gary_a._hill

I'm interested in the Cullmanns, although I have never actually tried one. The Cullmanns have quick release leg adjustments. One thing I discovered about my TiltAll is that the three-section legs with twist lock connectors is not a good system in a situation requiring many frequent adjustments. This depends on your application, of course.

Each?

Why not eliminate the 2x converter, and plan on

enlarging more? How big is this classroom?

When was this camera last serviced?

You need a qualified camera repairman.

Color 2000 in San Francisco for scans to Kodak Photo CD. Master scans are 2000 ppi, Pro scans are 4000 ppi. A Pro scan is expensive, however. If you have a lot of images and must have 4000 ppi, you could buy a scanner and do it yourself for much less.

I've used PCs since they came out in the 1980s (and still do), and many other computer types before that. As a computer professional with a graduate engineering degree in Computer Science, I am certainly not "hardware ignorant", but when I started doing digital imaging a few years ago, I chose a Mac G4, although I had never before used a Mac. I love it, and can't imagine why anyone would use a PC for photography if they could use a Mac.

I concur with preceeding question: why slide film? I use Portra 100T unless I specifically need slides. Also quartz lights (Lowel tota-lights) are better than the cheap 3200K lamps (longer life, better stability, better fixture), yet still affordable.

Use 3200K film (Kodak 64T) and 3200K lamps. It should not be difficult to find 3200K lamps with an ordinary medium screw base at any photo supply store, but remember that these lamps are HOT. If you put them

in a plastic socket and leave them on, you could have a real problem.

Get a fixture designed for these lamps, and use them intermittently.

The best software for RGB to CMYK, and for prepress editing generally, is Binuscan Photo Retouch Pro.

Use the wide angle. On my first trip to Italy, I would want to be taking in as much as I could, not fussing with the technical aspects of architectural photography. The most important tool in photography is the eye of the photographer.

 

If you're really into architectural photography, get another camera for the purpose, like a medium format camera with rising front. If you want a 35mm shift lens, I agree that Canon is best. Although I use Nikon and have no Canon equipment, I can see merit in getting a basic Canon body just for the shift lens, if I wanted that feature.

QuarkXPress will add frames in several styles.

I use the 15 inch Titanium Powerbook with Mac OS 9 and Binuscan Photo Retouch Pro, and I love it.

No, it's not, and the idea that it is the ONLY product worth using for serious professional photoediting is nonsense. I am not a Photoshop user, and am not putting it down, but I use Binuscan Photo Retouch Pro (Mac only) and I wouldn't consider switching. A direct comparison with Photoshop across the board is probably not meaningful, because the target customers are different. Photoshop probably has some features which, if you use them, you would miss in PRP, but if PRP does what you want, nobody does it better.

XE-5 or XE-7

Binuscan Photo Retouch Pro compares very favorably

with Photoshop for high end image editing, although

it is target mainly at prepress so differs somewhat

in features. I wouldn't consider switching to Photoshop

or anything else.

I have used the Rokkor 500mm mirror lens on a Minolta XE-5 handheld for birdwatching, with good results. The balance point is right where I put my thumb near the mounting flange. I don't know about mirror lenses with other camera systems, but they should be similar.

 

Of course mirror lenses have their quirks. You may not like the doughnuts for out-of-focus highlights.

Update: Binuscan PRP does not yet import Canon raw files directly, but it will soon. I will wait for this and use Canon's raw to tiff conversion in the meantime.

"Purple fringing" is not chromatic aberration, it is "blooming", a phenomenon of CCDs when they are over exposed.

My experience is mixed. I had very good results with test scans at Color 2000 in San Francisco, for both master and pro scans. The pro scans are 4096 x 6144 on 35mm film, which is all the resolution you can expect to get. I had poorer results with another scanning service (lint on images). Like any service, the quality depends on the service provider. The technology itself is excellent, despite what you read on internet sites such as Ted Felix and FLAAR. It is a good choice if you want to use a service, because I have found that there is not much middle ground between low-end and high-end services. Lots of places will give you cheaper scans, but I have found the quality unacceptable. Often, the person at the desk can't even tell you what you are getting. High-end digital imaging services will give you excellent drum scans, but at $20 to $40 per image. Pro Photo CDs should be under $10, and Master Photo CDs much less.

 

The main problem with Photo CDs is that Kodak appears to be orphaning the technology, meaning that there will likely be fewer providers of the service. While there are are a lot of applications which read Photo CDs, most will not give you the best image which Photo CD can produce. I use Binuscan BinuCD, which will convert the Pro images, but not the Master. For Master, I use Kodak Access, but it produces 8-bit RGB, less than the color depth of Photo CD. It will also produce Ycc Tiffs, but try to find an application which will read them! Kodak Access is nevertheless a good tool for converting Photo CD to Tiff, and it will read the info files, which most applications will not, and it's cheap. Unfortunately, I don't think it's available anymore.

 

Although I like Photo CD, and still use it for some applications, I would like to have a 4000 dpi film scanner for consistent quality and control of the process. For archiving original photographs, I recommend film.

I don't know what you are after in "performance" of raw capture. All I expect is a neutral conversion of Canon RAW to 16-bit Tiff, after which I would process the image in Binuscan Photo Retouch Pro. I will be looking for raw capture for Canon soon, myself, and I am expecting the Canon software should be sufficient, although some here say it's slow. Is there anything else wrong with it?

Binuscan's Auto-Reco process, which is included in their Photo Retouch Pro product. You don't read much about Binuscan PRP on this site, but in my experience, it is excellent. I am not a Photoshop user, so cannot compare, but PRP is so good I have stopped looking for other photoediting software.

My mistake. It was Agfa Ultra 50. It has been discontinued for awhile, so I forgot.

You may get better results in a film scanner if you are using chromogenic B&W film instead of silver film.

You haven't indicated what kind of lab you used. If your color temperature is mismatched, you can expect bad results from your average photo lab, but a custom color printer can fix it, at a price. I have done this for particular photos which were worth it, but for good results from routine printing, you should control for color temperature.

The "family history" angle is interesting. If you found some 40-year old negatives in your grandparents' attic, you could print them, even though the format might be long obsolete. If your CDs with digital images are unearthed 40 years from now, will anyone be able to get images from them? I've been in the computer business almost 40 years, and I wouldn't bet on it.