runswithsizzers

<p>Doh! I forgot to click "Notify me of responses" so I've missed all the helpful suggestions here, until today.</p>

<p>Michael Kuhne - I'm in SW Missouri, sadly, an area apparently not serviced by your chain store.</p>

<p>Justin Serpico - thanks for the photos and tips, especially about Lowepro replacing zippers. One of the zippers on my Nova AW3 is failing, and it never occurred to me that they might replace it!</p>

<p>Steve T. - the Skytop leather bags perfectly cater to my belief in buying quality goods from local craftsmen. Too bad my recent camera purchase and imminent road trip plans have strained the budget past the point of spending that kind of money right now.</p>

<p>I found a Lowepro TLZ 1, used, at KEH for $16 - haven't got it yet - hoping it's not too big. I might be happier with the TLZ Mini, but several people reported it as too small (none of which had a K-x). I won't know 'til I see it, but if it comes with a shoulder strap, only, I my have to improvise a belt or waist strap.</p>

<p>Matt Burt - The Think Tank holster bags look just about perfect. If the Lowepro TLZ 1 doesn't work out, I think I might try the Think Tank Digital Holster 10 with their Pro Speed Belt.</p>

<p>Thanks to all,<br>

-gw</p>

<p>Tom, I assume you are not a big fan of polarizing filters? I won't try to describe the effect here, but to control the degree of the effect, a photographer needs to rotate a polarizing filter. The "open" thing is an access port so the filter can be rotated without removing the hood - cool!</p>

<p>Actually, I can think of another filter besides the polarizer which might need to be rotated - the half-frame neutral density filter. Half of the filter is clear, and the other half reduces your exposure; the transition between the clear part and the neutral density part is a gradient. Landscape photographers would typically put the neutral density part up, to prevent a bright sky from burning out as overexposed, but in special circumstances, the darkening effect might need to be rotated to cover some other area of the image.</p>

<p>Matt - yeah, if it gets rough, mine will go into a foam padded back pack. But otherwise, I'd rather avoid anything between me and the camera.</p>

<p>The Zing cases look pretty good, but as near as I can tell, I would have 2 minor issues:</p>

<ul>

<li>It's still a camera-on-a-strap, which results in the pendulum effect, and,</li>

<li>What do you do with it when it's off the camera? I don't want it dangling off the camera getting in my way, and I don't want to lay it on the ground - will it fit in a pocket?</li>

</ul>

<p>Rather than hijack my own thread, I've started a new one, about camera cases:<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00WMiG</p>

<p>

<p>thanks,<br>

-gw</p>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Can anyone recommend a holster-style or "fanny pack" (apologies to our Brit friends) design case that can be worn around the waist, which will hold a Pentax K-x and kit zoom lens? My goal is to protect the camera from dust and abrasion when hiking/scrambling in areas like Utah's Canyonlands, while keeping the camera easily accessible. For now, all I'll want to carry is the camera, lens, a 52 mm polarizer, and 4 AA batteries.</p>

<p>I'm presently using a combination of:</p>

<ul>

<li>A Lowepro Nova 3 AW shoulder bag - which is left over from my multi-lens 35mm film kit. I use this mostly for transport in the car, and on very short hikes, only. More bulky and less comfortable than I would like.</li>

<li>A padded neoprene camera shoulder strap. Great for keeping the camera at-the-ready, but the camera swings like a pendulum, pounding me and the camera with every step. Very risky when scrambling over rocks.</li>

<li>A day pack for long hikes. Good comfort and protection, but very poor accessibility. (Take off the pack, find a safe place to lay it on the ground, unzip the pack, take out the camera, etc.)</li>

</ul>

<p>I imagine a holster-style pack worn around the waist would eliminate most of my complaints. Has anyone found something similar to what I have described that will for-sure hold a K-x-plus-kit-zoom?</p>

<p>thanks,<br>

-gw</p>

<p>Sadly my K-x did not come with a lens hood for the stock DA L 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6.</p>

<p>Apparently, the required lens hood is Pentax model PH-RBA, but here is the problem: that item is presently out of stock from Pentax, Amazon, B&H, and Adorama.</p>

