tallnbig68

January 4, 2010

Took the advice and as well some of my own intuition and sold my Nikon D90 and related glass. Happily back in the slide game. Let's see, two Kodak Carousel projectors freshly overhauled, and two Elmo slide projectors, all for the Kodak Carousel system all in regular use. For me digital is a pain, I have do the work.

Good processing in two or three different local locations, even Dwayne's in a foreign country.

And fifty or sixty very full 600 slide boxes of colour slides, mostly of railways, motorcycles and pipe organs over the years.

When Kodachrome is gone, there is still Sensia or Provia E-6. Not the same, but then what is these days?

December 30, 2009

Perhaps because we gentlemen acquire pictures using the overabundant technology,

and never really acquire lasting images.

It is as if the nmerical count of pictures saved digitally

matter more than simply one or two superb images.

December 28, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=321228">Daniel Bayer</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Current POW Recipient" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" title="Current POW Recipient" /> </a> , Dec 27, 2009; 01:57 a.m.

Bryce, consider this man's battle with Lymphoma and how it affected his photography: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jeffjacobsonphotography.com/about-the-last-roll" target="_blank">http://www.jeffjacobsonphotography.com/about-the-last-roll</a> It certainly made me value my time and make the most of it, just food for thought....

Read his website and can agree 100 percent. Now he did not specify exactly the type of lymphona, I had Non-Hodgkins, which was discovered to be in late stage III after the kidney surgery. So the weakness and tiredness after each round of chemo is so familiar to me. However I also have Lupus which complicates the mess hence a much extended series of chemo, almost three years in fact. And after each round of chemicals weakness and tiredness to the extreme. By the time I started to feel more energetic, wham, another round of chemicals.

So I have to recover; the desire to do what I once did isn't there.

The D90 and 18-105 DX lense is now in the hands of a friend who is interested.

December 26, 2009

All very interesting responses.

Some I suspect may be of the Christmas Grinch variety.

No matter, threads oft become something other than what the original poster may have intended.

Have discovered it is not so much a dislike of digital, rather an inability to

enjoy photography as it once was. Call it increasing age,

overtures from the last four years of major illness or something entirely different.

I know not what.

However to ease my pain the D90

and accompanying glass shall be sold, and the money stashed.

The F100 and the lenses for same shall be placed in plastic bags with silica to absorb moisture.

They too will be shelved. There is no need for me to tell myself to take photographs if

I don't really enjoy viewing the results, and as noted such enjoyment has not been seen in many a moon.

Yes, many metal 600 slide capacit boxes and projectors of past times are

available to view however even those don't awaken my soul.

Dangerous as the thought may be, perhaps time for me is needed as

opposed to time to handle mechanical devices which record the passage of time.

December 25, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=613449">John Myers</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 22, 2009; 08:57 p.m.

Well, since you said you enjoy projecting your slides for your friends and family...I think that solves it. >Perhaps sell the D90 and buy a 50mm, 85mm, and maybe a prime a little longer, too. Also, just in case you may want some digital photos in the future, you could probably afford a used D50 or D70...a lot of people are selling these for next to nothing and since you don't print from your digital files (which the D50 and D70 >will do just fine, just not as large as the D90) the megapixel difference should have no relevance to you and >yet those cameras will still provide you with the ability to take very high quality digital images should you >want them at any time. You said you already had those cameras, but it's still a good "what if" option so >you're not ruling out one format or the other. I use 35mm film, 6x7 film, and DX digital...and I love them all.

Ah, my point as well. Any and all formats are suitable for any and all subjects.

It depends on how or what will happen to the image down the road to speak.

Either way the image is what counts and if it looks good to me, it stays. I prefer colour slides as noted. The amount number of processing labs in the Toronto Hamilton corridor is dropping yet astill able to get E-6 processed within a week , ditto Kodachrome. And Kodachrome is not dead; yes it takes about two weeks out there, accross and international producer, have to processed and returned with internal documentation intact.

I could not bear having to sell any of them, as all three cameras serve their specific purposes very well.

P.S. You said you like Kodachrome...well, Kodachrome is no longer around so you'll have to find another film that gives the look you want. Plenty of choices out there though (I never really cared for Kodachrome compared to other slide choices so this news didn't tear me up like it did to others)

December 25, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=86165">Steve Swinehart</a> , Dec 22, 2009; 04:38 p.m.

