a._valerio

<p>Not to butt in. But for the sake of not only me but the original poster and any others reading this, how does PEC-12 compare in terms of safety and effectiveness?</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Freestyle has a better price on K-64 anyway...</p>

<p>But what in the world?! Why would B&H even think about stopping selling K-64? I have a feeling this whole episode was just some sort of computer glitch. Daniel Bayer is looking into it, and has been told officially now that KR and PKR are definitely still current products.</p>

<p>It remains to be seen whether B&H is truly not going to carry Kodachrome anymore, or what. Somehow I doubt that to be possible. I am guessing they will continue to sell it, because there is obviously demand for it.</p>

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>Do you by any chance mean "Kodachrome"? Because Kodachrome *is* fudamentally different from most slide films It uses a very unique process, called K-14.</p>

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>I haven't actually tried it yet, but having seen results from others, here is my advice:</p>

<p>A one-stop push process yields a good result at EI 320 (2/3 stop). Bob Krist used to do this often. I would try one stop before I try 2 stops.</p>

<p>For 2 stops, you're going to be at no higher than EI 640. Maybe even EI 500.</p>

<p>So for EI 400, I'd try a 1.3 or 1.5 stop push. And for EI 800, a 2.5 stop or 2.7 stop push.</p>

<p>The trick when pushing most films is to remember that a push is not giving you actual speed; you're sacrificing shadows. Therefore, you have to be more conservative with your EI than you would think. Even E200, which is designed for pushability, does best at no higher than EI 1000 for a 3-stop push.</p>

<p>Galen,<br />You'll likely want a dk-17m eyepiece, a dk-19 eyecup, and a Hoodman LCD cover.<br />And you might be able to find a good D1H for $200 if you look carefully.</p>

<p>I paid $12 each for my batteries. 2700 mAh. Check ebay.</p>

<p>There is also a mail in rebate on this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarRebate.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarRebate.pdf</a></p>

<p>For you I would recommend the D1H. I've used one for 3-4 years now, and if you're not using a whole lot of TTL flash, the camera works great.</p>

<p>I've used a D70 enough to be able to compare the two, and the D1H is a much better body. I have only minimal experience with the D100, but to me it was basically a slightly bigger, older D70.</p>

<p>You should be able to get an excellent condition D1H for $300.</p>

<p>I think luminance noise from digital cameras and film grain are very similar...the line blurs even more when one scans a slide or negative, because scanners introduce luminance (and also chroma) noise of their own.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't believe that photos have to be totally free of grain just because digital cameras at low and moderate ISOs aren't plagued by lots of noise. While purists might say all noise and grain is a bad thing, I think it can be an effective artistic tool if used properly. The human eye searches for edges constantly, and noise can create the illusion of higher sharpness in some cases. In addition, I have successfully applied faux grain to images in post production. Sometimes, it can help to hide low-frequency digital artifacts that could only be removed by using a noise-fltration algorithm that tends to soften the image.</p>

<p>So noise ain't always bad, and can sometimes be just as useful as grain.</p>

<p>Patrick,<br />Fuji offers several things. They recently introduced the Instax system to the US as their answer to Polaroid integral film.</p>

<p>They also make certain pack films, such as FP-100C. A pro photographer I know uses this for passport photos in his Polaroid passport camera. And I believe there are some Fuji 4x5 instant films as well.</p>

<p>Ronald,<br>

Yes...the digital enlarger is a great concept...but does that DeVere unit output quality equal to commercial systems such as Light Jet? So few people own one, that it's hard to find statements from users. I wish there was somewhere nearby I could go to use one.</p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

I wonder what Wal-Mart is switching to? Even inkjet is "wet" in one form. If it's truly a totally dry process, it would have to be some sort of non-photographic and non-ink process, right? Perhaps a thermal process such as dye sublimation? I remember years ago Popular Photography did a story on prototype machines that could be used in the future to develop negatives and print photographs without any chemical waste. The negatives, however, were discarded in this process because they were not developed or fixed. Somehow the latent image was read by laser, I believe...which surprises me, because the reality is, it is still not known exactly how the latent image forms from a quantum-elctrochemical perspective...not to mention a great waste of film.</p>

