bruce_t

"7) If you must use flash, make sure your web site has scripts that know how to detect a browser's capabilities, and will show non-flash (and, for that matter, non-Java-required) content as necessary."

 

I agree 100%. When I go to a website, I have zero intention of waiting 5 or 10 minutes just to view the home page and I doubt any potential client would wait the ridiculous load times for a flash page either.

The advice on this thread looks good. However, I'd go out and experiment with twilight and night shots. Try some candle light shots. Go to your local library and borrow a book on low light photography. Don't just try what you see here for the 1st time at the wedding. A digital 5D lets you practice for very little money.

Image Magick can do batch conversions.

You should play around with the settings. Try manual, full auto, full auto with various kinds of exposure compensation. See what you like best with your own style.

 

You seem set on eventually going digital, so I would suggest practicing with slide film as slide film and digital are both exposed for the highlights. Also, print film processed by a lab my hide some of your mistakes with its auto corrections, mistakes you would see with digital. B&H is normally the cheapest place to get slide film and Fuji mailers.

I also suggest you read the following - http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/34414-photographing-friends-wedding.html

Given a choice between 1 digital SLR and 2 film cameras, I'd take the 2 film cameras because one NEEDS a backup camera. I'd suggest a used Canon AE1 with 50mm lens for a second camera because it can take sharp pictures and the lens can let in enough light to be useful in a dark church. Heck, even a new but cheap Vivitar v3800n will take good pictures in low light if you get the 50mm prime lens. I'd also strongly suggest a sturdy tripod.

 

As for places to buy used equipment, I've been treated well by adorama.com and I've heard good things about KEH.com. For new equipment, I'd try Adorama along with BHphotovideo.com.

I would suggest a sturdy tripod. It would allow lower iso settings for less noise.

They responded to my email.

Image Magick has the ability to resize them from the command line.

I received a pdf catalog today from wessmounts.net.

I have also been trying to get a response from the phone # and email address posted at wessmounts.net with no luck so far.

Andrea Halsey - "I think I have been persuaded to trade in for a Canon. I will have to get the d30 instead of the EOS 5d because of the cost and I will just work my way up to a 5d. Thanks everybody!"

 

My suggestion is to go and rent a Cannon for a few days and see if you like it. Go in a few local churches and take some snapshots with each. If you like it better than your current setup a trade may be the right choice, but if you don't you'd have avoided a costly mistake.

 

As for pros and cons of switching, the Cannon without a doubt has better high iso performance, but Olympus will have better depth of field when shot at wide apertures. If you want image stabilization, a Cannon will require an investment in some very expensive lenses whereas Olympus bodies are available which have stabilization built in, allowing a cheaper upgrade path. Also, if you need a really fast lens on a budget, remember that you can get adapters to use older non-4/3 lenses and there are many fast primes available on the used market.

Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs aren't square, but they get closer to it than most so you wouldn't be cropping as much.

The realist I shoot with only has a very thin frameline, so that probably wouldn't work. I just found from someone who uses the same type of camera that Vuescan can make the Nikon work with odd formats, so that's probably the route I'll take. Thanks for the responses.

I'm thinking about purchasing a Nikon Coolscan V. The main issue of concern for

me is if the scanner can do other 35mm formats. I often use a 35mm camera with a

square format instead of the more common rectangle. Will the nikon handle this?

I don't doubt that it can handle the odd format with a lot of extra manual

control, but can it be set to do it with the automatic efficiency it would with

the regular format? Thanks.

From my own subjective experience with sensia and elite chrome, it seems that the 2 films are similar except that sensia renders a blue sky somewhat better.

Clark Color will sell you Gold 100 for $2.50 a roll or $1.25 a roll if you buy 4 or more rolls. http://www.clarkcolor.com/

 

B&H will sell you Gold 100 for $1.99 a roll. http://www.bhphotovideo.com

 

Adorama will sell you Gold 100 for $1.95 - $2.49 a roll. http://www.adorama.com

What's the patent number? Thanks.

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'll check out the Epson 4490.

 

I had been thinking that using the digital camera would do the job and give me a digital camera to boot, but if the epson will do better for getting prints from my stereo slides I don't really need the digicam.

I am contemplating the purchase of either a cheap film scanner ( < $200 ), or

getting a digital camera like the Olympus SP-350 and using its macro capability

to digitize my slides. I've read other threads claiming that digital camera

copies won't match an expensive Nikon or Minolta film scanner, but will it

compare to a plustek 7200 or a Primefilm 3650U?

How about setting up a dslr with a slide duping tube? Then your dslr

would be you film scanner.

You might want to check out

http://www.seriousviewers.com/weddings/weddings1.htm

and email the author with questions.

http://www.dr5.com/Filmreviewintro.html has reviews of films when used as slides and it appears that it will have reviews of films used as negatives soon. http://www.rogerandfrances.com/materials.html has some interesting but brief remarks about different types of film.