stwrtertbsratbs5

<p>"Based on what I have read i am tempted to go with the iMAC (it will end up about $2000 plus software) assuming I can use my Nikon scanners."</p>

<p>No problem. Just buy a copy of Windows and set up a dual boot ;0</p>

<p>" My good friend in Ottawa lost a terrible amount of money this winter. His Power Mac went down. Two or three years old (can't remember), $4K, it was in the Mac shop for three weeks just to find out it was a motherboard and an $1800 repair bill. $1200 for the mobo and $600 labour."</p>

<p>That's enough reason to keep me away from Mac, Garrison. It's unconscionable to charge $1,200 for a MB, and it's even worse to charge $600 for labor to install it. I'll keep giving my business to my local clone maker.</p>

<p>I had mine for a few years and have scanned several thousand images. No banding here.</p>

<p>Just to clarify, I assume that you are looking for a DSLR - it's a simple matter to find an excellent SLR for well under $1,000, but then you'd need to scan film.</p>

<p>You should be able to get a good DSLR that fits your budget because you plan to shoot outdoors where lighting is generally good. Add in nighttime sports, though, and all bets are off.</p>

<p>"Additionally, the larger negative size advantage (of 6x7/6x8 vs 35mm & 6x4.5) shows up when shooting grainly high speed films such as Delta 3200 under available light."</p>

<p>I use 35mm for low light because the lenses are faster and I can get better DOF at wide apertures. That allows me to use slower film with 35mm than I would with MF.</p>

<p>"who cares about all the geeky stuff....let's see a side by side SCANS of the final print."</p>

<p>You mean you don't care whether the film has enough resolution to capture differences? Show me the results, even if they are invalid?</p>

<p>"I personally did not see the huge leap in quality from Nikon 35mm to Bronica 6x6."</p>

<p>Then you must be doing something wrong. A 645 neg is huge (2.7x larger) compared with 35mm, and the Bronica lenses are excellent. The RB is an excellent system, but it's most suited for tripod use either in a studio or close to a car.</p>

<p>Alternatively you could get a nice 645 SLR, such as a Bronica ETRSi, for very little money. The SLR format is closer to what you're used to, and the 645 neg is 2.7x the size of 35mm negs, so you'll see a huge improvement. It's also more flexible and the leaf shutter lenses flash sync at all speeds.</p>

<p>I looked at Macs, but I decided to stay with PCs. I don't like all-in-once designs or small cases that make it difficult for me to add more RAM or an additional HD. So that only left the Mac Pro as a viable option, and it's more than I need for photo editing.</p>

<p>I also I didn't see any Mac-only software that would drive me to switch. It looked as if I'd need to run Win 7 via boot camp in order to run Nikon Scan. On top of that, I've found that modern versions of Windows are very stable. And, since I spend most of my time working within applications, I just couldn't justify the extra expense and hassle of purchasing of two operating systems and alternatively booting one or the other (you can't drive a firewire scanner via Parallels). YMMV.</p>

<p>You can always use extension tubes if you need a shorter minimum focus distance. You do, of course, give up focus at infinity.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/407711-REG/Kenko_UNITUBE25DGN_25mm_Uniplus_Tube_DG.html#reviews</p>

<p>Life is full of trade-offs.</p>

<p>"Correlation?"</p>

<p>You need to take a statistics, course, Bill. Correlation is *not* the same as causality. Income distribution has shifted a great deal in the last 30 years because tax rates have been slashed for the wealthiest Americans. And I don't just mean income taxes - the wealthiest Americans are taxed at the long-term capital gains rates because most of their income comes from investments. Blame MBAs if you want. Or blame yourself if you voted for Reagan.</p>

<p>As for Kodachrome - let it go. It's gone.</p>

<p>"Robert, if you have a Coolscan, I didnt mean to offend you. But the fact is, that these machines were designed to get the colors RIGHT, and looking GOOD, automatically, and with a minimum of hassle."</p>

<p>No offense taken. It's just a matter of what I expect. I've done my own color correction in a color darkroom, so I am picky. It's been my experience that a well-trained eye is much better than machine-based color correction.</p>

<p>"As someone once said the brand doesn't really matter ? i want to confirm about that."</p>

<p>I can't agree. Not all lights are well built. Look at Alien Bees for good solid budget lighting. They're light weight and durable.</p>

<p>"Set the camera to aperture priority."</p>

<p>Do not shoot with the camera in a program mode if the light is constant. Use manual mode and adjust until you have correct exposures. That way all of your images will be consistent and properly exposed.</p>

<p>What do you intend to shoot? A Crown Graphic is a good start, as long as you don't need extensive movements. And you can use it hand held.</p>

<p>"Naming a lesser product "Kodachrome" is a sick marketing ploy by the very MBA mentality that has brought America to its knees over the past 40 years."</p>

<p>You mean things like actually expecting to make a return on investment?</p>

<p>"But why bother with film scans? My image storage consists of a box to keep my negatives in. It hardly takes up any space."</p>

<p>I consider my archival sleeves that are full of negatives to be one of my backup sets. My scans are on a HD that's backed up to an external HD. The file is also backed up to the Mozy online backup service.</p>

<p>"If you shoot a lot of negative film, you should try to find a used pro minilab scanner, such as a Kodak Pakon f235 Plus. Not only do they scan negs with perfect colors, they scan quickly."</p>

<p>You will not get perfect colors from an automated minilab scanner. You're far more likely to get something that looks like it came from your neighborhood drug store. The best color correcting is done by humans. </p>

<p>" For the $3000 for the 9000 scanner and proper film holder I could by a new 4x5 enlarger with a Dichroic head."</p>

<p>That's an option, but it's not useful if you want digitized images.</p>

<p>I've been happy with the ColorNeg Photoshop plug-in (the latest version has been renamed ColorPerfect). Additional info here:</p>

<p>http://www.colorneg.com/oldneg.html?lang=en</p>

<p>http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/977912@N23/</p>

<p>I keep thinking that the next on I but will be 'The One'. Never seems to work out . . .</p>

<p>Still looking for the perfect bag, too. Anyone tried the new 2010 Mountainsmith Borealis AT camera backpack? It looks nice . . .</p>

<p>"The problem with cloud backups - as distinct from physically moving the data off-site - is that the data is no longer under your control. Too many of these companies have gone out of business. Then where are you?"</p>

<p>Mozy is owned by EMC, a Fortune 500 company. So I wouldn't worry that they'll go out of business!</p>

<p>I use Mozy, too, but backups are slow because the $5/month plan is bandwidth limited. SOme backups run for days, but that's fine with me because i's in the background. And I only plan to use it if my primary backups fail.</p>

<p>I'm happy with results that I get from both film and digital. I use digital for sports, and film for most everything else. </p>

<p>The Harrison changing tents are excellent, but they aren't cheap.</p>