katherinea

I have not used this lab, but it has a good reputation, 'the edge photo imaging' Their

website is www.theedgephoto.com.au . They specialize in dealing with wedding photos,

and they accept image files over the internet and via CD. For film they also can do optical

printing. They are located in Victoria

Does anyone know if nikon coolscan V with vuescan multi-passes would work as well as

coolscan 4000 with it's native multi-passes ? Thanks everyone for the responses so far;

and lovely colors in the pictures John!

Are there any scanners that have custom profiles for velvia built into the scanner's basic

software ?

Which of cheaper scanners, either new or used, scans velvia the best ? I've had a bulk scan

done before from Velvia at a professional lab on some Sony scanner and the scans were

horrible. They were overexposed, some colors were there in some scans that weren't in the

originals (quite dramatically), and often the colors looked like they were painted with

enamel with almost none of the original detail. I'd like to buy a scanner that is particularly

good for velvia.

When I was curious as to the different resolution of film vs. digital and researching on the

internet, I found an interesting article at 'www.medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwins.html'. One of

the things it said is that images from the Nikon D1x are only allowed 1/2 page of space in

National Geographic, while film can be allowed a two page spread. I also have found

posters sold by National Geographic that are made from 35mm film which are around 3ft

on the long side without any visible grain.

Slide film is fine for a beginner to use. You may know yourself when what your camera's

meter says seems correct, or know how to point your centre-weighted meter elsewhere to

get a reading that seems right. If you are uncertain about an exposure you can 'bracket' it,

i.e. take 3 pictures - one for the reading your camera gives you, then one with one stop

more exposure, and one with one stop less.

One good thing about the fm10, besides being all manual, is that it's so light. I think it's

half the weight of an fm2. This might be important for someone your son's age.

Thanks to everybody for their responses. It's good to know that the old metal one can

have such fine optics. From other places on the net I've done research on, it seems it can

just depend on the particular sample. It might just depend on the prices I have the

opportunity to buy a lens at as to which way I go.

Thanks for the information. I've checked out the link and bought the article you

suggested, and am mulling over it all.

I'm considering the tamron 90mm macro, and am wondering if there is any difference

between the older 52BB version (f2.5) and the newer 72B version (f2.8), other than that the

new version goes 1:1 ? Is there any difference in sharpness ?, any difference in color

saturation ? (when shooting with film).

Is this 55mm f2.8 AF version as sharp as the AIS version? And do later versions of the

55mm f2.8 AIS suffer from the oilly aperture blades?

Thankyou all for your answers. The 55mm f2.8 micro-nikkor is sounding the best to me at

the moment. I would love to have the new zeiss 50mm when it comes out, but it may take

some time to obtain the money for it given expected prices.

Hi, I'm wondering between the 50mm ais f1.4, 50mm ais f1.8, and the 50mm af-d f1.8,

which is the sharpest lens, including it's sharpness at infinity? Thankyou.

Hi, I'm a newbie to extension tubes and teleconverters. I'm wondering if an extension tube

works similarly to a teleconverter in that at longer distances (not macro), or infinity does it

make the angle of view of the lens narrower? Does it make your lens the equivalent of the

lens length plus the length of the extension tube? Is there any image degradation?

I have seen nude photos when looking through the 'top photos' page. I feel uncomfortable

seeing most of these photos, and I would prefer not to see them at all. I would like it if

there was something like a 'g' or 'pg' rating option on that page and other gallery pages on

this site, so that you could click on that button and then find that all the photos

categorized as 'nude' would be blocked from being seen. I hope this idea becomes a

reality.

Thanks for your responses everybody, and all the information. The idea that exposure

effects colour rendering and saturation is also very good to know.

Hi, I'm considering purchasing either a Nikkor 55mm f2.8 AIS, Nikkor 105mm f2.8 AIS, or

Tamron 90mm either AF or MF version. I'm wondering if any one has any experience of

these and can tell me what quality of colour saturation and contrast they produce ? And

whether they have any tendencies in regards to their colour rendition, i.e. any particular

colours that are more highlighted by them ? Thankyou.

I remember a story about a highly publicized picture of Bill Clinton meeting Monica

Lewinski, taken while he was meeting and greeting members of the public at a function.

All the digital photographers threw this picture away ritually, as it seemed boring and

unimportant at the time. There was thus only one picture of the meeting as it was taken by

a film photographer who kept all his photos, of course then it made him a bit of money. I

personally am prompted by this story to think it's a good idea to keep all the sentimental

photos at least. After all a DVD of photos doesn't take up more space in a person's home

than a printed roll of film. And you never know what value photos will have to you or

others in the future.

Hi, Having seen large picture files on the internet, which I think look good, from a digital

camera I am considering buying, I am wondering what reflection the size of a photo file on

the computer screen is compared to the quality of a printed image, as computer's show

only around 100dpi, and quality printing is at 300dpi?

Can I print at the same size that a picture looks good to me on screen, or can I print at 3

times the size of that picture, or by some strange twist of science can I only print smaller

than an image size that looks good to me on screen?