**Nikon F100 gives me more pleasure than the D90...

</blockquote>

>You'll have to help me out on this one. How does a piece of equipment give you "pleasure"? This is like >obsessing over a torque wrench as being more "fun" to use than a box wrench. I'd start investing more time >in the "why" you make photographs rather than than how their made.

An excellent point. Suspect my commentary is perhaps the upper easily explained portion of the probem.

The why "was" easy, to record the passing scene of railway locomotives as well as the local lineside physical structures and the people engaged in the occupation of railroading.

These days such activities no longer have any requirements. others now record said activities (where allowed) and then publish images on the internet suggesting the photography is better than mine, who doesn't publish on the internet.

The why of my photography is become more and more the topic of query. Have graduated from a wear out the camera person during the Nikon F2 era to now where my simple needs can be accomodated quite well by a simple digital point and shoot, all automatic. I might add I also have an older Pentax Espio film camera which is duplicated in purpose by my Canon 580 IS, Both cameras in automatuic mode reveal themselvesto be good gear.

**And unlike the days of old, I can not handle two cameras at the same time one with black and **white and the other with colour slide film...

</blockquote>

Please review your statement. If that is true, then digital makes far more sense than film as you can more easily convert an image to black-and-white while carrying only one camera. While you can scan color and then convert that image, if you're shooting transparency film, it's a lousy way to get to a B&W image when compared to shooting B&W film. A good digital camera will have more dynamic range than any transparency film made. Having made Ilfochromes for nearly 25 years from a multitude of different transparency films - color prints from transparencies don't come close to what you can do with a digital camera - and that includes scanning and printing in the method of your choice.

December 25, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=585199">Ken Papai</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 22, 2009; 10:48 a.m.

>Not knowing that much, but if you are close to 60 +/- a few years and find camera gear heavy then accept the >gym invite. Life is far too short... far too short.

>Do what makes you happy and allows you to live life. A gym (or its equivalent) is a must for everyone... far >more important than a camera or "what damned camera system should I?"... is your health.

My Dear Sir: Please note in one of my earlier replies the physical body is not well. Lupus and the attendent joint, vision and urinarytract problems combined with post chemotherapy interferences often make simple mechanical movements of one's body well nigh impossible. I once was strong and healthy, the cancerd is in remission, the physical pain in joints and related can be eased by ingestion of certain prescribed medicinal potions, none of which are low in price nore do they seem to do as promised. Using the facilities in a gymnasium may well be detrimental, on a long term basis. However I thank you for the suggestion.

December 25, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=760139">Patrick Lavoie</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" title="Hero" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 22, 2009; 08:54 a.m.

>the question is; do you have more pleasure shoothing film because you control it more than you know your >digital? My father enjoy for years shoothing with film because it was easy for him...

>load, shoot, send, receive pict. Nothing for him to upload, backup, search, work, print, reprint, test etc... so >for him, film was more superior. Then one day, he bought a p&s small canon camera, leave it at auto click >click click give the memory card to the local lab and receive print that where far better exposed, well done >and colorfull than is old film camera... then digital become the new standard for him because he enjoy the >result, which was as fast as is film.

As to "snaps" or positive prints, digital simply replaces film as the recording medium.

In my own case I shoot film/colour slides. The JPEG result from the Canon Point and Shoot usually becomes

an image on a compact disc which I then pass on to a friend who may well be the subject. The images as photographed usually remain with me. And as I have learned with film each image counts and has purpose. Ironically I take as much "time and care" recording a one off JPEG as exposing a frame offilm.

IT is almost an inherent traint, be perfect first time. The ole cost per frame offilm remains, even if it is not.

>I'm more comfortable on a Mac computer than on a PC... it does notmean that a Mac is better ; )

I too use Macs, have two of them in fact. Like you I prefer the systems.

>Just thinking out loud..you already have plenty of good answers ; )

December 24, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423056">Michael Chang</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 21, 2009; 11:55 p.m.

"have had little desire to do any photography.... My photography is next to nil"

</blockquote>

Bryce, I have found that the quality, quantity, creativity and ingenuity of our images will often mirror our state of mind, but it doesn't have to be this way: instead of allowing our mindset to control our photography, let photography be the therapy to heal our spirit.

