richard_shewmaker1

<p>It's a sad fact that digital devices are not built for people of, er, "mature" years. I myself get frustrated with things designed by kids in their twenties. Oh, I can understand how they work alright, but I need to put on my reading glasses to read the tiny 4 pt. labels on remotes, and I practically need a magnifying glass to make out the terminals on the back of a tv set or a stereo. And digital sound. . .until I retired from nursing at 62, I had to use the digital thermometers visually because the beep that announces that the cycle is completed is totally inaudible to me. I've never been able to find a travel alarm clock that makes a low enough sound to awaken me. I can only take comfort in the schadenfreudistic knowledge that all those snot-nosed designers are doomed to get their comeuppance when they are deafened by years of i-Pod music.<br>

--Rich</p>

<p>Lex --<br>

There is an Instamatic-simple digital P&S , i.e: http://www.amazon.com/Vtech-Kidizoom-Digital-Camera.<br>

But, alas the kiddie decorations would insult Mom's dignity. If only they made this in a more adult look, with perhaps a little better picture quality, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. <br>

--Rich Shewmaker</p>

<p>My mother is 87 and wants another camera. Her last one was frustrating for her to use, because she is stuck in film-camera mode. That is, she only took ten or so pictures a year, and would never learn the take-lots-and-delete-the-bad-ones technique that most of us use these days. This is just as well, in a way, because when she does take pictures she expects me to print each and every one so she can look at them in hard copy. If she took hundreds, I'd go broke buying printer ink. The problem is, that she doesn't shoot enough to become familiar with the camera's controls. On/Off, zoom and shutter are okay, because she had those on her old Olympus point-n-shoot. But FEATURES like ISO, exposure compensation, M, Av, Tv, P, and those little dial icons for sports, portrait, scene, and video just confuse her. Her last camera, a cheap Polaroid digital compact, (now defunct because she dropped it) she would accidently press the "menu" button and wander bewildered through the settings until she got angry. So, is there a digital point-n-shoot that stays in "auto" regardless, and has a minimum of features to confuse. Something designed to survive being dropped would be a plus, but those I've researched are a little on the pricey end, and are feature rich. Thanks for any suggestions.<br>

--Rich Shewmaker </p>

<p>Louis-<br>

Nice tonality in the B&W shot of the poison ivy patch. I will try try some B&W conversions of my Ektar shots.</p>

<p>I have the Minolta X-300, and I'm happy with it. It is smaller and lighter and quieter than my Canon A2, and my Rokkor 50/1.7 is very sharp, even wide open. The viewfinder is bright and focusing with the split-spot/microprism is fast and easy. I would have preferred a match needle to the LED matching system, but I've gotten used to it. The metering is accurate in the aperture priority "Auto" mode. The SR-44 batteries are easy to find and last for a long time because they power only the LED meter display.<br>

I was given this camera by a professional photographer friend who was cleaning out some unused equipment. The 50mm lens is the only one I have for now, but I plan to add to the system because Rokkor MD's are plentiful, cheap, and respected. The X-300 can be had for around $35 if you watch for Ebay bargains, or a little more if you need the security of purchasing from a source like KEH. <br>

If you decide on the X-300, I don't think you'll be disappointed. </p>

<p>I have the Minolta X-300, and I'm happy with it. It is smaller and lighter and quieter than my Canon A2, and my Rokkor 50/1.7 is very sharp, even wide open. The viewfinder is bright and focusing with the split-spot/microprism is fast and easy. I would have preferred a match needle to the LED matching system, but I've gotten used to it. The metering is accurate in the aperture priority "Auto" mode. The SR-44 batteries are easy to find and last for a long time because they power only the LED meter display.<br>

I was given this camera by a professional photographer friend who was cleaning out some unused equipment. The 50mm lens is the only one I have for now, but I plan to add to the system because Rokkor MD's are plentiful, cheap, and respected. The X-300 can be had for around $35 if you watch for Ebay bargains, or a little more if you need the security of purchasing from a source like KEH. <br>

If you decide on the X-300, I don't think you'll be disappointed. </p>

<p>Tom--<br>

At least the XL-399 has big manual control knobs; no freatures hidden deep in menus.</p>

