al_derickson

<p>Just to be clear, I myself have no developed opinion on whether film is superior or inferior to current digital technology. I know better than to get in that fight ;)</p> <p>I do firmly believe however, that film scanner technology could be improved and that it's a shame that development of it has essentially ceased.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>Ellis, I was referring to the posts by one Henning Serger in this thread: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/131396-rollei-rpx-25-grain-resolution-5.html which was linked in a recent post on this site concerning high resolution 400 speed film.</p> <p>I have no idea as to the veracity of his data.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>Reading a link to some tests on film resolution it appears that film can actually capture at least as much data as the best FX digital cameras and potentially much more but we can't realize this unless we go back to optical enlargements in a wet darkroom. Since scanner technology development essentially stopped ten years ago we film shooters are stuck with an inferior digital conversion process.<br /><br />I had a thought, probably borne out of ignorance, but here it goes: Scanners are inherently complicated machines with all sorts of bits and pieces requiring precision tolerances-lenses, mirrors, focusing mechanisms, etc. We now have the availability of full frame sensors. Why not go back to the concept of contact printing and do away with all the lenses and focusing issues? In other words, slap the film frame right against the sensor and shoot some collimated light through it and be done with it. Would this work? If not, why not? It seems some clever fellow could test the concept with a full frame DSLR if he could figure out a way to sandwich the film frame up against the sensor.<br /><br />Okay, all those filling their buckets with cold water can now let go.<br /><br />Al</p>

<p>My AFS 50mm f1.4 back focuses wide open at close distances but is right on at infinity. I used AF fine tune on my D7100 to correct it because I know the chances are my subject will be close if I'm using it wide open. I'll be stopped down at far distances and DOF will cover any focusing error.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>I'm a rank amateur at lighting but I'd like try try a shot of my small family sitting at the hearthside with the Christmas tree to one side. I'd like a warm romantic effect with the flames of the fire visible as well as the lights of the Christmas tree. I have a Nikon D7100 and a SB800 and a SB600 but initial tests with flash were not encouraging. Perhaps some low wattage incandescents might be better? Any suggestion or tips would be welcome. Thanks.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>It's astonishing to me that a lens that expensive could be considered disposable!</p>

<p>The F models are much more complicated that earlier Rolleis in terms of the various internal linkages which must be in synchronization. Something has gone out of whack and the important thing is not to try to force it which could bend or break parts.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>Yes, I eagerly await some reviews of these new products. My V750 Pro has always been something of a disappointment.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>I just went to the photography exhibit at our state fair. I'd say ninety percent of the photographs were of the over-saturated, vibrant and contrasty sort. My eyes needed a rest afterwards.</p> <p>Yes, it is definitely a matter of taste.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>If Nikon were to continue down the pro DX road (and I hope they do) they need to expand their DX lenses. At least add a small 16mm prime. Another couple DX lenses I would like to see would be an f5.6 400mm and a f5.6 600mm. Think of it: small sharp 600 and 900mm equivalents selling at four figures rather than five. The wildlife shooters would go nuts!<br> Al</p>

<p>Nick, I have the same issue. Here is a shot of a deer on Portra 400: Al</p>

<p>I bought a Nikon 70-300mm ED (non VR, non G) from KEH in Ex+ condition for $76. Maybe mine is an exceptional copy but I find it very sharp, sharper at 300mm than my MF fixed 300mm lenses. DXOMark has it ranked higher than the current VR version.<br> Al</p>

<p>Is anyone else having issues with the latest round of MS Windows updates pushed out this past week? I have two very different Windows 7 64 bit machines; one is an almost new Dell Intel and the other is an older AMD. Different antivirus, different programs on each. After the updates and the reboot they would start okay once. On the next boot however, just after the "Starting Windows" logo I'd get the BSOD. So I went into System Restore, which I guess rolls back the updates, on one machine and it restarted okay. A day later, the updates were pushed back on and the same thing: crash. I went searching on the web and it seems other people are having the same problem. Some smart guy or gal narrowed the problem down to one file in the X:\Windows\System32 folder, FNTCACHE.DAT. If you delete this one file everything is fine again. So I got into a command prompt and deleted that file. So far, everything is groovy after I did this on both machines. Seems odd that I'd get this on both my computers and it not being a huge widespread problem. From the web chatter it only affects Windows 7 64 bit systems.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>The Ektar was shot on my Nikon F6 at ISO 64 knowing that this camera's meter is calibrated for color reversal film(avoiding blownout highlights at any cost). I'll try ISO 40 and 25 and see if it makes any difference. I just don't have much experience with this film and I may be expecting too much.</p>

<p>In my town we're down to one local C-41 minilab now. I've been unhappy with some rolls that get scratched, I think depending on the operator because not all exhibit this. Usually I shoot 400 speed film but my last rolls have been Ektar which is supposed to be very fine grained. My processed rolls however, appear more grainy than I expected. My question is, is it possible that this is caused by sloppy procedures at the minilab?</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>To answer your question first, Corel's Paintshop Pro will handle 16 bit images.<br> However I suggest you try doing your heavy lifting on the 16 bit files using the tools available in Elements (levels, hue, saturation, etc) then convert to 8 bit to do your final tweaking. Dan Margullis, one of the Photoshop gurus, maintained that as long as the conversion was done within Photoshop, one cannot tell the difference between 8 and 16 bit images. This is also my, admittedly much more limited, experience.<br> I also suggest you download the free plugin Smartcurve, find a copy of Margullis' Photoshop Lab Color, and play with using the l*a*b color mode in Smartcurve. It works exactly the same as converting to LAB color mode in full Photoshop and using the Curves tool. And it works on 16 bit images too.</p> <p>Al</p>

<p>It's not loose on the Coolscan V, the little brother of the 5000. Mine is tight.<br> Al</p>

<p>Ebay.<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/350157908626?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT</p>

<p>Nikon Coolscan scanners can produce NEF files which can be edited by Capture NX2 (but not the new NX-D). The camera and lens corrections are not available however.<br> Al</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>But you should be able to switch it to Consumer Cellular, the top-rated carrier in the U.S., which runs on AT&T's network.</p>

<p>Yes because there is nothing like viewing a slide projected with a good projector lens. And if you really want to be amazed project a 6x6 slide.</p>

<p>I regularly buy close to expiration date film and freeze it. I haven't noticed any degradation of speed or quality and that's with mostly pro-grade films like Velvia and Provia. With consumer-grade film like Superia you should have even better luck.</p>

<p>I have the Vanguard ABH-230 ballhead which is rated at 30kg and find it a very high quality piece of gear. It's more than twice as expensive than the ABH-250, however.</p>