Yes I agree with your reply however my state of mind has not been what may be described as stable

for some time. Diagnosed some years ago as bipolar and that combined with a diagnosis of Lupus

(Sjogren's Syndrome) four years ago followed by the loss of a kidney and my spleen due to cancer.

Thhree years of intense chemotherapy, has just concluded. The mindset that was once there is messed, totally.

Which is why I am asking as I did. Therapy will only assist the process; it won't make the theory work.

December 22, 2009

I should have maybe qualified or expanded on my initial comment.

When I do use film, it is almost always Kodachrome or Fuji Sensia.

Yes, 95 percent of my film photography is colour slides. Like those of similar

interest (railways/transportation subjects) I then project slides on a screen

so others of similar presuasion can view them.

And too, the digital images end up on storage medium of some sort, rarely printed.

It was also suggested off line that maybe I should reconsider why I even carry or use a camera.

Good thoughts too, and food for thought. Comfort is a big part ofthe game, go with that with which you are comfortable. Oh and yes I too use Macintosh computers exclusively, again it is what works, for me.

December 21, 2009

On December 19, 2009 took my first picture in nearly five weeks. Between various external issues beyond my control and severe personal health issues over the last year, have had little desire to do any photography. Any photography that I did do seemed devoid of life, with out reason or cause. My low-priced Canon point and shoot does most all my photography these days. My Nikon D90 had a dead battery when I went to use it it was last used well over four months prior. Which brings me to a point. My photography is next to nil, yet my Nikon F100 gives me more pleasure than the D90, or any of the other D100, D200, D70, D50 or D40 DSLR cameras prior. All those cameras are now long gone, none of which were able to satisfy my photographic wishes. My images don't get published , I am not out to be THE photographer with all these many images on the internet. And unlike the days of old, I can not handle two cameras at the same time one with black and white and the other with colour slide film and obtain a decent image of the subject, in my case often a speeding railway train. At my age of 60 years plus, find camera gear is heavy! I do very very few long distance shots; most of my photography ranges between FX 20 mm to about 135mm, rarely iif ever, more than that. So if I sell off the Nikon D90, c/w Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED DX and the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G VR and get reasonable money for them, would like one lense with a minimum f2.8 aperture and if a telephoto some form of VR. (The new 70-200 maybe although that is C$2500) I do have a 20mm prime f/2.8 which I picked up for song last summer, c/w with hood. The current 28-105 f/3.5 macro zoom on the F100 is OK, but is limited by the larger than normal minimum aperture, so it too could be sold. I can still obtain reliable E-6 film processing done here in Southern Ontario with a one week turnaround. (C$13.99 plus tax) So am wondering;; sell off my Nikon digital gear, or simply shelf everything and sell it all and keep doing what I am doing with the less than $100.00 point and shoot? Your suggestions, please.

September 29, 2009

Never thought I would be so fool hardy

to dismiss technology, in the form of VR. As I age (pushing 65 with a myriad of balance issues

and cancer in remission) find my body shakes to a great degree. A tripod maybe;

however VR makes all the difference in the world, as much as the auto focus function

and constant aperture does.

Henry's has many of the older 80-200 F2.8 lenses used, none have VR.

The VR would clinch it for me.

The price? well, each to their own, and good luck.

September 19, 2009

What would happen if the person questioned by the constable had been me? Foreign, from a country to the north which doesn't support US foreign policy, with a decided non-Jersey accent. The constable may well have been concerned for the safety of the camera toting person, given it may well have been a non-white area. Suspect the constable chose the words appropriate for the situation.

My photography is transportation devices, railways and similar. Photography of those items often entails problems with the locals be they uniform wearing or otherwise. Railways aren't always located in the best parts of a town so it means too I as with others should watch our backside. Suspect the constable was being cautious, good for him. The OP was concerned too however iMO overly so.

June 16, 2009

Just because a car has a convertible roof, does it mean you

have to use the convertible roof?

Video is an option either you use it or you don't.

Purchased a D90 because itwas available at a

good price; I doubt

if I'll ever use the video option.

May 3, 2009

In any profession you're going to have unpleasant people.

Some of these you've met in a past life!

Ignore the obvious (to you), do the wedding;

it will make you the stronger person.

If the MofH makes a fuss, it's her problem, not yours

She'll be the one rocking the boat

You'll do just fine!

March 29, 2009

As a person who after forty years of film still uses film (colour slides) for my photography the only real difference is in the processing of your digital image. As has been suggested, learn how to manipulate the digital image. Then you'll have a better idea of what can and can not be accomplished.