<p>Nicholas,<br>

That's cool that you're doing "wet" color printing. I feel fortunate that I got to do it for about 3 weeks last summer during a color photography course. Where I was going to school, we weren't able to take photography courses unless we were photography majors, which I wasn't. And even then, there were pre-reqs such as drawing that one would have to take prior to taking even basic b&w photography. A bunch of nonsense from our perspective, but also justifiable due to not having enough professors and darkroom space for non-art majors. Only during the summer, if a course was even offered, could a non-major take photography. A friend and I lucked out; a course was available, and the pre-reqs were waived. We had a wonderful professor and a great time. It was realy cool, and I have the prints. The hardest thing was going from light to dark over and over again. It always happened that someone would be working when you had to go check your prints coming out of the machine, so there was no chance to gradually adapt. I know I took the course right before my school phased out wet color. They either already have or will be moving to inkjet shortly. I still have quite a bit of RA-4 paper left over: Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Supra Endura. We tried to sell it on ebay, but no one bought it. Keep doing the color darkroom thing, man...as long as you can!</p>

<p>The future outlook of RA-4 printing in this digital world</p>

<p>RA-4 paper seems to be one of the three most common systems for commercial photo printing today. Other common systems include inkjet systems and dye-sublimation systems.</p>

<p>It is particularly interesting that the digital RA-4 printing systems of today use essentially the same methods and chemistry as have been used in color photographic printing for decades. If it ain't broke, why fix it, might be the slogan of RA-4.</p>

<p>While specific aspects of the RA-4 workflow have changed with the switch to digital exposure systems, the basic concept behind it remains unchanged since yesterday's color darkroom work: Expose the paper using light, and then develop it in the chemistry. It does not matter that the light source is now an array of LEDs or a laser exposure system instead of an incandescent light bulb. It is mostly irrelevant that the information used for printing is in digital form instead of light shining through a negative, directly on to paper like yesterday. It does not matter that the papers and chemicals have been improved in recent years to make prints last longer and give more tonal range. Who really cares that many of today's papers are optimized for shorter exposures and without the orange mask of the typical color negative (unless of course you are doing conventional printing and can't find the right paper).</p>

<p>While RA-4 is nowhere near as transparent a process as, say, inkjet, the truth is that this method is essentially unchanged from the past. There is no denying that the underlying concept remains intact. Expose the paper with light, then process in the chemistry. Many of today's younger photographers don’t even realize how RA-4 works. They don't know how their own photographs from their digital SLR are printed. Some people I know think it's done using ink, like with inkjet. They are shocked to learn that RA-4 uses light exposure, and that there are silver halides involved in the process, and that the RA-4 paper has to be kept in a light-tight box. They aren't aware that the process is virtually unchanged even in this digital era, or that the underlying process and chemistry, while having recently been adapted to print from digital files, actually have more in common with traditional film photography: Light strikes the media. A decomposition occurs, sensitizing the silver grains, forming a latent image. And then chemistry is used to bleach out the silver and fix the final dyes to form the finished image.</p>

<p>Now the question: Is RA-4 truly the standard, most common, most flexible, and affordable method of printing photos today? My local Costco now charges 13 cents for a 4x6. They don't apply any corrections to the file. I can use a custom color profile for the specific printing unit. Before having them print a big run, I can request that they recalibrate for a new emulsion batch. The Noritsu printer is exactly the same as the one that pro labs use, and outputs the exact same images. So RA-4 is common, cheap, and convenient.</p>

<p>The final question is: is RA-4 likely to remain the de-facto gold standard of commercial color photographic printing? The only other system that I think has a chance at competing is inkjet. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. There are tradeoffs either way. Some photographers prefer one system over the other for various reasons. But the truth of the matter is, it looks like RA-4 is here to stay in the long-term. And while the systems may be expensive, the prints are very affordable, high-quality, and not much has actually changed from the "old days" of color photography in the darkroom. While many corner stores are removing their film processing equipment due to loss of profitability, the printing market continues to expand. Even digital images need to be printed; there is no escaping this reality.</p>

<p>Will digital RA-4 stand the test of time in this digital age? I'd like to hear opinions, especially from informed industry insiders. Will inkjet one day render the digital RA-4 process obsolete? Or how about digital picture frames? Personally, I still like a paper print, and I think many other photographers do, too. But what is the future outlook of this amazing color printing technology called RA-4 that has dominated for decades (not to mention the very similar RA color processes that preceded it)?</p>