<p>I bought a cheap plastic imitation - Fotodiox brand - on Amazon, but it doesn't fit very well, and I'm afraid it's going to come off if it gets the slightest bump. I want the lens hood to do two things for me: A. The obvious, keeping sunlight off the front element, and, B. Keeping the front element off of rocks when scrambling up slickrock trails in Utah. So I'm hoping the Pentax version fits more securely.</p>

<p>Any advice?</p>

<p>Does anyone know if PH-RBC, which is made for the "WR" version of the 18-55 mm will work?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

-gw</p>

<p>I noticed this tendency WAY before the internet. The photography magazines I used to subscribe to always had many more pages devoted to equipment than to technique, or creativity, or photo critiques. Same with bicycling and canoe magazines - it's all about buying stuff.</p>

<p>The reason seems pretty obvious, to me - advertising pays the bills. In fact, content is not the raison d'être for print and broadcast media - they exist mostly for the purpose of delivering advertising to the consumer. Content is just bait to get you to look at the adverts.</p>

<p>No reason to think the internet is going to be much different from old school media, except to the extent that there is a higher percentage of amateurs producing content. By definition, amateurs are not dependent on profit and therefore are less likely to maintain a site for the sole purpose of selling you something. But the big guys need big servers, and people to run the sites, and that takes money - anybody want to buy some stuff?</p>

<p>Thanks again to all for your insights.</p>

<p>What started me on a quest for a normal prime lens was an urge to simplify, to get back to basics. Looking back at my slides taken over the past 40 years, I got this notion that some of my best shots were taken when I had only one body and a normal lens. </p>

<p>I got this notion that it would be a kind of a discipline, or lesson, or challenge, or whatever, to limit myself to the one lens which sees the world most like the human eye does - devotion to good subject would be required - no depending on tricks of perspective to make the shot. Shoe-leather-zooming requires a greater involvement with the subject, I figured - when I walk around, and back and forth, I take more time to look at the possibilities, to SEE the subject. True, there would be a few shots I would miss because I couldn't get close enough to - or far enough away from the subject, but in general, a zoom lens seemed like a temptation to short-cut the process, take a quick shot and move on.</p>

<p> And while switching from film to digital seemed like the perfect time to try my experiment.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, back in the real world, I got the Pentax K-x yesterday with the kit zoom, and I have to admit I'm liking it much better than I expected.</p>

<p>True, I hate the dim viewfinder - but the camera-plus-zoom is way lighter than I thought it would be. And I certainly can't fault the zoom for sharpness. There was no lens shade in the box (dammit), but even without it, no significant problems with flair or loss of contrast from backlight. So far, I'm impressed! But then I haven't done any low light stuff yet, either.</p>

<p>Nor have I yet mounted any of my old K-mount lenses on the K-x. I'm really looking forward to trying the 50mm f/1.4 to see how it works as a walk-about in low light.</p>

<p>-gw</p>

<p>"Remember that 40 years ago you had to adjust f/stops and shutter speeds (gasp) manually."<br>

<br /><br>

Funny - only this morning, I was doing the same thing on my old Pentax MX!</p>

<p>-gw</p>

<p>Thanks to all who have reassured me about the quality of modern dSLR kit zooms. I sold the last zoom lens I had for my film cameras because it was just too heavy to lug around on long hikes and bicycle trips, and too slow to use with my favorite ISO slide films except on bright sunny days. Hopefully, the kit zoom that comes with my Pentax K-x will be an improvement.</p>

<p>But saving up for the SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited Series - hope it's still available when I can afford it.</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg said: "... You're complaining then that the makers aren't bundling these so you can get them even cheaper than the rock bottom prices they are normally sold at?<br>

Anyone who wants a 50mm f/1.8 lens on their dSLR, can get a body with one of these for less than or close to the price of the body with the 18-55mm zoom."</p>

<p>That's about it, JDM. If I had to pay $100 more to swap the kit zoom for a normal fast prime, I would grumble about it, but I would do it. But when I asked if the Nikon kit zoom has any trade in value towards the 35/1.8 at my local camera store (which does not stock ANY fast primes for dSLRs), they said "no deal." And I don't want a 50mm film lens - I want something closer to 35mm which is designed for the APS-C sensor - hopefully it will be a tad smaller and lighter and more reasonably priced than a fast 35mm lens made for film.</p>