Perhaps purchase a low-priced point and shoot digital, which shoots only Jpegs, or perhaps one of the higher numbered G series Canons. The Nikon point and shoots are not the greatest IMO

Play with the camera to see what digital can do that film won't. Once you have your feet wet so to speak, then look for something that will satisfy your requirements. Digital is not for everybody.

For me, a digital sensor replaces a film sensor and if you're shooting film now, you'll do just fine.

March 23, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977463">Frank Skomial</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 19, 2009; 10:57 a.m.

Original USA importer is the Nikon USA or their business counter-partner, and Nikon USA has the means, parts, obligations, and know-how to fix equipment that they import.

In most foreign countries repairs are expensive, but most likely they will gladly fix your camera if you pay for it, but less likely they would honor USA warranty there. Seems only Nikon USA is picky and refuses to fix grey market products, even if it means loosing profit on possible grey product repairs

Nikon Canada is equally picky about repairs. And there far fewer (suspect none at all) that can

repair Nikon gear (specifically recent digital gear) in Canada. Either the Nikon Canada road,

or no road at all.

March 22, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=861828">Ralph Jensen</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 22, 2009; 12:08 a.m.

"Forgive the pesky grammarian… but obsolete isn't a verb. You can make something obsolete, but you can’t obsolete it :)"

</blockquote>

True! Suspect the term was used to indicate the camera would be no longer viable.

Perhaps a newer model FX will be introduced, that does more or less the

same as the D700.

In my own world the camera was perhaps to tempt those

with a stable of film-based lenses as opposed to specific lenses

for the smaller than the 135 mm frame size.. Whatever.

Cameras "are" computers, hence given technology are

already history, as the next round of cameras is designed and then produced.

For me the D700 is simply not viable. Here in Canada, the price

is way too high for me, the causal photographer. CAN$3500?

A large amount of money for one retired and on a pension.

However one may always dream

March 17, 2009

Ektagraphic projectors as noted were a rugged design.

The series I were manual focus, and the series II had remote

focus by use of the plug in advance controller.

Series III had autofocus as well as an interval timer.

Some of the series II in later years also came equipped with autofocus.

If you look at the projector from the top down you will notice a scoop,

for lack of a better word in the top of the machine. This scoop directed warm air

scavenged from the heat of the projection lamp by the fan.

The fan also extracted air out the rear of the machine. This scoop is intended to

warm the slides so they should not pop.

If you are using any slide projector it is best to ensure it is at the same

room temperature as your slides. In cold weather, that can take some time!

Incidentally Elmo manufactured a slide projector at one time.

Physically heavy and very well built.

Only problem, some of the projection lenses for Kodak did not always

fit an Elmo machine. Otherwise they used the same lamps and

were in many cases more durable. I used 21 of the them

in a rear projection show which operated 18 hours a day for three weeks

during a trade show in the mid 1990's. They all work flawlessly

until the last day when there was a power surge that took out two

lamps. Otherwise they just kept going. I still own one of them to this day.

March 17, 2009

Slide film, for me is the ONLY way. Suspect the madness of the internet and the

ease by which one may post digitally rendering images using a computer

and related software makes digital attractive. Digital replaces strips of plastic film negative.

I don't do prints, for me slide film is still the best way of enjoying my photography.

And I don't have to fiddle with images on a computer; images to me which

could disappear with the press of a key.

And for many of the older photographers we've always used Kodachrome slide film

for best results. There are many individuals that trade colour slides of transportation

equipment (specifically railways). if the image is not on Kodachrome slide film;

it is automatically worth considerably less. Kodachrome lasts, nothing else does.

