harryo

<p>"<strong>The camera does not make professional photos, the professional photographer does</strong>."<br>

That might be true, but it is the businessman that takes those professional photos and actually makes a business out of it. Many tallented photographers forget about the business parts. Many fail because of this.</p>

Being a professional, you should have made your rates clear up front and you should have met with the right people to

understand what they wanted photographed and how many images they had in mind. Not doing this up front, you did not

approach this shoot from a professional angle and I think you should just provide the images and take any pay, if any at

all, and be grateful.

Accurate or not, I like what Greg did with the trolley mural. The original just did not have the snap to it. I use to have my negatives proofed by a lab into 4x5 photos. I scanned the negatives and was always able to get a much more vibrant and pleasing final image than what was produced by the lab. I used a professional lab for my processing, but converting to digital really opens up what can be done with the images.

 

I actually shot NPS 160 film for a lot of my landscapes for it's huge dynamic range. I then scanned the negatives using a Nikon 8000 and used photoshop to bring up the vibrancy. Worked really well and I could basically control contrast, white balance and saturation when in digital form.

Wolf, there are two ways of telling someone that you don't agree with them and that you have a better, more scientific test. Unfortunately, you chose the wrong way.

Our photography club has an Epson digital projector ( don't know the model

number off hand ) and is in the process of getting a laptop to hook up to the

projector. Are there any special requirements we should be looking for in the

laptop? Does the graphics card influence the projected image? How about

memory requirements and processor speed. This laptop will be exclusively used

for digital projection...no image processing on it.

 

Also, any experiences on calibrating digital projectors ( good and bad ).

 

thanks in advance,

 

harry

HP has also drastically reduced their 24" and 44" models as well. I've heard on another forum that HP might be getting out of large format printers.

I 2nd the idea of shooting Fuji NPS160 negative film. That is exactly what I did last year at Zion and Bryce and was not disappointed with the images at all. The dynamic range of NPS160 over Velvia allows you to expose for the deep saturated canyon walls, yet have enough range to allow detail in the shadows, something that would not be possible with Velvia.

I use Moab Entrada and Breathing Color Chromata White canvas. Both produce excellent results on my 2200. Getting a good profile is key. I suggest getting a sample pack of papers, use the "canned" profiles for those papers, pick you favourite(s) and then get custom profiles made for your printer / paper combination.

Since you want to scan both medium format and 35mm, I suggest you look at a used Nikon 8000 / 9000 scanner. These scanners are optimized for the medium format, but handle 35mm also very well. They can produce a true 4000 dpi scan and come with digital ICE for automatic dust spec removal. You can get these for less than $1000 used.

 

I believe if you are shooting medium format, you are so because of the quality images the large negatives can provide. To get the most out of these negatives, a dedicated scanner like the Nikons will blow away what you are getting from a flatbed. Personally, I would not shoot medium format and degrade the final result by using a flatbed scanner.

Rand, yes a lot of photos that were taken back in the film days were just stored away in shoe boxes...but at least they were stored. Just recently I discovered some of my parents photos taken back 60 years ago. I just wonder where the digital images being captured today will be 60 years from now. My vote is the majority would have long ago disappeared along with the drives they reside on.

It's a shame that we have to learn to live with basically a useless viewfinder. Time for Canon to step up and improve some of the usability of their prosumer cameras.

There are two versions of both Banff and Jasper national parks. The 1st version is made for the armchair tourist that wants to see the main tourist areas ( Lake Louise, Banff, Jasper etc... ) and want all the luxury to go along with that. The other version of the parks are for those that are willing to get off the beaten path and experience the true outdoors. There are countless hiking trails which within 1/2 hour of hiking get you back away from the crowds into the "real" Rockies. Majestic mountains, flowering meadows, cascading waterfalls and abundent wildlife ( too much sometimes ) are just 1/2 hour away from the usual tourist areas. It's too bad the vast majority of people visiting the parks don't ever get to really see the parks.

 

Next week I am going into the Lake Ohara region of Yoho National Park. Probably pound for pound, one of the most spectacular accessible areas in the world and I venture to say that the majority of people reading this post do not even know it exists. The majority people visiting the parks will taking in Banff, Lake Louise and then quickly drive to Jasper to round out their time.

If you stick with 35mm film, I guarantee you will face an enormous back log of film to scan. The rate at which you will shoot will outpace your ability to scan. You will get frustrated.

 

I shoot both film (6x7) and digital and thoroughly enjoy film. I get the film developed and only scan the ones that I want to make prints from. Never feel like I have a back log of film to scan. Why would you want to scan every shot?

I leave my on all the time, even for a stretch where I was away for 1 month and never have any clogs. My environment is quite humid and I only use Epson ink.

Are your slides medium format. If not, then the 9000 is overkill. You can get by with the dedicated 35mm version.

Fuji NPS 160

Ed, you are right. The original Velvia did not have the 50 on the packaging.

Of all the greens in Scotland, I would suggest Fuji Velvia 50 which does a fabulous job with greens. For those times where there is a lot of contrast in the scenes, I would suggest using Fuji NPS which handles the contrast fabulously.

I shoot 6x7 film and would like to scan and print out an 8x10 contact sheet

with 9 exposures per sheet. What flatbed scanner would you suggest for this. I

have a Nikon 8000 for my high resolution scanning, but want something that can

scan 9 shots at one time at a low resolution so that I can proof them as a

contact sheet. Any suggestions on a flatbed that will do this would be

appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Harry

Has anyone created custom profiles to use with their ImagePrint RIP? How much

better were the custom profiles compared to the canned profiles that come with

ImagePrint? I use Moab Entrada and Breathing Color Canvas and am happy with

the results I am getting from ImagePrint, but am wondering if creating a

custom profile will give me any noticable improvements.

I don't know if you can directly access some of my photos, but if you go to

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/showgallery.php?cat=500&page=2&sort=1&perpage=12&name=chez

 

you can see some of my images that were all scanned using a 8000.

I've been using these guys for the last few years.

 

http://www.abcphoto.com/

Andrew, I've never used a Nikon 9000, but I am very happy with the results I get from the 8000 and I picked it up for $750. I never experienced any banding and the slower scan times ( don't really know how much faster the 9000 is ) does not bother me as I only scan the slides I want to make photos from.

 

I would recommend you keep your eyes open for a used 8000 and I'm sure you can get it for less than $1000. You will be very happy with the results of 6x7 slides scanned on the 8000. I also get very good results scanning Fuji NPS negative film which I am use for landscape shots that require more dynamic range.

You can never have enough memory or CPU power when working with photoshop. Suggest looking at the new dual core intel machines.

Andrew, I have both a Pentax 6x7 system and a Canon 20D digital camera. I use the 20D for photos that require speed ( soccer / speed skating etc... ) and don't require fine detail. For all my landscape work, I use the 6x7 scanned on a Nikon 8000. The 6x7 produces images with much more fine detail than the 20D. Yes, you can blow up a 20D photo to 13x19...but the detail is just not there. Blow up an exact same shot with a 6x7 and you'll know your answer. I've done that and I am sticking with 6x7 for any fine detail work. The rest is digital.