ant_nio_marques

<p>I'd like something like a Fuji X100s <strong>without</strong> the LCD. That would take a dent on the instant gratification thing. Maybe one could use the EVF to check if exposure and focus had gone OK, or use wifi and a phone app for that.</p>

<p>Laserdisc video data was analog.</p>

One might as well ask if concrete has surpassed stone. Since this is the EOS forum, I suppose you're asking about 35mm film. If so, then you need special circumstances to get more than 20mp out of it. I don't know if that answers your question. MF and LF are quite a different matter. Film and digital are different. One must spend a lot of time with each to know them, and then one will know where each one's strengths lie. You don't see people asking whether digital has surpassed cya ottos, so why film? But one can say that in the sense that digital set out to imitate what people usually wanted film for, then it has reached its goal (after a number of false.claims to victory). Today's cell phones still can't do all that point and shoot cameras with plastic lenses did 25 years ago, but they can do things those cameras couldn't, and more conveniently. Notice also that digital is continually improving whereas film only sees improvements in emulsion quality (and the fact is that nowadays we have some of the best film ever). But there is a marked disincentive to use film - no tools, no supply chain - and did you notice that there are hardly prints made anymore, from film or digital? It's also implicit that you must justify your choice when you use film. You are not allowed to find it better. At best, you can put on a yellow smile and say its for some exquisite project. But I admit I'd love the April fool's joke to be true. That doesn't mean I wouldn't keep using film. I'm fortunate enough to have been educated to do what I feel good with, not what trend folks want me to. (it's often the case that when trends get trendy, I've often already been there, done it, and moved on.) One thing with which I must concur is that film handles highlights much better. But I've always put that down to my own ineptitude with the medium.

I'd more or less expect Andrew to nitpick, but not JDM. Well, if any of you read my comment as having anything to do with 'analog vs digital', what can I say but whoooooooosh? The *media* used to store digital data are 'analog'. The lossless copies can be made not because the medium can be directly duplicated (like film) but because the data can be read and written to a new medium. This has created the folk belief that the medium is somehow digital, but it isn't. It's prone to deterioration, and user-writable media have so far proven very unreliable. For every person claiming they have never had a CDR fail on them, there are a dozen who have failing DVDs only 10 years old. It's because they didn't know how to store them? No, it's poor luck. Those same people often have 40 year old slides in their attic of which a majority are just fine. By the way, good luck retrieving anything digital from that tape you saved in the 1970s. But as I'm sure everyone here has their stuff in multiple RAID systems in different bank vaults all across the solar system, this concern is moot. Just how many duplicates did you used to make of your slides, while we're at it?

<p>Welcome to the conundrum of Digital Is Better Than Analog Because You Can Do Lossless Copies And Yet At The End Of The Day The Medium Used Is Physical And It Isn't Durable As Old Analog Was.</p> <p>The bottom line is that you can't trust ONE backup medium. With the state of technology these days, I'd keep everything in one of the modern multiple terabyte NAS things, and a copy of that in a different household, refreshed periodically over the network. This last bit may be tricky to set up, but after that it will be flawless. I wouldn't throw away any DVDs either, but I wouldn't count on all of them lasting more than 10 years.</p>

<p>(I'm not a photographer and I have no idea how one sells photographs.)</p> <p>I liked your page technically (I work with computers and liked how it delivers glitz without questionable technological choices, with the exception of the disabling of the right button, but I don't think that is what will drive people away alone).</p> <p>I agree that it looks a bit crowded. I think each photograph should have more room for itself, in order to be able to stand out.</p> <p>I liked your photos but I think the colours are exaggerated. Don't get me wrong, but I think they scream 'commercial' more than 'family'. That, coupled with the crowding, makes your site look more like an ecological house appliance manufacturer's than a photographer's. When, in fact, the photos are awesome!</p> <p>Finally, I'm not immediately aware that this is a site of someone offering photographic services. I don't know how one spells that out correctly, but there must be a way. It's almost as if I looked through everything and said 'now, if only I knew who took these photos so I could hire them'. Maybe the white background doesn't help.</p> <p>But at the end of the day, my opinion is just my opinion. And if you told us you were selling by the thousands, I wouldn't see anything strange about it, much less think it was in spite of your site.</p>

Thank you very much for your interesting ideas.

With a little patience you can set it up to work flawlessly and unattended. It's just a matter of knowing what the options do. Right now I don't have the time to expand on this. When I do find a bit, I will.