March 13, 2009

Am one of those individuals who has not come to terms with digital imagery. Have had at least one of the Nikon Single Lens Reflex Digital cameras as a purchase, from the D70 through the D200. Haven’t ever owned a a single digit Nikon digital ie 1, w or 3 or the variants. And they and their accompanying lenses have all been sold often at a financial loss. Have also bought and soldd a few point and shoot digitals as well. Now all gone as well. During the film era started with an F then a Photomic F all the way up to a pair of F3’s with motor drives. My current film camera is a Nikon F100. I suspect my problem with digital is one has to manipulate the image themselves, before rendering the result. Most of of my photography over the last 40 years has been colour slides. I find it difficult to understand in my own mind why the world didn’t continue with slides in the digital era. To me too digital imaging is a bit of a rip, with a small sensor and specialty glass. And then came a digital sensor roughly equivalent to a 135mm frame. Can’t remember the cost here in Canada of my original F3’s (not HP) or the motor drives which were used with them. And in looking at the price of the much-wanted yet very expensive at C$3500.00 D700 wondering is the price of the D700 that much more or less than say the F3 with motor drive was way back when? In those days we didn’t have an 8 percent provincial and 5 percent federal sales tax here either! I was working full-time then , unlike now asa retired person? And for me, digital is only going to be a JPEG image, take it from the camera and use it, for whatever purpose, as is!!

BTW have but three lenses these days, a 50mm f1.8, a 28-105 f/3.5 and the 70-300VR f4.5. I also have a small Pentax Espio 105 point and shoot, it gets the lion’s share of any colour print film I use.

Maybe if I knew what was then and is now it might assist me in my decision for a D700, or should I just foget the whole matter and continue with my F100? I shoot may 50 rolls of film in a year between the Nikon and the Pentax.

February 15, 2009

Ouch, a loaded question..

IN a perfect world (which it isn't) any computer system would be reliable

for any project and there would be no such thing as a virus and all

computer operating systems would be perfect from the get-go.

I currently have two Macs, a G5 iMac purchased used and rebuilt

from the local Apple reseller, and an older however still utterly

reliable G4 iBook.

Also have an 8088 running Linux for ham radio applications.

And a very old Compag Presario laptop for those applications that

will only operate on a Prehistoric Computer under the

Microsoft banner.

Reason for my Macs? Quark! My background is journalism,

and writing regular monthly columns on a number of subjects.

My editor(s) prefer copy ready to paste.

I have in the last few years sold all my digital photo gear, much

prefer colour slides (usually K64 if it can be sent across

the border for processing without customs problems)

or Fuji Sensia films.

My Macs serve me well, all were purchased

with extended warranties and unlike previous

Mac purchases only see the inside of a shop

when I want them upgraded or given a tidy.

Now as to monetary cost, the Apple product

with extended warranty is more expensive!

However if the operating system you are currently using

is good for you, stay there.

If you want to change operating systems, borrow a friend's

Mac for a day or so. Similar; yet different, oh,

and no viruses from the internet usually.

And although the speed demons keep changing preferences

what you purchase often comes down to how comfortable you

are with the software programs you use.

Me? I like Macs, and can use other platforms with ease.

February 9, 2009

Not so much a tripod (did that years ago, camera became a paperweight),

rather tripped while walking on uneven terrain with my new to me (and first digital camera)

Nikon D100. Camera on the strap punched me in the chest, which in turn mashed the

new lense into the camera. Neither were repairable. My chest hurt, I went to my doctor who

had me rushed to the hospital. Nikons are durable, ribs are not.

I tend to destroy cameras though; so over time have done similar to another D100

as well as a D200 and two different D80's. Either the strap failed, or I dropped the camera

usually with a lense or did something equally stupid. These days only have a cheap

Canon digital point and shoot, it lives in my pocket. Too much money broken.

Ironically have never mangled any of my Nikon film gear;

maybe the gods are telling me something?

February 5, 2009

I would've thought one might have more problems with photography

in smaller communities where

the police forces were less aware of being right or correct.

Stupidity associated with the police is now widespread.

Post 9/11 the police now figure they have an obvious reason

for their existence iand causing problems

to anybody who is acting outside of what might be called "normal."

Those carrying a camera, of swarthy appearance or those in

the wrong place at the wrong time are all now suspect

If I was to venture to the United States and took photographs

of railways (the only reason I would go stateside BTW) I

could be accosted by any local genadrme, found to be a foreigner

from a country that didn't join in the war on terror and be

forthwith asked to leave the country, and never allowed to return.

Dumb? Damn tooting!

January 24, 2009

For me JPEG is preferred.

If I print, the size is four inches by six inches

If an item goes to an internet site (rarely)

the image gets knocked to 72 dpi in any event so superb quality

is not an issue.

Yet another reason I sold all my DSLR GEAR and now use

just a CanonA590 P&S for my digital work. (JPEG only)

Film is the Nikon F100 and is the preferred method, for me.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by tallnbig68