randrew1

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2018/09/25/kodak-announces-return-ektachrome-roc/1419604002/

I "went over to the dark side" and bought a digital camera in 2005. I would like to put my 4x5 camera back in service for landscape photography. Of course, film is still an option, but it is getting expensive. I would also need a better film scanner to do the film justice. I've scanned 4x5 film on my Kodak 3570 scanner (4 scans to cover the image). This provides about 900 pixels per inch on film that can deliver 3000 to 4000 ppi. A Better Light scan back would be a nice option, but they start at $5000 for a used unit. They make film and processing prices look reasonable. I've seen sliding backs that allow you to attach a medium format or full frame digital camera and take several exposures to cover part of the image plane. It looks like the largest image you can capture with a full-frame DSLR is about 3x3 (camera in vertical position taking two rows of three images). Is there any reason why a sliding back can't be designed to allow four rows of three horizontal images? This would cover more than 75% of the 4x5 image plane. Is such a device available? Are there better options for large format digital images?

The 70-200 f/2.8 lens is a good choice for football. The pros will use a 400 F/4 most of the time, but you can get a recent model used car for what one of these lenses cost. These same pros often have a second body with a 70-200 f/2.8. I'm not familiar with the performance of the T2i. The biggest factor for me was autofocus. A camera/lens combination that rapidly adjusts focus when players move is a huge advantage. It is possible to pre-focus, but this limits your options. If you have access to the sideline area, you should follow the line of scrimage up and down the field. If you want to concentrate on the quarterback, you can be behind the line of scrimage. If you want pix of the running backs and receivers, move downfield. If you are confined to the stands, The best option is the front row of the end zone. This is not a good location to watch the whole game--you can only see half of it. It will get you close to the action some of the time. Here is an example of what an amateur can get at an NFL game:

Delicate Arch

Greenbrier Resort

It's basketball season.

It is worth noting that the eclipse will only be total in the western part of the park. It will not be total from the main road across the park. I'm hoping to visit a friend in Columbia, SC that day. It is close the the center of the ;path of totality.

Mr. Street is correct that I should have used the future tense: "Now that Ektachrome 100 will be available..." I disagree with his contention that Kodak no longer has the capability to produce Ektachrome 100 is it was in 2012. I used to work in film manufacturing. I know some of the people who are still there. The process equipment is still there. It is possible that one or two if the raw chemicals will come from a new supplier, but they can handle that. As for Kodachrome, there is almost no chance that it will return. It wouldn't be too hard to produce the film again, but re-establishing the processing again would be a huge task.

If you look at page 203 of this Wilhelm publication, you will find that the best image stability of any color film is achieved by recent versions of Ektachrome. with a predicted life of 220 years, it is better than Kodachrome (at 185). Now that Ektachrome 100 is available again, I plan to archive some of my favorite digital images on Ektachrome slides.

<div></div>

<p>I used to shoot basketball with film. An f/1.4 lens helped.<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/MCC-Basketball/20050200-MCC/i-Q9gqMsR/0/L/0503MCCBasketball-2-L.jpg" alt="" /><br> I get much better results with my D600. It "only" shoots 5 fps in burst mode, but the AF system responds quickly. It also helps to be able to routinely shoot at ISO 3200 and bump up to ISO 10,000 if I want to use my 70-200 zoom. <br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/MCC-Basketball/20170128-MCC-Men/i-fhk3c54/0/L/20170128_MCC%20Men_2366a-L.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br> I almost always sit behind the baseline. A 50mm with a full frame sensor is wider than necessary, so I almost alwayd crop selected images. Shots are more dramatic if I shoot from a low angle. I recall seeing photographers putting their TLRs on the floor. I find it useful to shoot from eye level with my right eye looking through the viewfinder and my left eye looking at a wider view of the court. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>