<p>Tom--<br>

At least the XL-399 has big manual control knobs; no freatures hidden deep in menus.</p>

<p>The Kodak Startech camera has to be in the running for ugliest camera.</p><div></div>

<p>I stand corrected. Even so, my camera would have four times as many effective pixels. And it would work at higher ISO's. I wonder what the filter factor of those built-in filters is.</p>

<p>We all want better digital cameras, but we all have different ideas of what "better" might be. Keeping our dreams within the limits of physical laws and current technology, let's share ideas and fantasies.<br>

My first one will seem a little weird to most digital photographers. I want a point-n-shoot camera dedicated to black and white photography! The sensors in digital cameras create color by masking segments of each pixel with filters for red, green, and blue, then combining those colors in the camera's computer to assign a color for the whole pixel. My dream B&W camera would do away with the filters, thus increasing the sensitivity by allowing more photons to reach the light sensors. The effective resolution would also be increased by a factor of six (the number of segments combined to make a color pixel). This camera would be no more expensive to manufacture than the color version. In fact it may be cheaper! A failed segment in a color sensor destroys the entire six-segment pixel, while in my B&W version lose only a tiny negligible speck meaning a much higher yield rate for each silicon disc. Why P&S and not a B&W D3 or 1D Mark III? Marketing. Nobody is going to pay thousands for a dedicated B&W camera. But I would gladly spend a few hundred for a "G11b".<br>

Now what's your fantasy?</p>

<p><strong>Everything</strong> is "chemicals". The dirt in your yard is chemicals. The trees and grass that grow there are chemicals. <strong>YOU</strong> are chemicals. Your food is all chemicals, some of which would kill you in sufficient doses, including salt and water. Fear of chemicals, per se, is nonsense. When you handle substances that don't occur naturally in your environment (and some that do,) it's common sense to know what they are and how to use them safely. Don't put dish detergent on your pancakes. Don't drink Dektol.<br>

The advice to consult the MSDS's is good, but start with the package directions. The great yellow and green gods of photo chemicals are very cautious about warning you of any dangers of using their products. Heed the warnings. <br>

Lex says "Bad odor does not equal toxicity." He is absolutely right, but because so many people believe otherwise a variety of hypochondria called "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" has reached epidemic proportions. Strangely those with MCS are only "sensitive" to molecules that they can smell, never to those with no odor. Funny, that.</p>

<p>You might have more consistent results if you meter a gray card with your DSLR instead of metering the scene. Then you wouldn't have to worry about your camera messing things up trying to save highlights.</p>

<p>I've never dropped a camera, but two months ago on a trip to New Orleans with my mother I decided not to take my Canon G-9 on an outing for a day. (I took two film cameras instead.) So I put my G-9 on the top shelf of the hotel closet. What I didn't notice was that I had put the camera on a plastic bag that was lying flat on the shelf. That evening, Mom was looking for something she had misplaced, and pulled the bag off the shelf. (She's short, and couldn't see the camera.) The camera dropped about 6 feet to the concrete floor. She handed it to me, and it looked okay, but when I turned it on, the lens extended and an error message was displayed on the screen. Turning it off did not retract the lens. I sent the camera to Teleplan Camera Repair (http://www.teleplancamerarepair.com/) and for $95 they repaired the camera in six weeks, and now it works just fine. <br>

I don't know what the "right" way to drop a camera is, but six feet to a concrete floor ain't it.</p>

<p>To be more specific, I think your device is the beam splitter part of a slit lamp.<br>

http://tinyurl.com/n6c26c</p>

<p>I think it might be part of an ophthalmic slit lamp.</p>

<p>From:<br>

http://www.merriam-webster.com</p>

<p> </p>

<dl><dt >Main Entry:</dt><dd ><strong>can·did</strong><strong> </strong></dd><dt >Pronunciation:</dt><dd >\ˈkan-dəd\</dd><dt >Function:</dt><dd ><em>adjective</em></dd><dt >Etymology:</dt><dd >French & Latin; French <em>candide,</em> from Latin <em>candidus</em> bright, white, from <em>candēre</em> to shine, glow; akin to Welsh <em>can</em> white, Sanskrit <em>candati</em> it shines</dd><dt >Date:</dt><dd >1606</dd></dl>