<p>And here is another mystery: The lowest price I can find for a body only is often $50-100 higher than the lowest price I can find for the body plus the kit zoom. I'm not complaining - obviously I'd be an idiot to demand to pay more to not get the kit zoom. Which is why I just bought a Pentax K-x with the kit zoom. (I gave up on buying the body plus a fast prime for anywhere near the kit price - I'll buy a fast prime later, when I can afford it.) It seems odd to me that if the kit zooms are as good as you say, and if everybody (but me) wants one, why does it look like they have so little value in the marketplace?</p>

<p>As for you statement: "With ISOs up to 25,000, your "Five freaking point six" lens will do the job in places where an f/1.8 lens plus "ASA" 400 film didn't back in the day..."<br>

As far as the image goes, that may be true - but when I'm trying to compose through a murky viewfinder in dim light, I'm still stuck with f/3.5-5.6 using the kit zoom. As a slide shooter, I mostly used ISO 100 film, and my normal lens opens to f/1.4. There may be some instances when some digital cameras can make useable images at ISO 25,000, but everything I've read about most of the cameras in my price range indicates ISO 800 is pretty solid, 1600 is getting a bit marginal and anything over 3200 is pushing your luck. So if my math is right, going from ISO 100 to 1600 I'll gain 4 stops, right? And going from f/1.4 to 5.6 I'll loose 3.5 stops, right? Net gain, about 1/2 stop? (Help me out here, I may be getting rusty on the fundamentals.) So if there is going to be any significant gain, it's going to have to be from image stabilization. I have my fingers crossed on that one. Should get the camera with kit zoom today, so I can test it out.</p>

<p>-gw</p>

<p>Mark Deneen said: "...I am convinced I need some cool classic rangefinders with better GLASS than comes on my dSLRs."</p>

<p>Well, you have an excellent point there, about the glass! Rather than taking this thread on a tangent, I have started a new topic called "Whatever happened to normal fast primes?"<br>

http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WBlP</p>

<p>I don't know they work on range-finders, but if your old film cams need any tender loving care, I highly recommend ACR (Abilene Camera Repair - abilenecamerarepair.com)</p>

<p>I sure wish my local camera shop would do a better job with film. Sure, I can still get Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia, but last time I asked for slide film they laughed at me. They keep 10 boxes in stock, he told me - and this is the only photo specialty store in a city of 150,000.</p>

<p>As person with almost 40 years of 35mm film SLR experience who is buying my first DSLR, I am confounded by something I can't explain.</p>

<p>Back in the day, every film SLR kit came with a "normal" lens. It was about 50 mm long and had a maximum aperture of about f/1.8, give or take half an f-stop. This was a rule, with almost no exceptions. These "normal fast primes" (which I will call NFPs) were not state-of-the-art lenses, but they were pretty darn good - reasonably sharp, and distortions and aberrations were well controlled. In fact, they were good enough that many bench tests done by sites like DPReview.com still use the old NFPs when evaluating modern DSLRs.</p>

<p>Today I have not been able find a single manufacturer of DSLR cameras which offers a kit containing a normal fast prime lens. In fact, some major brands of DSLR cameras do not even make a NFP for their digital cameras at any price. Other manufacturers may make a NFP made for their digital cameras, but the NPF lens is priced higher than the DSLR plus the kit zoom.</p>

<p>Now the standard kit lens that comes with DSLRs has become something like a 18-55mm zoom with a maximum aperture of f/3.5-5.6. Five freaking point six! You gotta be kidding me! Almost every review of these kit zooms mentions their considerable limitations - slow, heavy, cheaply made, suffering from a little barrel distortion here, and a few chromatic aberrations there - and not particularly sharp.</p>

<p>So why is that? How is this progress? Why is a normal fast prime a good idea with film, but something to be avoided with digital?What has changed in the last 5 or 10 years that has made NFPs obsolete for general photography? Am I the only one who still thinks a decently made normal fast prime should my first lens, especially if I can only afford only one? And for what it costs to make a complex but mediocre kit zoom with 12 of 14 pieces of glass in it, couldn't they make a halfway decent prime lens which needs only 5 or 6 elements in a less complicated design?</p>

