mark d.

There are a couple of commercial labs that do Pyro: http://

www.coxblackandwhitelab.com/pyro.htm and http://www.printlab.com/

services.html#film

Some other cameras to take a look at: the Pentax ZX-5n and the Maxxum 7 which Mike Johnston (in his weekly article) had some good things to say about in terms of viewfinder brightness.

Chris,

 

I took the Mac plunge in October and I've seriously regreted it. The Mac OS is a delight and I've not yet had a crash but OS X is poorly supported in terms of peripherals. Epson's printer drivers are crippled and you may not be able to select the size of paper. You can't even print centered on the page. The Minolta software may not be ready for OS X so you'd have to rely on Hamrick's Vuescan. Even web browsing is a pain. Mozilla/Netscape only worked for a week on my computer, Explorer runs very poorly, and Safari (Mac's own browser) is in beta so it's riddled with bugs. If you're interested in running in OS 9, things are much better. For me, the Mac is going to my brother or getting sold shortly. Good luck with your decision.

Steve,

 

I picked a full version of Photoshop 6 and the upgrade to Photoshop 7 on E-bay for $300.

Well if you intend to make the "switch" because of digital photography, think

two, three or four times before you do it. Most Epson drivers are pretty pathetic

under OS X. You can't select the size of paper nor can you make the print

centered on the page for all but maybe the newest printers. Furthermore,

scanner support is pretty poor. Most companies have not made OS X drivers

for their film scanners as of yet. I think Nikon may be the only one that has. So,

using Vuescan is a must. Then, there are little things. There's one button

mouse (you can get a two button version). You can't give a document a title

that exceeds ~30 characters. Digging into the OS for customization isn't as

easy and you don't have as many software option. On the other hand, color

calibration is easy. In OS (, I finally get a print that matches what I see on my

screen. It never came that easily with the PC. Plus, you don't have to worry

that much about viruses and crashes are a thing of the past. Good luck with

your decision.

Patrick,

 

One more suggestion. Head out to CompUSA or whatever's convenient and

purchase some Colorlife, or Premium Luster, or Semigloss paper. Set the

printer to the appropriate paper and the print dpi setting to 1440. I've found

that Heavyweight Matte just doesn't make for the best prints and banding can

really be exaggerated. The Epson papers I listed give really great results.

Keep plugging away. I took me awhile before I was making prints that were

pleasing.

Tom,

 

I have the G2 and an Elan IIe. The G2 can in no way replace the EOS camera.

The AF is slower, no interchangeable lenses and smaller focal range, and

while the picture quality is good, film is easily better. Perhaps you could put

together a smaller kit for when you don't want to haul around all of that. For

example, I often like to head out with a body and a 50mm. A Pentax ME Super

and 50mm are nice, small, and discrete. Perhaps you could add a Rebel

2000 to with your 24 or 50mm. Or maybe build a Contax G kit, really nice and

small with great results. I think you would regret exchanging all that great film

gear for a digital point and shoot.

Eric,

 

I had used Photoshop 6.0 for awhile and then picked up Elements when I transitioned to Mac thinking that it had most of everything that I needed. For the most part, it does. It's missing control over the Channels and Curves (which I require for my digital B&W printing). I've been looking around for deals and on *bay, there are some reputable sellers that pair an older non-registered version of Photoshop with the Photoshop upgrade for about $300. I've seen Elements go for around $100. If you can manage the difference, it might be worth it in terms of thinking long term and the possibility of getting more sophisticated with your Photoshop work.

No, not similar to 409. Don't use 409. Windex or fantastik (sp) are the way to go.

Keeping the printer covered is really important. That keeps dust and junk from getting down in there. I just finally cleared a really nasty clog on the black print head on my 820. I took a piece of printer paper and lightly sprayed it with windex. I put it in the paper with a dry piece behind it and I ran the nozzle check. I then ran the cleaning cycle and viola! It was clear. See, windex can fix anything! ; )

Nicholas,

 

I have an eMac so I don't think I could put in an Ultra SCSI card. If I could put

in a card at all, I would put in the Adaptec card that came with the scanner. I've

gotta get the scanner (or a replacement scanner) to run off a USB or Firewire

connection.

Hey Folks,

 

I just bought a mac running OS-X 10.2. I was running a PC and using a

Canoscan FS2710 connected to the provided SCSI. I'm wondering if I can

continue using the Canoscan with a SCSI to Firewire or USB adaptor.

For whatever it's worth, the guy at CompUSA had reservations about it

working. Furthermore, Canon has not released updated software for the

Canon film scanners so it would running in Classic mode.

With both those strikes, is it worth trying to get it to run on my new

Mac or should I sell it off an upgrade? Any advice would be greatly

appreciated.

Roger,

 

I don't own this lens but the few reports on the PDML have been very positive.

Kevin,

 

One thing to keep in mind with the Pentax 67 is the size. The 135/4 Macro only goes to 1:3. If you want to go 1:1, you'll need to add the extension tubes. The body, with extension tubes, and the 135/4 racked out measures roughly 15 inches long! It's huge and heavy. You may want to consider whether or not you want to deal with that. I sold my 67 for financial reasons but when those clear up, I won't be going back to it for my macro work. Good luck!

Jeff, I think it really depends on what you shoot. If you're into Magnum/slice of life type street photography, you're probably gonna hold on to 35mm. On the other hand, if you're into landscape photography, you'll probably find that you'll rarely use your 35mm gear. I guess it also depends on how much you like working with Medium Format. Myself, I'm moving more and more away from 35mm. For what I shoot, medium format gives me better results. You might find that you hate it and move back to 35mm. Have you shot with a medium format camera? If not, it might be a better idea to rent one a couple of times. Or, you could get an inexpensive TLR and shoot with it for a little while. Just a suggestion...

"AL" refers the lens have Aspherical Lens elements.

Manrico,

 

Do yourself a favor and send your slides to the Light Room in Berkeley, CA.

http://www.lightroom.com

Make sure to ask for a contrast mask if it's needed. They do a simply phenomenal job making Ilfochromes and it will cost you 1/3rd of the price of a drum scan/Lightjet print.