paul_lee5

I may be alone on this, but I like the way Fuji Frontier machines scan negative film. I use them to quickly

post shots on the web. For example: <a href="http://www.designunion.net/kenya">http://

www.designunion.net/kenya</a>

<p>

I have a Nikon 8000 scanner when I need higher resolution files for printing, but I like the convenience

and ease and the general look of Frontier scans (I understand they aren't to everyone's taste).

<p>

I live in Los Angeles, and I go to the A & I lab in Hollywood. They charge $30 for developing a roll of 220

and scanning them to CD on a Frontier machine (each scan is 6mb).

<p>

My question is: Has anyone found a place that develops and scans 120/220 film on a Frontier machine for

less than $30? If anyone knows a place in Los Angeles that provides such a service, please let me know. As

well, if this can be done via mail, that information would be much appreciated as well.

Because of all the reasons stated above, I sold all my film equipment about two years ago

and went all digital. And sure, it was more convenient and costs went down. It was relief to

get away from the time and effort it took to scan film.

<p>

But I don't know what it was, but my interest in photography waned as well in this period.

<p>

Recently, I went on a trip to rural Africa and I knew I wouldn't have access to any

electricity, so I couldn't bring my digital equipment. Instead, I decided to shoot all film.

Here are some of the results:

<P>

<a href="http://www.designunion.net/kenya">Kenya Gallery</a>

<P>

Maybe I'm being ignorant, but I feel like a lot of these images wouldn't have the same feel

if they were shot with digital. There's a certain quality about film that is beautiful. By all

means, get your feet wet with digital. It's fantastic. But film is something special as well.

Don't sell your film equipment just yet.

- Click once on any Nikon Raw file.

- Select "Get Info" from the "File" menu (or just command-i)

- In the "Open with" area of the dialog box that appears, select Adobe Photoshop as the

application to open the file with (You may have to click on "Other" and navigate to the

Photoshop application).

- Click on the "Change All" button underneath the pull down. This makes every Nikon Raw

file open in Photoshop.

Hope this helps.

I live in Boston. When I order from B&H, my order usually arrives the next day (even with

just UPS Ground). Adorama usually takes at least 2-3 days longer. The last time I ordered

from Adorama, they packed my order up, printed out a UPS pick-up ticket and then the

package sat at the warehouse for 5 days. I have no idea why. Neither did Adorama's

customer service. Someone had to physically go down to shipping to make sure the order

got out. Weird.

I just recently purchased a Canonet QL17 and put my first roll of film through the camera

this weekend. My main camera has been a Contax G1 w/45mm f2, so that was my frame

of reference. While it falls short of the Zeiss glass, I was pleasantly surprised at the

sharpness/contrast I was able to get with the QL17.

Here are the samples in case you're interested:

http://www.pbase.com/grayday

(The shots are nothing to write home about. Just some test images shot wide open. You've

been warned.)

While I can't comment on the Konicas, I'm very happy with the purchase of the QL17. Great

quality for $30(eBay)!

I agree with the people who say that digital and film are just different and that there is a

place for both of them. I personally prefer film, but I don't deny that digital - being able to

shoot in RAW format, for example - innovates (revolutionizes?) the way people take

photos.

My only lament is that with most consumers (and money) going to digital, it's just going to

get more and more expensive to work with film. Film manufacturers will have much less

incentive to develop new film technologies. Film labs will be forced to close shop or raise

prices just to stay afloat. My frustration is that in a couple years, I might not have a choice

between shooting film or digital. I might be forced to shoot digital. While not the end of

the world, admittedly, it wouldn't be ideal. Having a choice is always better than not

having one.

I'm somewhat of a novice and I've been experimenting these past couple months with

different kinds of negative film to see what I like and dislike. These boards have been

invaluable in giving direction and sound advice. Thanks.

It seems like some of the more recommended negative films on these boards are Fuji NPH,

Kodak 400UC, and Fuji Reala. I've tried these and have gotten good results. Still, I'm

wondering if there are films with more contrast. My primary photography is not of people

so accurate and flattering skin tones is not a big issue. My interests are in more abstract,

fine-art type of photography. I find that I prefer high-contrast images that contain bold

and graphical gestures. I'm looking for recommendations for what you find are the best

high-contrast negative films that I can use to get these kinds of images.

I get this with my prints in exactly the scenarios that you mention. Grainy images with that

awful purple/blue in the shadows. It's particularly apparent in the picture CD scans that I

get. I've noticed that it's always when I go to a lab that uses a Frontier machine. Taking a

look at my negatives now, I'm thinking it's the Frontier machine that's trying to

compensate for my underexposed images (although, I'm not sure and can definitely be

wrong). Still, I would much rather have a print where the underexposure is apparent, than

to have a machine take a best guess.

Sorry, Dave. I don't have any suggestions, but you have my empathy.