andrew_pike1

That's sad. Really, really sad. But is is just people in the U.K. that are getting dumped? It doesen't reference Nikon as a whole, just Nikon U.K. Who knows? Maybe us over here in the United States have a few more weeks/months, as perhaps does the rest of the world.

But they will be cut soon, that's for sure. It's the end of a long, proud legacy of robustness, professional quality, and tradition. Now they'll just be like everybody else, and pretty soon the atmosphere will be "D1000? That was so two years ago. Get a new camera already."

Meanwhile, I'll still be shooting away with my 20-year old F100, with whatever's left of the film market.

But then again, if they listened to hopeless traditionalists like myself, the world would stop turning, because there would be nothing left to make it go round (hint: it's green, and comes in varieties featuring Washington, Jefferson, et. al.).

There is also, in addition to digital methods, Ilfochrome. Many will debunk it as outdated, but try it before you knock it. I happen to quite like it.

Holland Photo in Austin, Texas does them mail-order. www.hollandphoto.com

Can you print Scala as an Ilfochrome? Would you just dial down the color filters on the enlarger head and print it like you'd print a B&W negative, except backwards, obviously, as it's a positive?

Just wondering.

By the way, will Scala survive the Agfa Photo dissolution and partial buy-out? I'm guessing not, but then again it may get bought by a company that respects an excellent niche product.

Too bad-this is definately the end of Scala.

This may turn out to be the photo community's Enron-it will be interesting to find out what happened to all that money.

Why not? Though most people think R-Prints have been eclipsed by digital, there are still people out there who like analog processes. I, for example, get all my slides that are to be printed for display printed as Ilfochrome by Holland Photo. Quirky and somewhat expensive, but I like it-it's just my thing.

I live around Cleveland, so I really haven't a clue as to how to answer his question, but someone out there should be able to, and I encourage them to do it.

Don't do that! Scala is a great film, and may not be available too much longer, given the way the film market has been acting.

Just get some of the Color Reflections mailers from B&H-those'll work pretty well. Call them (Color Reflections) to see about extra postage.

Scala is a great film-don't give up on it just because of a few cents extra postage!

Order it (Kodachrome) from B&H or Adorama if your local camera store dosen't stock it. The 200 is quite grainy, but has a good texture and feel to it that I like.

BTW, for processing there is also one other lab in Japan that will do it, but I haven't a clue as to how you would go about processing it there.

Good luck and make sure to share your best shots.

Ilfochrome (which used to be called Cibachrome until Ilford bought the company) is the only optical process left for making prints from slides. It differs from regular paper used to make prints from negatives in three ways. First, instead of having the colors created by the chemicals during development, the colors are already inside the paper. The development is a series of selective destruction of certain color layers to bring out the final print. The pure AZO dyes in the paper are so stable that Ilford gurantees that when laminated and displayed properly, an Ilfochrome print will last up to 200 years!

Also, it is a direct positive-to-positive process. There is no in-between step of creating an internegative or scanning the photo into a computer for printing. The print is the second generation, and thus retains much of the quality of the original.

Thirdly, you aren't actually printing on paper. Except for the matte and pearl finish papers, the backing for Ilfochrome Classic is all-polyester. This gives it a mirror-like sheen that you can actually see your reflection in.

While it is high in contrast (this can be tamed by making a contrast mask), I have found that Ilfochrome prints are among the highest quality I have ever seen. I recently got back (just yesterday, in fact) two 11x14's and one 16x20 that my mother will use in the dining room. We were both totally blown away.

As you can tell from my language, I am clearly a proponant of Ilfochrome. I suggest that you have one made and decide for yourself.

For more information on Ilfochrome, go to this URL-I found it very helpful. http://www.lightroom.com/lr_pages/ilfo_info.html

I read on a web site recently that Ilfochrome prints will last

longer and will be more resistant to wear and tear if they are

laminated after printing. I also read that when laminated and

displayed properly, Ilford gives them a 200 year gurantee on color

steadfastness.

Is this true? What effect will this have on the print quality? I've

had Ilfochrome prints made before, but not laminated. I noticed they

were incredibly vulnerable to moisture (i.e. spit) and fingerprints.

Does having it laminated reduce this?

Also, if I get a slide printed on Ilfochrome Classic Glossy, is it

then advisable to have it laminated in a glossy fashion, or is matte

also acceptable?

I really don't want any posts detailing why digital is so much

better than Ilfochrome. Please just stick to my initial question-I

don't want this to become an analog vs. digital debate.

Thanks.

It's not a question of weather or not you deserve it, it's a matter of what you want. Joe-Schmo with his point-and-shoot 35mm is just as entitled to good processing as any pro-it's really a matter of how much you want to pay.

