kevin_surfane

<p>I'm a film and digital user but I'll be moving completely to digital in 2009.</p>

<p>I went to Adorama and put 5 rolls of Provia 400x and a 5pack of Fuji mailers in my shopping cart and had over $82. And prices are going up in January. I can buy an *ist for $99 on eBay. With my used *ist, I expect to take over 100,000 pictures with it - using my film glass. $2.16 per slide or $0.00099 per digital shot. And I don't have to worry about scanning or any other expensive equipment for post process.</p>

<p>If I bought a Hassalblad for $40,000, and with 300,000+ shots per back, that's $0.133 per shot - with a Hass. A Hass is actually cheaper per shot than my second hand Sears film camera or any film camera for that matter!</p>

<p>Film is dead Fred and I stand by my numbers.</p>

<p>Look it, photogrpahy is a saturated business - and MORE people are entering it. Why, in this horrible economy, every out of work white collar worker who has fantasized about being a "professional photographer" is now entering the business. God, just look at the posts in the last couple of months - HERE! Sorry, but being a photographer is a really really dumb business idea - even if you're talented. Now, in this economy, it's just idiotic. It's been that way even when my father was in the business in the 1950s.<br>

The best way to make money in photography? Develop a "How to" course on how to make money in photography.</p>

<p>The economy is tanking and it's going to get worse before it gets better. Photography is a luxury.That's the way it is.</p>

<p>If you wanted the buildings to be less exposed, you should have metered the buildings and made the exposure based on what was returned for the buildings and the shrubs would have been dark. If it was the shrubbery that you wanted exposed properly, you did alright. As others have said, the dynamic range is too wide to have an overall "good" exposure.</p>

<p><em> ...to get rid of the "printed on paper look"</em></p>

<p>I think that adds to their charm. Personally, I think getting too fancy can look cheap.</p>

<p>The third graphic down and the bottom right one are my choice. They're simple, elegant, and have this high class (read - expensive photographer who's worth it) look.</p>

<p>You could try here:<br /> <a href="http://www.gscpa.org/Content/ProfessionalResources/CPAReferral.aspx">gscpa.org</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.aicpa.org/Consumer+Information/Find+a+CPA">Or here: aicpa.org</a> <br /> I got an excellent referal from one of my doctors.</p>

<p>If you wanted to bypass PayPal, you will have to get or write shopping cart software that can inregrate with a gateway software that interacts with your merchant account.  Doing it that way, you can save a point, more or less, on the transactions fees. This of course is based on my investigations from 2004 - so it's a bit dated.</p>

<p>Les;<br>

Here is the pertinent section from my link above:</p>

<blockquote>RMS 4.0 ~= PGI 28, RMS 4.5 ~= PGI 41, and RMS 5.0 ~= PGI 53, but the equivalence is not linear and there seems to be a lot of slop in the reporting of RMS numbers. (Or else RMS does not really measure perceived grainyness; blue sky dotting seems to be mostly a function of low-contrast resolution). Thanks to Michael K. Davis for this conversion formula: RMS = (PGI / 0.5335) ^ (1 / 2.8669).</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea how the original author derived that formula. I brought this up because this was the closest thing I could find that has a numerical comparison between the slide and print films. (I know: apple and oranges!) But I think in this day and age of scanning, the OP does have a valid question.</p>

<p>You've shot both the old VC and ProviaX - I haven't. And to be honest, even if I did, I proabably couldn't tell the difference. For example: I've shot both TMAX 100 and the new TMAX 400 and I can't tell the difference when I print them at 8x10. Maybe if I printed them at 16x20 I could. But when I have shot the old Portra 400, I was really impressed even with the cheap scans- and I am having some problems finding them so I can post - arrrrrrgh! I don't know if it matters, <em>everything</em> looks great at 72dpi on a monitor!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Provia 400X has an RMS of 11.</p>

<p>Portra 400VC has a PGI of less than 42.</p>

<p>The Converstion formula <a href="http://cacreeks.com/films.htm">RMS = (PGI / 0.5335) ^ (1 / 2.8669)</a> .Which gives Portra an RMS of less than 4.5. (The conversion formula is an approximation and it isn't perfect. There are plenty of sources of why grain comparison can't be done directly between slide and print films.)</p>

<p>Kodak also designed the film for scanning. I love Portra, but it's a bit pricy and film prices for both Fuji and Kodak are going up in January 2009 - so stock up.</p>

<p>Interesting....the fogging is exact in each frame. Two things: one your camera has a light leak; two, if you're processing yourself, your tank has a light leak - I doubt because the frames have the identical pattern which wouldn't happen if it were a tank problem.</p>

<p>Does your paper safe have a light leak? Maybe, but I doubt it would be so uniform unless you had the safe/box in the exact same position and exposed it to the same light everytime.</p>

<p>My vote - camera.</p>

<blockquote>As an amateur, they could photograph whatever they want, however they want, whenever they felt like it. If the shot didn't turn out the way they thought it would, no biggie.</blockquote>

