curtis_polk

I have an IT client, a veterinarian, that includes digital images of their

clients' animals with the animals' records. Right now, they have to make the

photograph, then connect with a tether to a client computer upload the images to

a server. I would like to give them the option of making the photograph and

transferring at capture, preferably directly to the server. Do the wireless

digicams allow this?

I get "general scanner failure". I'm running Windows 2000 with latest service

pack, using an Adaptec 2940uw, bios 2.2. It happens mainly when I attempt to

scan at high resolution. I've had the scanner for several years, and when I

first got it, no problem. I've made several changes since then, such as

updating computer bios, and moving from NT to 2000.

Once it happens, I have to reboot both the scanner and computer to continue

scanning. The computer is not attached to the net when running Windows, and all

other software works with no problem.

A neat alternative to gloves is surgical rubber finger cots. I used them for editing Super 8 original with no fingerprints. They slip over the ends of your thumbs and first two fingers, so you don't have that loose awkward feel from gloves.

On scanning for archival storage: a chimera. That data must be regularly turned over before the storage media degrade. To last 100 years, you have to do it the rest of your life, and so do your descendants. Will software in whatever form that exists then be able to intrepret the results? There are a lot of data files from 15 years ago that are unusable now. Unless someone is ready to pay out corporate-level funds to standardize archival data storage, which seems really unlikely, scanning is a waste of resources.<P>

Several people suggested quality 100-speed films from Kodak and Fuji. Sounds right. The chemical formulas for E-6 are known, and, when Jobo processors are no longer available, someone can build one by hand, if necessary. Despite the current digital tidal wave, film will be around a while. Reversal film will be most precious, since it's primary functions, except for storage and direct viewing, have all been coopted. I think it will be like vaccuum-tube audio gear - appreciated by a small, knowledgeable audience.

Victor must have had hands the size of basketball player's to come up with the left-hand grip. I grip mine with both hands, releasing the shutter with my right index finger.

<P>The H is a major disappointment. Mainly, it's too heavy to hold at eye level.

<P>Darius Jedburg is right. Someone needs to design a smaller waist-level camera with either the current 37mm square sensor, or something like the Foveon. What they are waiting for, Mr. Jedburg is someone with the vision of Victor Hasselblad or Steve Jobs. That vision is preciously rare in any age, but especially now.

A C lens will work just fine. It is a little funky - by default, shutter speed and aperture are locked together. There's a spring-loaded tab that you push to set them independently. The C lens also has a mechanical self-timer that CF's do not. Look for the T * designation. Some C lenses had it (multicoating), but most do not. The filter size is B50, not B60. Chrome is a styling feature of bodies and magazines - some came in chrome, and some in black. There is no functional difference.

In response to the last post - we all get in over our heads from time to time. When you're struggling to get in, you sometimes have to learn on the fly.

To th original question about film and lighting - if you don't have an off-camera strobe, seat your subjects in outdoor shade, use a tripod and slow shutter speed. You can't go wrong with Kodak Portra 160NC. Fuji 160S is good too, but prints really soft. If the film will be scanned, you can use a reversal film, but your exposure must be absolutely perfect - no latitude. Once again, Portra 160NC gives you the extra room, and scans well, too.

Have you done a test print to establish d-max? When printing on a new paper, I start with a clear-film negative in the carrier, set the enlarger height for 8 x 10, and do a stairstep of 5,7,10,14, and 20 seconds (half-stop intervals) at the lens' optimal aperture, usually two stops down from the maximum, setting filtration at the manufacturer's recommendation for grade 2. At the dark end of the print, find the spot where you can barely tell the difference between adjacent strips by looking through the print at a light. Choose the lighter of the two darkest strips as your d-max (since you normally do not look through a print). A correctly-exposed negative should now print at the same settings with shadow exposure perfect (and everything else if it's a normal, everyday negative).

If your d-max requires a very long exposure, I'd contact Ilford, and ask if this is normal. If not, they'll probably replace it.