<p>Is this something the manufacturers have decided for us, and forded upon us - or is it something we (not me) demanded?</p>

<p>-gw</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew Lynn said: "Hey, B&H won't sell you a DSLR before April 6 either :)"<br>

No, but J&R will - and did.</p>

<p>OK, I admit it, already - it's not really that hard to get film - even in Missouri. My particular order was a tough one to fill because I wanted to get single boxes of 8 or 10 different films, and it just so happened that the first 3 or 4 sellers I went to were out of stock on 2 or 3 of the ones I wanted - and the one seller that did have most of what I wanted (freestylephoto.biz) had some kind of BS problem with their 'security certificate' that my browser didn't like.</p>

<p>It also just so happened that several of the films which I was eager to try - based on the recommendations of you kind folks - were rumored to have been recently discontinued, (and in some cases confirmed). That just takes some of the fun out of it.</p>

<p>If I had placed my order a week earlier or a week later, it may be that I would have had zero problems, and I would have continued to be a happy film shooter for years to come. But I didn't place my order a week ago - and if I had waited a week later, I might not have had enough time to do my testing, then order a batch of the winning film before my trip (assuming I could find it in stock somewhere).</p>

<p>Helix Camera looks like a good one, Andrew - wide selection, and prices look competitive. I didn't have the heart to check their stock for every item on my list, because it's already too late for me. The repairs on my film camera have been canceled, and the digital SLR is on the way. (Why do I feel so cheap?)</p>

<p>I'm not selling the film stuff yet (as if) - have to wait and see how I get on with the DSLR. Plus, I can use my old lenses on the new body. I may take a film camera to Utah and shoot it along-side the new DSLR. Or not. Never did decide what film to buy.</p>

<p>Thanks again, and best of luck to all<br>

-gw</p>

<p>You make some good points Tim, and on any other day you would be right about B&H; but they are closed until April 6 - which is what started me down this path.</p>

<p>Film or digital - I expect I'll get my ass bit, either way. Am I the only one to see my film counter go past 36, 37, 38 - then discover the film never advanced a single frame, cause I didn't load it quite right? Or lost a roll in the mail? Or got dirty processing? Or discovered I had the ASA set wrong, and it's too late to ask for pull processing? Oh well, lucky for me it's just a hobby - a way to relax, right? I can laugh about stuff like that, after I stop crying.</p>

<p>It's just been one of those weeks of beating my head against the wall. As much as I love my film cameras - I'm starting to feel like the guy who tricked out his GTO with a kick-ass 8 track tape deck - 30 years ago. At what point does it no longer make sense to keep on doing what used to work great, but now, not so much? Really, I had hoped to avoid the switch to digital for at least another year, or two.</p>

<p>I drive the same truck I bought new in 1990, my Apple computer is a 2001 model, my film scanner is SCSI, I camp in a tent, my Cannondale bike was made in the mid-80s, and I watch broadcast TV on a CRT screen - so I wouldn't say I was one to abandon something that works to chase every new trend.</p>

<p>I expect everyone who participates in the "Film and Processing" forum has asked: Is film still working for me? Today, it was my time to answer: "Not so much."</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for your useful suggestions, but I've had a change in plans.</p>

<p>Too many films are being discontinued too fast for my comfort level, and too many film suppliers are out of stock of film I'd like to buy. Additionally, my slide projector and one of my film cameras need repairs - repairs I would gladly pay for if not for the following:</p>

<p>After being laughed at when I asked for film at my local photo specialty store (Lawrence Photo in Springfield, MO). After trying to make online orders for film with 4 different major suppliers - orders which could not be successfully completed for a number of different reasons - I've decided to retire my film equipment and switch to digital. I'm pretty sick about it, but it seems inevitable, so why not submit to my fate now, rather than later?</p>

<p>Thanks again for your valuable feedback!</p>

<p>-gw</p>

<p>John - thanks for the tip about Adorama also being closed; if that's posted on their website, I didn't see it.</p>