<p>It will depend on what you want to talk in relation to them.</p>

<p>Very nice results. I've never tried wet scanning, but I'm thinking it may be an alternative for some film I have that I thought was too gone to scan.</p>

<p>You're so spoiled having lots of photography stores. In Europe there's no comparable choice.</p>

<p>Don't you want to consider the 70d? It's not full frame, but it's far more advanced than the 40d, and it's much within your budget. Can you go somewhere and try it for a bit?</p> <p>I wouldn't get FF just now because now is the time that it's becoming affordable. I think in the future the choice between FF and smaller formats will be more for the physical qualities and experience than the price.</p>

<p>'Raw' is an adjective. It's unfortunate that it consists of 3 letters and as such was made into a file extension, hence came to be thought of as a type of file. For all I care, you could call them .BAY(er), .F(oveon)X3 and .T(rilinear)CC(d). I don't see what these discussions gain us. It's not like the sloppiness of terminology in this case can have any problematic effects.</p> <p>Now, can anyone PLEASE provide references as to the resolving power of photographic paper? I don't want to doubt Joe, but it's the first time I've heard it was comparable to that of film (actually, higher). Everyone here seems to be working under a similar assumption, so I can only assume it's common knowledge. Is it discussed somewhere?</p>

<p>Hi.<br> We've got ourselves a Yashica Lynx 5000 and we intend to use it for handheld photography.<br> There are two questions we think may apply to anyone using a rangefinder: how to carry it around in a way that is practical and encourages using it, and how to protect the body and the lens, which has no cap but we're told can take a 46mm filter.<br> I'd like to know how you personally solve these issues. Neck strap? Some kind of protective enclosure? We do have the original leather case, but after 50 years it's not something I find comfortable to use, and it doesn't attach to the camera anyway. I'd love a modern soft/padded/fluffly/whatever enclosure with a strap, but I don't know how to look for one.<br> Thanks.</p>

<p>What of Foveon raw files?</p>

<p>These days the issue is more with the geometry of the image than with quality per se. Which is not equal, but you're not likely going to get usable replies to this thread, at least not submerged in a sea of opinion and bickering.</p>

<p>I'm not a seller (so far). I've had to return an item once because it was defective. 'No returns' is supposed to apply only if the item is as described. As such, it may be a loophole, dishonest buyers may simply say the item wasn't OK and the burden is on you. I'm not sure that local pickup makes any difference. As far as I can see, the only possibility is if you don't accept paypal. That way, I <strong>suppose</strong> the burden will be on the buyer, and dishonest buyers may be put off straight away, but honest ones will be too. Local pickup with cash would seem to be the way to go.</p> <p>People can always ask you whether you ship to them. I'd ignore such request only if you had specifically excluded such shipping, in which case he product's page will say 'will not ship to X' instead of 'may not ship to X'. You can see what your offer looks like by visiting the site with another browser and not logging in. If you didn't specifically exclude the shipment, then I'd reply saying 'sorry, no'. ALWAYS use the 'reply now' link from ebay to send a message. Never ever send messages thru simple email, and don't reply to simple email either.</p> <p>Do NOT pay any attention to requests for any of your data, including paypal account. Paypal payment is done via ebay, clicking on a button, without your details ever going to the buyer. Otherwise, you're not only at risk but violating policy.</p> <p>It's VERY strange that the buyer got your data. He may have tracked you on facebook or similar. Try to protect your identity, this includes the public data on your account. Outside of companies, I hardly ever get to know the name of the people I buy things from. (Except after it arrives with the poster's name on the packet, of course.)</p> <p>It's VERY DISTRESSING if the buyer contacted you before the auction was over. (Unless you've set up a 'Buy now' thing, of course. If I were to seek anything, I'd put a starting price and let the auction run. I don't think long auctions are worth it, since expert buyers only bid on the last minutes. And they have alerts to know what's been just offered. I'd set it to be a few days only. I wouldn't do as folks do who start it at 0. My understanding is that they have a shadow bidder account in order to ensure the final price won't be too low. That's against policy, by the way.</p> <p>Do NOT reply to strange or irregular requests. If people are interested they will find a way to query you correctly. Irregular requests are best left unanswered than trying to be engaged with even if it's with the intention to tell them how things ought to be done. Let them find that by themselves.</p> <p>Do NOT yield to the temptation of selling things quickly. There is always demand for them. Prices are more likely to go up than down.</p>

