david_julian2

This is indeed a tiresome and divided subject, and all the measurements alone do not add

up to the most important factor for me: How does the viewfinder of any camera change

the joy of photography and the quality of my images? Not much. But what it does affect is

the ease in which I adapt to changing light, fill the frame in Macro or tightly-composed

images, and the apparent brightness of my lenses under difficult conditions. For those of

us with aging eyes, the newer bright viewfinders on sub-full-frame DSLRs are truly an

advancement and often better than our old trusty film camera were in many cases. I went

from a Nikon N90s and F5 to a Nikon D100 and D1X, and i was surprised by how much

easier it was to work with the DSLRs in changing light? ? which in turn sped up my

photography and increased my enjoyment and the quality of my work.

<p>

Then, I recently (and with MUCH deliberation and introspection) moved to a Canon 5D,

specifically because I needed the lowest noise in low light, felt I missed the FF viewfinder

attributes and also wanted to work with my fast prime wides that were then unmatch in

APS format cameras. Again, the FF finder is way brighter, and has also made the

experience of photography more enjoyable for me. I proved out my hopes with the lower

noise in my images, but i am not convinced that I proved out my other expectations. Was

it worth the extra weight, loss of those handy pop-up flashes, and way more money? THat

is the rub that must be factored in. i do LOVE the 5D for many reasons, but rarely

recommend the 5D (or higher) cameras to first-time DSLR buyers and students, because

the difference in costs, all told, can buy lots of other things. FF cameras often require

heavier lenses, so it all adds up on you shoulders at the end of the day, believe me. You

MUST hold the choices side-by-side and FEEL the differences before buying, not just read

about them. If I had a D200 or D2xs, I'd probably be quite happy, and make the same

exposures. <p>http://www.davidjulian.com

I'd be alot better informed and more convinced if someone did a more thorough and fair

comparison test of

these two devices... and others in their pricerange. I am looking to replace my trusty

Imacon Photo scanner with a desktop device that can handle mounted 35s as well as other

raw film sizes. The Imacon is very capable, but too slow for my current archiving needs.

Anyone know of any detailed reviews elsewhere? Wish that DPReveiw would do one!

http://www.davidjulian.com

Phillip,

I aggree with all of the above ideas, because it truly IS a tradeoff issue in

maximizing quality vs. savings and workflow. Compared side-by-side, there is no

doubt that the Matte Black ink results in better prints and smoother transitions

on matte and fine-art papers. If you can build the cost of ink switch loss into your

'fine art' prints, then that's the way to go. if the prints are for exhibit to a critical

and trained audience, it's worth the cost to use the best ink for the results you

are after. In my opinion, even the most expensive papers, like Hanemuhle will not

render as good a result with the P. Black inks as even the less expensive papers

with Matte black inks. The densest blacks are just not there with the P.Black

inks. NOTE: once glass or plexi is over the framed print, that loss of 2-7% in

density is a bit less apparent due to reflection.

An informative 'plug'� In my upcoming workshops in Santa Fe, Seattle and

California, I will be showing comparative results in these methods in both full-

color and a variety of alternative toned digital images. Inquire at :

www.davidjulian.com

Hello Epson devotees,

I own an Imacon Photo film scanner, and frankly, it's amazing,

though not very fast. I am getting about 4.1 dmax, allowing great

detail in shadows without noise. Truly drum scan quality. And at

about $4500, it should be. (Now being replaced by the new 343

model).

I shoot as well as teach Digital alternative process photography.

I need to scan a variety of odd film and print sizes with ease.

Has anyone out there in Greenspun land successfully scanned

a 617 transparancy with an Epson 3200 Pro? Can you defeat

their clunky film holders to achieve a larger scan area and still

keep the film flat enough? Are the results impressive at only 3.4

dmax? Can you use a glass plate to keep the film flat, or tape it

down to the scanning glass?

Why do i care? because I have lots of scans to make at lower

resolutions and the Imacon takes a while to handle that

medium.

Please email me with any good info at: art@davidjulian.com<div></div>