the heating time I've tried (everything from 30 seconds to five minutes: 1) The image and the white background stay on the front, but any attempt to remove the white will smear off the image 2) It kind of works, but strips on white remain on the back of the image, and there isn't much image left on the clear front panel where there isn't, or chunks of the image remain on the front panel and some on the back 3) The front panel comes off, but the entire image is left on the backing I've been trying to be methodical about changing variables (temperature, how long to heat, heating the front vs. back, etc), but I haven't made much progress. Has anyone who's done this before have some suggestions - even if it's just for a decent methodology for working out the right temp/time?,

Given the way they're rushing out security patches without adequate testing (the root login bypass patch broke connecting to network shares unless you drop to a terminal and run a command to reconfigure the local KDC, the subsequent High Sierra update rolling the security fix back and the fix doesn't reapply without prompting for a required reboot - which a lot of Mac users rarely do, etc, I'd wait for the next cumulative upgrade to be released before moving to High Sierra. I'm opting to not upgrade the Art Department's digital lab / classroom between the fall and spring semesters for that reason - it's working well, and I'm not confident that H.S. isn't going to bite us. Seems to be a rockier upgrade than ElC to Sierra, from folks I know who upgraded early. Admittedly, worrying about a lab in use day-to-day for classes is different than a single computer, but I'm not in a huge hurry.

One note - the a6300/a6500 can actually be powered via the USB port - and as a result any of the myriad external USB chargers, not just charged. The a6000 can only be charged via the USB port AFAIK.

I haven't noticed it - generally, Lightroom Classic (LR 7) is significantly faster on my computer than LR CC/6 was. At the same time, I do have the LR catalog and previews on a solid-state drive, I've got 16GB of RAM, and a 6-core Intel Skylake-X. ,I've turned off GPU acceleration in Lightroom, because when I'm editing in Photoshop from LR, having both using GPU offload causes display and UI issues in lightroom (nvidia 1080, did it on my old computer with a much older nvidia gpu in it). Computer was actually built to run the kids' games. My main point is that LR Classic isn't generally slower, but it could be in your case. You could try resetting lightroom back to default settings to make sure you don't have a problem there. It's a pain, but you could back the existing settings up first so you can put them back if it doesn't help. Are you using the built-in card reader? Isn't that USB 2? Maybe try a third-party USB card reader to make sure the reader isn't having a problem. Or plug the camera straight in and try that. Finally, did you upgrade MacOS to High Sierra by any chance? I don't believe it converts you to the new file system on upgrade unless you have an SSD. I've also generally found that El Capitan, Sierra and High Sierra have had increasingly worse disk io on older Macs lacking SSD or Fusion drives. I maintain the digital lab used by a university art department, and it was getting pretty painful until we upgraded the computers recently. It's possible that Lightroom Classic is doing something on the file system (multithreaded) that isn't performing well with a newer OS on older hardware. Maybe run Activity Monitor during an import - look at memory use, CPU use and Disk use to see where the bottleneck might be. LR Classic did introduce some substantial catalog changes - including compressing some data inside the catalog to lower the amount of data being written to and read from disk. Depending on your system and load, maybe the extra overhead is causing a problem? Seems unlikely, but Activity Monitor could tease that out. As someone else mentioned, you could render previews as a different step. If it looks like you're CPU or disk constrained, that might be worth a try.

Some of the Minolta Dimage Scan scanners had APS adapters - I know the Scan Elite II had one - we had it at work. I'm pretty sure the Scan Diual models supported the same or a similar adapter.