<p>The discussion is progressing nicely where it concerns colour, but I feel we've hit a wall some time back where it concerns resolution. It would be nice if we could get unstuck, this is a matter that I'd be making use of as well (I've a number of prints to scan but haven't yet decided on the workflow).</p> <p>1. I think it's been established by now that the <strong>purpose</strong> of the scanning is undefined. That's why it doesn't make much sense to say 'it depends on what you want to do with it'. That would be unavoidable if the available tools weren't enough to fill all possible needs. But there has been no evidence that they aren't. There is no point in using a higher sampling frequency than needed in order to capture all the detail. <strong>If</strong> you are getting all the detail, you don't need to scan again, no matter whether 10 years from now you have a printer that is 10 times better. And if you get a scanner that resolves 10 times more, will you now redo the scans because the first ones were not done at that resolution, even tho the original resolution was enough to capture everything that was capturable?</p> <p>2. We all know that film can go quite far in terms of line pairs per cm. But here we're talking about prints. Does anyone have hard or soft data on how many lpcm photo paper can achieve? That, <strong>as far as I can understand</strong>, is the only value of relevance. It doesn't quite matter what the original film was if the paper is the limiting factor. A Durst Lambda, <strong>if I'm not mistaken</strong>, prints up to 400 dpi. That would <strong>suggest</strong> that the maximum resolving power of paper is not more than that (otherwise there would be equipment able to print finer, <strong>is there any?</strong>). Per sampling theory, that gives 800 dpi as enough to capture all the detail in a Durst Lambda print, whatever its specifics. Is there a flaw in this reasoning? Do museums scan prints with 4800 dpi or more just because their scanners claim to have that resolution?</p> <p>Aiming needlessly high is the first step towards quitting.</p>

<p>I'lll be glad to continue this conversation when as per the guidelines you have something new and informative to say. Otherwise, there is nothing in the latest instalments to which a constructive reply can be given.<br> Until then, and following your advice, I'm sure nothing stops you from finding some other audience that is actually impressed by the argumentation you've put forth so far.</p>

The print is N inches wide and in each of those inches there are at most 300 discernible points, whether you are looking with your bare eyes or a microscope. That's not meaningless. When the CD spec was defined with 44,1 kHz, that wasn't meaningless. When 'archival' digital was defined with 96 and later on 192 kHz, that wasn't meaningless either. All those values were based on what the usage would be and/or how much detail was there in the original, not on how much was technologically feasible. One can never capture analog data perfectly in a digital medium, so one does what makes sense: either get enough data to fill some need, or get as much data as is meaningful (in this case, the resolving power of the paper). Beyond that point, there's no benefit to a higher sampling frequency. You might as well increase the size in 'PhotoShop'.

I'm all for scanning only once, but there's the issue of the resolution of the source material. I understand scanning at a higher resolution than the source, for a multitude of reasons, but if (if) the source is a print with 300dpi, then I don't see the benefit of scanning at higher than 600. There won't be more detail nor less aliasing. Scanning according to the size of the desired output is what was traditionally done with source material that had a greater resolution than the scanner could capture. Here it's the opposite.

<p>High relative both to the cost of comparable items and the cost of living, in general. There are many software products around, and there is a marked difference in pricing according to whether the product is sold to corporations or to individuals. The issue with PhotoShop is that its 'home' version (Elements), which is IMO priced right, is actually not 'the same thing with limitations' but a different product, and as such most of the users who aren't happy with PSP or PL won't be happy with PSE either.</p>

<p>Come on, do you all really suggest scanning a print at 2400dpi? I'd be interested to know why. What is the maximum dpi we can expect of a print, and what is the average? Or lpcm, if you like.</p> <p>16-bit is essential, yes. (Also called 48 because it's 3 channels.)</p> <p>As to the colour space, Andrew is right, but I doubt you need to lose a lot of sleep over it.</p> <p>(Or 4800 dpi, if we are to trust Epson: it claims native 4800 dpi for platen scanning and 6400 with the lens that is engaged when using the holders, my tests suggest between a third and a half of that.)</p>

<p>Andrew, can you give John practical tips on how to create a scanner reflective profile?</p> <p>John, in an earlier comment I had some musings on DPI options. (Short version: I think 600 is already higher than the resolution of your photos.)</p>

<p>Jeff, my english may certainly bear correcting, but I think my 'won't' is still referring to the future in that context (as opposed to others where it may describe a present situation or be ambiguous).</p> <p>Your math starts off skewed by assuming a > $3000 body every five years. How many non-professionals do that? Then you assume a computer is used for nothing more than photography. Then you ignore that there's more than PhotoShop running on the computer, and if everyone decided to follow Adobe's model you'd have to multiply the cost by a fair number. That should make clear how disproportionately high the cost of subscription is. The only reason it is even possible is that there is no competition, otherwise it would have to be an order of magnitude lower. Now, I'm not saying Adobe is under any obligation to lower it. I'm saying folks have the right to say the cost is high (often when justifying why they won't go along with the subscription) and not hear it said back to them that they are just being stupid.</p>