We have a pro lab in Cleveland called Dodd camera. They provide good E-6 processign for about $8.88 a roll. I too am an amateur, and I found that their services, though good, were too expensive for my meager budget.

Eventually, I discovered mailers, and I haven't looked back since. Fuji's processing is so good and so cheap that I use it almost exclusively, unless I use Kodachrome, in which case I have to use a Kodak mailer, which is more expensive, but still good.

If you live in Seattle, I would estimate a turnaround of about 2 weeks, as the Fuji lab is in Phoenix, Arizona. Kodak mailers will take longer, as they have to go to Massachusetts. A&I will be the quickest turnaround, only going to California.

I say go for the mailers. Why pay double for comprable quality processing if you can afford to wait?

I've heard that Kodak Ektachrome 64 is good. The photo's I've seen of interiors taken on it looked wonderful.

It's an older film, true, but the slow speed should minimize the grain and deliver the results you want.

The 3-way panhead and quick-release plate on my Velbon Ultra-Maxi F

was always disturbingly insufficient when it came to supporting my

F100 and macro lens. The camera and lens weigh too much, especially

when oriented for a vertical shot, and would always slip on the

plate, completely screwing up my shot. I'd have to take a

screwdriver everwhere I went, and over time the screw on the bottom

of the plate became stripped so that it is now unusable.

I'm thinking of buying the Gittos M-7001 ballhead with built-in

quick release that supports 13lbs. of equipment, has two bubble

levels, two different tripod screws for different cameras, and (best

of all) allows the quick release plate to slide back and forth to

aid in macro focusing, all for $54.95.

Have any of you tried this head? Is it a good deal or should I buy

something else? Please share your opinions. Thanks.

It's not going to work. Your results will be unuseable. Don't waste your time or your chemicals.

Try the Rocky Mountain Film Lab-they should be able to pull something out of it.

I was looking through an old Kodak film data guide, and it mentioned Kodachrome II (ASA25), Kodachrome A (ASA 40, tungsten), and a film I haven't heard much about before, Kodachrome X (ASA 64).

I hear Kodachrome II was spectactular, and a bunch of people were bummed when EK changed the formula. Kodachrome A used to be sold as still film, but now is only available for movies (and that's being discontinued).

What about Kodachrome X? Is it the ancestor of Kodachrome 64?

And I hear that it will somehow always be compatable with current technology, and that if my PC crashes they will be unaffected.

How much better can this stuff get?

Don't use Kodachrome exclusively with flash indoors-you'll find that you loose any background detail. Otherwise it's fine.

Just thought I'd give you a heads up.

Though it's a Kodak product and generally agreed not to be long for this earth, I've found that Kodachrome 64 and 200 (though the latter can be quite grainy) are a nice compromise.

Before Velvia 50 and other advanced E-6 films came out and shattered their market base, the Kodachromes were the premier slide films for just about everything. You'd find them used for portraits, wildlife, close up/macro, etc.

It really can't be compared to anything else because its palate and processing are so unique, but I find it to come between Provia 100F and Velvia 50. I'll use it if I want to photograph a garden and my sister's birthday party on the same roll.

Processing requires either mailers or a willing dealer to send it out to somewhere in the middle of Kansas for development, mounting, and shipment back to you. Good quality development, and the turnaround is generally in the neighborhood of 2 weeks. You can't process it at home because K-14 is the great ugly monster of all film development processes.

I'd try a roll while you still can-you may like it, you may hate it-it's a very personal film.

My dad recently bought me a ton of Promaster Photo Image Pro Photo

Glossy 8.5x11'' paper because it was on sale at a really cheap price

at the local camera store.

I've got an Epson Stylus Photo R200, and I didn't find any profiles

at the Promaster website, so I was wondering what the best paper

setting is to use for this paper. I'm used to regular Epson Glossy

Photo Paper-what differences should I expect in quality?

I've always wondered what the optimal scanning resolution to use

would be when scanning 35mm slides/negatives into Photoshop Elements

2.0 via an Epson Perfection 4870 for letter-sized output on an Epson

Stylus Photo R200.

For a while now, I've been making 1700 dpi scans that I save

as .TIFF files and then print on the R200 at the "best photo"

setting. This takes an hour to scan 8 slides, though, and I'm

guessing that it really dosen't have to take this long.

The default print resolution provided by the scanner of 300 dpi

seems a bit low for me-I want to pick up more detail, but not have

the scans take so long.

In your experience, what is the best resolution to use that provides

the best balance between time and quality?

Won't Dodd do it? In my experience, they've been able to do just about anything, even if they have to send it out to do it.

I use the Mentor branch, and am quite satisfied with them, apart from their slide duplicating services (ugh-don't get me started).