Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by david_julian2

  1. 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.


    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

  2. 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!



  3. 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 :


  4. 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



    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



    Please email me with any good info at: art@davidjulian.com<div>0056SO-12730684.jpg.e6ca57f162e1c46ced3d4b2407780eaf.jpg</div>

  • Create New...