<p>Ray - Sorry I didn't make my plan more clear. Yes, I will test multiple films under varied conditions at home. Then I will take only one or two on my trip. In the past I've loaded ISO 100 slide film in one body for most shots, and ISO 200 or 400 in the other body for museum interiors and night shots - if I switch to negatives, my plan was to do something similar, like maybe: Reala and Fujicolor 400H, or Ektar and Portra 400VC.</p>

<p>I just checked Calumet's website, and yes, their prices are competitive. However they are not showing several of the films on my list as available in single rolls, and I'm not ready to commit to a 5 roll package - so, freestylephoto.biz looks like my best choice right now. Their prices are a bit higher than the others, but their selection is very good.</p>

<p>And thanks to all for your suggestions - most useful.</p>

<p>However all this news about discontinued films is making me rethink the whole idea of using my film equipment for another year or two. What I'm thinking about spending on film and processing for this trip won't buy a digital camera, but it would be a start...</p>

<p>Les, thanks for the advice.</p>

<p>I've shot some Provia 400, but not the Sensia - is this a pro-vs-consumer relationship, or is the Sensia 400 significantly different from Provia 400?</p>

<p>Having just learned Reala is probably/possibly being discontinued soon(?), I'm not even going to try it. What is it you don't like about PortraVC?</p>

<p>My scanner is an old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900 (VueScan). I've been pretty happy with it on properly exposed slides and negatives, but under-exposed slides are a pain. Multiple sampling helps keep the noise down in the dark areas, but I spend quite a bit of time in Photoshop trying to tease details out of the shadows. Obviously correct exposure is the key - which is what started me thinking about negatives vs slides.</p>

<p>When you suggest I "do away" with harsh lighting, I assume you mean avoid taking photos under the noon day sun. Good advice for an art photographer, but not always practical for a travel photographer. Sure, I'd love to take more gallery quality landscapes, but sometimes I have to settle for a "we-were-here vacation snapshot" (my traveling companion is not going to tolerate hanging out in one spot for 4 hours until the light is right). Still, I want my less-than-art snapshot to have the best exposure and composition possible under existing conditions.</p>

<p>Am I right to assume I'll have a better chance of getting a good exposure with negatives than with slides?</p>

<p>-gw</p>

<p>Trevor - thanks for the tip about Freestyle - I'll give them a try</p>

<p>Andrew - say it ain't so. I've never used Reala, but it reputation is legend!</p>

<p>Phyliss - My problem with Amazon is this: Yes, their site offers most of the films on my list, but not all from the same seller. Because each of their sellers charges a minimum amount for shipping, I was hoping to keep my shipping cost down by ordering from only one or two sellers. I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon, and I was surprised to discover that when it comes to film, there may be better alternatives. Some Amazon sellers like Photoworld, J&R, Norman Camera, and Calumet presently have film prices which are quite a bit higher than B&H. Adorama is also an Amazon seller, and their prices are about the same as B&H - but as already mentioned they are out of stock on several items on my list.</p>

<p>Thanks all,<br>

-gw</p>

<p>Please advise: What color negative film would be the most appealing to a longtime 35mm slide shooter for travel/landscapes - if the goal is to gain wider exposure latitude in harsh lighting, while preserving as much color and "pop" as possible? </p>

<p>After much searching in these forums and others, I've narrowed my list of potential negative films to the following - which I plan to test side-by-side with my regular slide films before deciding what to take to the harshly lit canyons of Utah in May:</p>

<ul>

<li >Kodak Ektar 100</li>

<li >Fuji (Superia) Reala 100</li>

<li >Fujifilm Pro 160C</li>

<li >Kodak Portra-160VC</li>

<li >Kodak Portra 400VC</li>

<li >Fuji Pro 400H</li>

</ul>

<p>Is there something here that doesn't belong, or something missing that I should try?</p>

<p>When shooting slides I generally keep one body loaded with ISO 100 film for the majority of my shots, but also having some "fast" slide film (ISO 200 or 400) in a second body for low sight stuff inside museums, night street scenes, etc. I was considering a similar strategy for negatives. Would ISO 800 be pushing my luck for negative film?</p>

<p>Background</p>

<p>I've been shooting mostly slides since the early 1970s - Kodachrome then, and more recently Ektachromes and Fujichromes. Mostly travel and landscapes. <br>

http://garywright.smugmug.com/<br>

I generally scan my slides at home, with no particular problems, except for Kodachromes which don't work very good with my infrared dust reduction on my film scanner.</p>