<p>I used both Supra Endura E Luster and Fuji Crystal Archive Super C glossy in the darkroom for a course I took last May. Both papers performed well, as far as I could tell, and a bonus was that optical printing had a lot less grain and noise than the same negatives scanned on my Minolta film scanner. I keep hearing that the newer Fuji papers are not right for optical printing, but our prints looked good, so I don't know why people say this.</p>

<p>Oh, and we did play with the cyan knob on the color head even though you're apparently not supposed to touch it according to the rules of traditional optical printing...maybe that's how we got decent prints on the papers we had; I don't know enough about optical printing on digitally-optimized papers to tell. But I do know that the paper was advertised as being suitable for both digital AND optical printing. (And my minilab uses a different paper, called Crystal Archive type II, which is similar to Super C, but optimized only for digital exposure as I understand it.</p>

<p>We did not mess with Fuji Super P, as we wanted saturation and snap. Also, I think Kodak has stopped selling cut sheets of Endura E. Someone correct me if I am wrong.</p>

<p>I have quite a bit of both Fuji and Kodak RA-4 paper of various sizes and surfaces left over, but no one seems to want it. We tried ebaying it twice with no success.</p>

<p>Do you want to become an experienced, serious photographer? The fact that you're posting here makes this likely. So, then you should look at this from the perspective of seeing yourself as an experienced photographer (whether that is tomorrow, next year, or two years from now...however long it takes to get there). My point is, think of what you are likely to want a few years down the road as your skills become greater. Envision which aspects of the camera will matter in the future, and make your decision based upon this and your budget, as follows...</p>

<p>And by the way, since you're looking at this from the perspective of an experienced photographer, the truth is, any of the current cameras - be it D40, D60, D90, D300, D700, D3, or D3x, are all suitable for an experienced photographer. None of them are an insult to a serious shooter. They are all great, even if some people would want you to believe otherwise (I have no idea why but there are people who do have other agendas). The lower end models are just as good in per-pixel image quality at low and moderate ISO values. And all the cameras mentioned offer fully manual exposure and ISO setting with a metering scale. All offer manual focus, flash hotshoe, interchangeable lenses, and just about every manual feature that a serious photographer (and that includes professionals) could want. All these cameras can be used like a fully manual, 1960s film SLR if you want to use them in that way.</p>

<p>There are pros who use D40s and D60s. The D90 is up to most pro work, as proved by Chase Jarvis (he has a video in which he tests the camera). That said, you do get more options with each jump up in price. And the biggest jump comes between the D60 and D90. It's all personal preference which one to go for, and I don't think you will likely be handicapped by a D60. I woudn't mind one. but the D90 has a better viewfinder, is much more responsive, etc. So I'd have to recommend the D90 in the end...but not because a D60 or D40 is some sort of insult to a serious photog...it isn't. It's just personal preference, really.</p>

<p>My advice is if you have not yet done so, read the specs for both, read reviews for both, and compare them. If there are some things you don't understand, read about those features until you do understand what they do. Once you have a good idea of how the two models differ in terms of features, go hold both (and do it in a store that has a battery in the camera, because you need the battery to evaluate the viewfinder brightness, shutter sound, LCD panel, etc. Then go home and let your impressions sink in. Finally, once you have a strong feeling which one is best for you, buy that one from a reputable dealer, and then enjoy using and learning it. Don't sweat the choice after you have made it. Just enjoy photography.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Minilab scans tend to be lower quality with higher compression and more artifacts and lower bit depth compared to a good desk-top film scanner.'</p>

<p>That said, I recently printed a number of shots that originated from a Costco CD, and even used them up to 12x18 inches in a gallery (not fine art gallery) show.</p>

<p>Not to stray too far from topic, but...</p>

<p>Patrick, where does Dale offer MP film and do you know what type it is? I see no mention of it here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dalelabs.com/order35mm.html">http://www.dalelabs.com/order35mm.html</a></p>

<p>If I were in your boat, I wouldn't sweat it. To suddenly decide that Nikon is the only option would be a mistake. Both companies are between cycles right now, but Canon is due for upgrades sooner than Nikon. The EOS 1D Mark IV should come by Fall 2009, and it is likely to be 14-16 MP and 1.3x crop with 10 fps with lower noise and power consumption, not to mention possibly video capture and sensor cleaning...it doesn't take an informed beta tester to know that.</p>

<p>That said, the Nikon D700 and D3 are stellar. I've worked with them, and everything you've read is true. They are hard to beat. If you go Nikon, you have to go for least a D700, because anything less (eg D300) would be a step backward in terms of sensor size (coming from Canon 1.3x)</p>

