david_henderson

Under the Dome Guanajuato 5D

River Tyne Newcastle. 5Dii

Berlin Wall 5D

Burano Venice 5Dii

South Stoneboro Nova Scotia 5Dii

North Uist, Hebrides. 5Diii

I suspect the photographer might be Darwin Wiggett? And if it isn't you might want to add him to your list. He runs tours also, though whether he'd be close by on the mornings you want is uncertain. Best of luck.

If you have a car, I don't think you need a guide. You need to spend an hour or two looking at online photographs then pinpoint them on a map. I visited both Banff and Jasper for the only time in 1999 and was active from day 1 just relying on guidebooks/tour sites and decent maps. Its so much easier today with all those online images.

Salvation Mountain Detail. Ca. 5D

For scanning prints, you have to remember that you essentially won't need to scan above 300ppi. So its not a particularly demanding application, resolution-wise, and pretty much any competent flatbed with a bed big enough to take your print should be able to do it. Scanning at a higher resolution risks picking up the texture of even a reasonably smooth fibre paper, and you can't really expect to enlarge anyway since no scanner can pick up detail that wasn't on the original print. So your question is really how much extra are you prepared to spend to achieve better performance on the subsidiary objective of scanning negs. If the answer is nothing then you may as well settle for the V600. If its " a bit" then look at the V700/V750 range used or their newer replacements for a new machine, which will get you a little better resolution and more shadow detail from negs.

Beynac Dordogne 5Dii

Jaipur Sweepers 5Dii

I don't know what "best" is. What I do know is that when I show others my work, whether for amusement or for business reasons (eg stock agency photo editors) they make selections that might overlap with my own choices to an extent, but they are not the same. Ever. So if part of the process you're going through consists of trying to forecast what others will like best , then stop it right now, because that doesn't work. I can't even make an edit that my wife agrees with in entirety. I've lost count of the times I've sent a batch off to an editor whose choices I find in part incomprehensible and downright wrong, and don't include the images I'd have bet the house they'd accept. And how many times have you seen a photo competition where you think the selected winner is less good than several others buried amongst the commended or even the also rans, no matter who judged and how many judges. So realise this. If its impossible to forecast what others like, then your choices matter less than you think. An extra hour or two in front of the computer is unlikely to change other people's perception of how good you are or what sort of job you've done. A couple of "rules" to make the job a little easier. First no matter what the good qualities are , resist the temptation to include photographs with significant flaws or distractions. Generally people will notice flaws and not too many of them will think that the look on the second violin's face makes up for it. The flaw will stick with some people and will rub off on the pictures without flaws. Second don't make selections that have the audience struggling to tell the difference between the images. Doesn't matter how good "similars" are, they are adding nothing to your portfolio. Try and select images that are different from each other.

Rossnowlagh, Donegal 5Dii

Dubai. In Progress 5Dii

Thw White Step, Bastille, Paris. Bronica 6x6 Tri_X

Saratoga Lake New York 5Dii

NYC 5D

La Pedrera Barcelona, sunset. E6

MOMA NYC 5D

I've read a real 2000 ppi. I've read 2200/2400 ppi. I have not, personally , read 3000. Applying that to your film approx. 5000 x 3750 pixels. But don't think that those numbers mean that a scan from a v600 is as good as a scan the same size from a film scanner or drum scanner that will make a bigger scan, where I'd expect to see both more detail and more info in the shadows. In short the advantage of a better, more expensive scanner is not only that it can make bigger scans. My own experience with a V700 and 6x6 indicates that I've usually been pretty happy with prints or book reproduction up to about 12" longest side, so long as the original is sharp and detailed. If you've been hand-holding , then not so much. Beyond that point I'd rather send out for a film scan, though others might be happy to squeeze more out of the scans than I do.

I have my own website. I have a few photographs on Flickr from when I was especially keen on photography of abandoned buildings and Flickr appeared to be point central for those groups- haven't added anything for years though.

Sand Dancers. Lofoten. 5Diii

Monteroni Tuscany 5Dii

London 5Dii