<p>I've had pretty good luck getting the shot I want with transparencies exposed in the midwestern/southern United States, Canada and Europe, but I've had some problems with exposure under harsh lighting in the deserts and mountains of the southwestern US - Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. More underexposed frames than I'd like, but also some shots with blown out highlights.</p>

<p>I'm a bit lazy about carrying the tripod - so I'm constantly struggling with the low shutter speeds that come with ISO 100 slide films. I'm also getting lazy about setting up the slide projector - which needs repairs. Since most of my "slide shows" are now DVDs played back on the TV, I'm starting to question if slides are worth the frustration for me.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

-gw</p>

<ul>

</ul>

<p>I want to order some 35mm film for testing and evaluation - both color negative and slide film. I plan to buy 1 roll each of maybe 8 or 10 different emulsions from both Fuji and Kodak. Based on my results, I'll decide what to buy in quantity for a trip to Utah's canyonlands in May.</p>

<p>The problem is this: I would normally get my film from B&H Photo, but they are closed until April 6. Adorama has a few of the emulsions I want to try, but is out of stock on many others. I'd like to get started as soon as possible.</p>

<p>Can anyone recommend another source of 35mm film I should try?<br>

Thanks,<br>

-gw</p>

<p>Here is my (long) list of possible emulsions:<br>

Transparencies:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fujichrome Velvia RVP 100</li>

<li>Fujichrome Provia 100F Professional, RDP III</li>

<li>Fujichrome Provia 400X Professional, RXP III</li>

<li>Kodak ELITE Chrome 100, EB-3</li>

<li>Kodak Elite Chrome Extra Color 100, EBX</li>

<li>Kodak E100VS 135-36 Ektachrome Professional</li>

<li>Kodak ELITE Chrome 200</li>

</ul>

<p>Color Negative</p>

<ul>

<li>Kodak Ektar 100</li>

<li>Fuji (Superia) Reala 100</li>

<li>Fujifilm Pro 160C</li>

<li>Kodak Portra-160VC</li>

<li>Kodak Portra 400VC</li>

<li>Fuji Pro 400H</li>

</ul>

<p>Godfrey DiGiorgi said: "I have the Olympus ZD 25mm f/2.8. To say that it is "not sharp" is gross and ridiculous overstatement."</p>

<p>Godfrey, Thanks for the feedback. I have no personal experience with the lens, and I probably should not have commented on its performance. My comment was based on a lens review I had seen on dpreview.com, which I believe to be a normally reliable source. After re-reading the review, I see it was not the sharpness that concerned the reviewer, but rather some other optical issues (excerpts below):</p>

<p>"The lens shows good (but not exceptional) sharpness across the frame even wide open, with little change on stopping down until diffraction starts degrading the image at apertures of F8 and smaller. As usual on Four Thirds, F16-F22 are best avoided unless extreme depth of field is critical." http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_25_2p8_o20/page3.asp</p>

<p>"Unusually for a Zuiko, we're not exactly shouting from the rooftops about its optical quality; it's sharp enough for sure, but the simple retrofocal design results in relatively high levels of chromatic aberration coupled with modest barrel distortion, which may come as a shock to old-time 35mm SLR shooters who remember their 50mm primes as near-perfectly corrected. In fact this lens isn't really optically any better than Olympus's alternative 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens" http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_25_2p8_o20/page4.asp</p>

<p>After reading your post (and others), plus examining some images, I'm going to put this one back on my list of possible options. Like Steve Johnson (who started this thread), I do wish it were a stop faster, so it goes on my wish list just under the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm.</p>

<p>John Shen,</p>

<p>No offense intended, and none taken. </p>

<p>It was not my intention, John, to criticize China or the Chinese people in any way. I'm sure we Americans are equally responsible for substandard products - wherever they are manufactured - by demanding ever cheaper prices. We are too willing to ignore some ugly truths about pollution and exploitation in order to get our daily fix of cheap stuff, and that makes me sad.</p>