<p>Amen to that! I tried being a pro back in the film days.  I couldn't take it.</p>

<p>Unless you want a bunch of unrelated advertisements cluttering your site, you will have to build your own site. It's not that hard. My hosting company (iX Webhosting) offers a Linux plan and with a click of a button, you can install Gallery2. Gallery2 has a bunch of plugins for printing and sales. If you buy two years domain hosting, I think it'll cost you $5 per month and that includes domain name registration.</p>

<p><br /> I'm sure there are other companies out there that offer a similar plan, maybe even for less.</p>

I think the problem was that you had Windows Explorer open with the folder that has those images you were working

on open. In other words let's say you were browsing Pentax Pictures folder looking at the images in there - maybe

thumb nails view? You then opened up PSE and did your thing. When PSE tried to save the image under that name, it

couldn't because windows had it locked.<p/>The next time it happens, close everything down except PSE and then

try to save. If it still won't save, go into Windows Explorer, find the file that won't save, right click on it,

click on "Security", and make sure that your user name has write privileges. Windows Explorer is in that

Start->All Programs->Accessories (XP) You'll see it towards the middle

bottom, by the way. <p/> Locking files is

done by the

OS to keep

multiple

programs from modifying a file at once.

<blockquote>Kevin, how about large format movie film, like the 70mm IMAX?</blockquote>Oh! Now we're talking about

movie film. <p/>It's going away, although not as fast as still film photography.<p/>I stand by my predictions.

I am sorry. I will miss film too.<p/>The DOW will be in the 6000s or 7000s in February - to make another

prediction.

Photolithography - For the pendents, printing is a completely digital work flow now. Film is no longer needed.

<blockquote>Kevin: "Personally, I think film will be dead soon."

 

You mean like all film? 8x10 and larger formats even? Large format X Ray film? Photolithography

film?</blockquote>Yes. My doctors are using digital X-Ray cameras. And as far as the other film formats are

concerned, the LF camera manufacturers are adapting to digital backs.It's only a matter of time. I am sorry for

saying this.

On Flickr, there was a post about Ektar 100 - I can't find it again - arggggg &^*%%$!.<p/> Anyway, this guy

photographed one of his cameras and something else against a black background and then with a digital camera. It

looked as though he just switched out the backs. I really wish I could post the photos or at least the link. It

was a perfect example of the differing media (at this point in technology) and how it <b><i>looks</i></b>. The

photographer used it as an example as to why he prefers film over digital, but from my point of view, it also

showed the detail strengths of digital. <p/>Personally, I think film will be dead soon.<p/> And before I get

flamed about how there will be <i>some</i> demand for film, let me ask you this; when was the last time you

bought wet glass plates? Or glass plates for that matter?<p/>It's getting harder and harder for us film guys. And

I am becoming more and more impressed by digital's strengths. <p/>Where am I coming from? <br/>The fact that I

just spent $17 for a roll (36) of film and processing - and I got the Kodak ULTRAMAX on sale. For about 30 rolls of

film, I can buy a digital back for my

Pentax glass. It adds up,folks. I love film. I love the look. I love the experience. I love smelling it out of

the box. And it brings back the few happy memories I have. (I hate the taste, though!)<p/>It's only a matter of

time. In the meantime, I'm buying film gear for pennies on the dollar. That compensates somewhat for the cost

disparity between film and digital.<p/>And one last thing. If you're going to criticize me for my numbers

regarding film and digital, all I ask is that you show me yours. I concede that I maybe wrong.

<blockquote>Probably because Beseler is spelled with one "S". I made that mistake many times, too.

</blockquote>Ah!<p/>I couldn't find my original instructions with the email address, so I had to Google. <p/>But

then again, I have to wonder, with the double digit percentage decline in film every year and with more folks

having the opinion that scanning and ink jet printing is superior to wet darkroom, I wonder how long they can

stay in business - at least the enlarger divisions.

I have no idea why it did not come up in my Google search.

I second Josh's comment. <p/>To publish a digital image, you need to be able to print an 8x10 at 300dpi - that's

what the editors want to head off anyone who wants to flame me about how 72dpi looks fine to them and the viewing

distance matters and whatever.... <p/>"Dumbing" down the image for a digital frame will make it pretty much

unpublishable and not very marketable.

I have been wondering about this for a while. Everyone I know who goes into wet darkroom work buys second hand. I

bought an enlarger on clearance at Wolf Camera a couple of years ago. <p/>I was having some issues with the

focusing knob on my Cadet II and emailed Bessler a couple of years ago and received no answer and no bounce

either (I have a work-around). Now, when I look

for their website, I cannot find it - which doesn't mean much. They may have just let the domain lapse. I don't see

anything for Omega either.<p/>Are the photo stores just selling out their stock or the distributor's stock?

Thanks Marco! I love these tests you do! <p/>It looks like the Ektar has a redder cast than the Velvia 100. I would have thought the other way around.<p/>I wonder how the Ektar would compare to Provia 100F? Just kidding!

No scans?

Thanks Guys!