<p>One advantage of Nikon bodies over Canon that is related to focus is that you get focus direction arrows in the viewfinder in addition to just focus confirmation. However, isn't there a split-image focusing screen available for the 1D series?</p>

<p>Nikon would be a step backward in terms of losing your 50/1.2 L. Nikon has no AF lens of that focal length with that quality level and speed. Sure, a Nikkor 50/1.4 along with the higher ISO performacne could compensate...but the look would be a bit different - slightly greater DOF. Then again, you'd have to get slightly closer with the full-frame sensor compared to your current 1.3x, so it might just offset that issue.</p>

<p>Also, Nikon has nothing equivalent to the 17-40 L. Then again, if you give up the 50/1.2 L, you could almost pay for the difference between the 17-40 and a Nikon 14-24 with the money you recoup from the 50/1.2's sale.</p>

<p>One thing you have to be careful of with Nikon is the lenses. Some older lenses use older the camera body's focusing motor. On a camera like the D3, they can be just as fast or even faster (as is the case with the older 50/1.4 versus the new one with the motor) compared to lenses with the internal USM motor. However, the D700 has a slightly slower AF motor than the D3, so those older prime lenses may not give you as fast an AF response as you had with the Canon gear. In addition, you cannot manually touch-up focus with the lens ring engaged in AF mode on the older D lenses. You have to switch to MF. Now, you can totally sidestep this issue by only buying internal motor lenses. The 14-24/2.8 ED, 24-70/2.8 ED, 50/1.4 ED, and 70-200/2.8 ED are all among the internal motor variety of Nikkor lens.</p>

<p>You also get live view and sensor cleaning on the D700, while the D3 has live view but no sensor cleaning. Neither have video recording like the 5D Mark II though. And yes, the D700 is magnesium alloy like the D3, EOS 1D Mark II, etc. But isn't the EOS 5D Mark II also?</p>

<p>Canon isn't likely to come out with another 12 MP full-frame camera, but the next 1.3x EOS 1D is likely to have high ISO performance equal to the D700 and D3. It's the way technology is going. The D700 seems to have hit a sweet spot.</p>

<p>But when all is said and done, do you really have to upgrade? Are you really being limited by your 1D II? Or is it giving you everything you want? Are you willing to give up the 50/1.2 L? Are you willing to lose money to switch to Nikon? And are you willing to screw your lenses backwards? Just kidding on that last comment...but I hope my viewpoints were helpful. I've worked with the D700 as well as older Nikons, and I've edited files from the EOS 1D Mark II, and original EOS 1D...and also the EOS 40D and 30D...so I do think I have some valid experience regarding your question of whether or not to switch...honestly, all the cameras above seem pretty equivalent in image quality. I didn't see any real differences that would make one notably superior over another.</p>

<p>Best of luck, and tell us what you end up deciding. Above all, use whatever you decide to use to the best of your ability.</p>

<p>What is Kodak SO-392? Is it Gold 200? That's all I can think of...</p>

<p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280298919069&category=74920&_trksid=p3907.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D15%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280298919069&category=74920&_trksid=p3907.m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSI%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D15%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D54</a></p>

<p>One of my cameras has the model name logo taped, but not the brand on the prism. My reasoning is that people are attracted to the lightest part of the camera, and in group photos, I want them looking dead center, not off to the side. One time when I was doing sports group photos, a coach actually said to his team "Now everyone look at the Nikon logo" to get them all looking in the same place.</p>

<p>But people can still tell the model because I have a strap that has the model name. Next time, I'll use a more generic strap. I like Nikon, and I like Canon, but I don't want to advertise the model number or distract people with it. For example, I'm thinking of buying a 1D Mark I so I can add some Canon L glass to my Nikon setup. The 1D Mark I is a great camera when used at low and medium ISO. And it looks almost the same as a 1Ds Mark III if you cover up the "digital" logo at the bottom right near the lens mount. I don't need gearheads making fun of me for using an older camera, so just tape it!</p>

<p>I have shot one roll so far. It was a bit past date, but frozen. I rated it at EI 1600, and had it push-processed the maximum 3 stops (using Main Photo in the original Scala Chemistry). I photographed people at night.</p>

<p>Even with my modest scanner, the resulting 8x12 print looks great. This is a great film.</p>