<p>The point I thought I was trying to make is not so much that the Chinese (and Vietnamese and Indonesian) cameras are bad, but that my 1980s era Japanese cameras are good - and, more importantly, paid for. And because they were paid for in 1980s dollars, they look like a bargain compared to the new plastic cameras I see in the stores today.</p>

<p>Because I became a photographer during the 1970s, the weight and feel of satin aluminum and blackened brass have a way of pushing my nostalgia buttons in a way that plastic does not. When I was coming of age "Plastics" was a joke punch line in a movie (The Graduate).</p>

<p>I admit it - nostalgia makes no sense - the esthetics of the camera exterior has no effect on the esthetics of the image - and it's all about the image, right?</p>

<p>But when I add up esthetics, and economics, and image quality - the scales tip in favor of film - at least it does, for me, for now.</p>

<p>I think you must know what I am talking about, or you wouldn't be showing me a picture of a Seagull Twin-lens reflex - unless you are really showing me a picture of a hot babe - in which case we are still talking about esthetics, right?</p>

<p>Ray, I wish I could figure out WTF you are talking about. Are you - and various posters like Jared Thompson saying slide/digital are inherently "better" than negative film?<br>

Personally, I have never shot digital, but have always used slide film (Kodachrome, Ektachrome(various), Provia, Velvia 100, etc), which I scan with a film scanner and post process in Photoshop. I don't care so much about the prints - maybe I will pass around a few 4x6 glossies of my recent vacation or family event - but mostly I'll show my slides as on-line images on my photosharing website or as a slideshow on a DVD, viewed on a television. Yes, I know these are poor substitutes for a nicely projected transparency on a 50"x50" screen, but that's life in 2010.<br>

Today, I am trying to decide whether the wider exposure latitude of negative film is a reasonable trade off for the sharp, grainless crispness of slide film. Given that I can fool around with saturation and contrast in Photoshop, and given that computer monitors and TV screens don't really really demand much in the way of resolution - my definition of "better" is something that holds shadow and highlight detail, and is easy to scan, with only moderate adjustments required in Photoshop for color/saturation/contrast.<br>

So, is slide film "better" - or not - for a photographer like me who does not want to make giant prints, but is mostly concerned with video/TV display? Heaven knows I've struggled with many a transparency made under harsh lighting which wasn't perfectly exposed, where half the image was lost in black shadows or burnt out highlights. Maybe negative film is the answer?<br>

-gw</p>

<p>"This could go in film&processing more so than Canon FD, but I'm posting here because I feel it will reach a more specific target audience - people who <em>still shoot</em> film, not just learning about it or discussing chemistry. - Robert Scrivener"<br>

Robert, I wish you would have followed your instincts and posted in Film & Processing - I still shoot film - Using Pentax equipment, and I almost missed this thread.<br>

I send my E6 to Dwayne's in Parsons KS in Fuji Mailers. I've had them scan only one roll which I was just looking at. Not bad, good capture of image, but very flat and a little off color - going to need some Photoshop, for sure. Quite a bit different from my home-scans (Minolta Elite Scan F-2900) - in some ways better. The scans from Dwayne's are 3089x2048 pixels - 18.1M in Photoshop, or 2.5-3.0 MB as JPEGs - which balloon to 12-15MB as TIFFs. (I usually do the first Save as TIFFs for editing and archiving off site, then save a final copy as a high quality JPEG on my hard drive.)<br>

I've been taking my C-41 to a local camera store - Lawrence Photo - the only photo specialty store in my home town of Springfield, MO (population 150,000). While I have proven by my tests that the quality of the prints I get from Lawrence is superior to what I was getting at WalMart and Walgrens, I am not completely satisfied with their service.<br>

For one thing, I don't get a time and date stamp on the back of my prints - a small thing, but as the photos pile up over the years, the date becomes a great aid to organization.<br>

A "benefit" they do provide is a second set of prints for "free" - I hate this - waste of paper, which is not really free (I'd much rather have lower cost printing). Several times I've asked them to limit my order to one set but they always forget.<br>

If I continue to use the local processor, I'm going to stick with developing only - or possibly develop and scan. I have not yet tested their scans from negatives.<br>

As a film shooter, I am starting to feel like some kind of freak at my local camera store. Last week when I asked what kind of slide film they stocked, all I got for a reply was a dismissive snort.</p>