1<strong>:</strong> <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white">white</a> <<em>candid</em> flames>2<strong>:</strong> free from bias, prejudice, or malice <strong>:</strong> <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair">fair</a> <em>candid</em> observer>3 a<strong>:</strong> marked by honest sincere expression <em>candid</em> discussion> b<strong>:</strong> indicating or suggesting sincere honesty and absence of deception <em>candid</em> face> c<strong>:</strong> disposed to criticize severely <strong>:</strong><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blunt">blunt</a> <<em>candid</em> critics><strong>4</strong><strong>: relating to or being photography of subjects acting naturally or spontaneously without being posed</strong>

 

<strong><br /></strong>

So, the question is can you take a photo of yourself without posing. I doubt it.

 

<p>I don't know what the currency exchange rate is, but I think 50 quid is more than I paid for my Canon A2 ($36 plus $12.50 shipping). This is a sophisticated camera that offers lots of bells and whistles but remains easy to handle. (Sorry, it doesn't really qualify as a "Classic Manual Camera," then, does it?) I really like that nearly all the features are reached via direct buttons and dial wheels. There is only one menu for custom functions that are seldom used. It can be expensive to shoot, though. At 5 frames per second, it can eat a 36-exposure roll in just over seven seconds.<br>

In the "Classic Manual" line, I shoot a Minolta x-300 that has none of the computer whiz-bang of the A2, but does have AP "Auto" or match LED metering that's dead-on accurate. Velvia film (fussy) makes beautifully exposed slides in this camera so long as I do a little exposure compensation in difficult lighting situations, but I would have to do that with the most expensive all-auto-everything camera out there.</p>

 

<p>I took a two-week trip to Italy last year, and took only my Canon G9 point 'n shoot. With its sophisticated controls, 12.5 megs, and RAW capability it met my needs and was easy to carry everywhere. It's less tempting to thieves than a DSLR, as you say. I got lots of really beautiful shots, and have made 8x10's, 11x14's, and even one 13x19. All in all, I think the G9 is an ideal travel camera. Of course, all my other cameras require stuff called "film" which you may remember used to be used to make pictures. I love film, but it is definitely NOT ideal for travel in an age when airport security is determined to find ways to ruin it with hard x-ray.<br>

Of course, take your DSLR, though, if you are really more comfortable shooting with it. You'll get better shots, and they'll be worth the weight and the risk.</p>

<p>Thank you. I called the lab, and they do, indeed, do drum scans at 4000dpi. I will have an image scanned at that resolution on both the drum scanner and the Nikon, and experiment.</p>

<p>I have been having my film processed and scanned to CD at either the local drug store or a local professional lab, and then processing the CD files in Elements 6 on my MacBook Pro laptop. So far, that has met my needs. But now I would like to do some 13"x19" prints of my favorite shots on my HP Photosmart 8750. The pro lab offers drum scans at "optical 8000dpi" and "image render 64000dpi", and Nikon Coolscan at 4000dpi. Which would produce the beat results with my equipment? Will my Mac and Elements be able to manage the huge files produced by the drum scanner? If so, would the greater resolution be worth the added cost of drum scanning ($25 to $50 per scan compared to $4.50 per Nikon scan)? I'm new to all this.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help everybody. You've given me some ideas to try. I'll post my results if I manage any that I find satisfactory.</p>

<p>My mother has a drawer full of family pictures from the thirties, forties, and fifties taken with box cameras. I am interested in getting that "style" without actually getting a box camera, and dealing with the complexity of respooling 120 to 620, or getting 120 film processed and printed. I would prefer to fake it with 35mm film or in digital. My main question is how do I get the right lens perspective? The film grain and contrast can be managed in digital post processing. Also, how can I get the prints to look physically authentic? I know how to make white borders, and where to get deckle-edge cutters, but some of Mom's older prints have Art-Deco borders that would be hard to copy accurately. Is there an Elements plug-in that makes these borders? Any advice would be appreciated.</p>