gt1

<p>" At $0.09 you might as well have the extra resolution,"</p>

<p>I don't think he'll be getting much out of 400X beyond 2500ppi. I love it, it's my favorite all around color film, but it's not the highest resolution film out there. And why waste time and space with downconverting if 4000ppi isn't necessary?</p>

<p>They're probably cringing at this thread but Lex and Fred Goldsmith are my faves.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>If you are set on using the polarizer get the Mamiya one that flips up in front of the viewfinder and meter. Much more convenient even if you're not using the built-in meter.</p>

<p>I've finally taken a liking to PS' Black and White conversion. I adjust my image to my preferred tonal range keeping an eye out for blown out highlights and blocked shadows. If I'm in a hurry I use my old fave the Channel Mixer.</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Specious reasoning. Photo.net is a commercial site <em>about photography</em> . The payback for using a site like photo.net is nonmonetary, and we are rewarded with discourse, information, and education. Schmap is a commercial site that <em>uses photographs</em> , which is a very different thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree that they're different. I can use much of this site without contributing a thing and photo.net would be much less successful without all the free contributions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find it utterly reprehensible when businesses make money from images for which they have not paid.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why do you maintain a quite excellent portfolio on photo.net along with posting your intellectual property here in the form of forum posts? Have you been paid for the images that you have uploaded or the posts you have made here? A large part of photo.net's success is due to contributions from those such as yourself.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Oh, wow, nice find and great developing job!</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Next time my plumber comes, I'll ask him if he'll work for a referral.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Last I checked plumbing wasn't a very popular hobby.</p>

<div></div>

<p>After cutting my negs and putting them in PrintFile sleeves I'll throw them between two large books that have been warmed in the oven a little. Leave them for a couple of hours, they're pretty flat.</p>

<p>If the negs were bowed enough in the middle to touch the glass then I would say those are newton's rings from scanning.</p>

<p>Because of the noticable rings at the right and left ends it's also possible that these are just long skinny newton's rings from scanning. You're laying it directly on the glass? You should be able to notice this on your negative if it's there.</p>

<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>rendering them useful only as a holder for Fuji quickload film which is also going out of production.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That sucks. I'm lazy and hate loading film holders. I guess I'll buy a couple more boxes of Acros Quickloads and maybe some Provia.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>"It seems to me that HighPass reduces the 3D illusion." I agree, particularly in the eurodisney image.</p>

<p>Practice more with lighting.</p>

<p>Attempt to do some carbon tissue printing.</p>

<div></div>

<p>For the last year I've been doing exactly what Ken Rockwell describes here. And I am definitely much happier with my images than I have ever been. Whether that's from keeping it simple, from reading the forums here, or just because I've gotten better who knows. I do know that I enjoy photography much much more when carrying one manual camera and one lens.</p>

<div></div>