s._usary

<p>Perhaps the "Z" does indeed signify zero. A nonentity with a craving for attention. Castle on high? I suspect basement efficiency is a more likely venue.</p>

<p>I was reasonably certain that I remembered Mr. Papai from a battle royal hereon from two years or so ago. Ironically, I was in the role of championing film while Papai was certain that digital had already rendered film obsolete. You then followed me to another forum in an effort to keep the fracas going. I recall denominating you "the Marin County hot tubber," borrowing a phrase from George H. W. Bush, who was referring to that benighted kid named Lindh who thought it would be fun to be a Taliban jihadist for a while. As I recall, Mr. Bush pronounced your county "MARE-uhn." Oh, well, the Bush clan probably isn't very popular there. Keep on sending Lynn Woolsey to the House. Marvellous lady. SU</p>

<p>Well, Mr. Z., you know absolutely nothing about the extent of my knowledge, my intellect, or the breadth and depth of my humor on the basis of one silly thread on an insignificant blog. Thus, you have no real basis for comparison, and thus I shall ignore your rude presumptuousness for the dreck that it is. Besides, I was not on here to display knowledge or to assume the role of comic. I can't divine why you seem to bear me ill will. I know nothing of you, nor do I care to learn anything of you. Jeez, the creeps that turn up in the streets (and on blogs) these days. You and others of like mien and mind merely furnish additional data in support of the "dumbing down of America" hypothesis. Cordially, SU. </p>

<p>One last note en passant. Mr. Papai's name sounds familiar. Are you by any chance a resident of Marin County in The Bear Republic?</p>

<p>In response to Mr. Watkins, I am not so young, and I received my first 35mm, a little all-manual Ricoh, at age 12. Within a year a relative taught me the craft of the darkroom. I admit to being a bit flippant in some of my responses, but it's all intended to be in good humor, I assure you. I had a little fun with Mr. Dressler (I still say he's Leon Redbone), but my natural smart-assedness was limited to that, I believe. As for my original query, it was neither unreasonable nor lacking in serious intent. I was merely in a quandary as to whether to invest in a DSLR. My intention was to seek out any factual or authoritative information as to the longevity of 35mm positive film to aid me in that decision. This was implicit in the original posting. After much thought and further net research, I sadly and reluctantly concluded that the future of 35mm E-6 emulsions is bleak indeed. Look at my Delphic/Pythian "oracle" missive earlier and you'll understand, perhaps, what I concluded based upon the weight of at least halfway informed opinion. Finally, methinks people take this whole site and its subject matter a bit too seriously. After all, we're only talking about taking photographs here, not the future of Western civilization as we know it. Adieu to all, and once again, merci beaucoups for the responses. Yours, Shane Usary. </p>

<p>I see no "inherent absurdity" in the query. I hoped I might receive a response from someone who follows the photographic press (which I seldom do) and had run across some authoritative pronouncement. That has not occurred; as usual, people just guess based on their own preferences or fervent hopes. Thanks and farewell to all.</p>

<p>Oh, one more question for Dressler. If I'm wrong about the Redbone theory, then are you any relation to Marie, the celebrated thespian?</p>

<p>A final riposte to Mr. Dressler. I maintain that it's quite a stretch to draw some humorous parallel between the mundane subject of this thread and either the microscopic study of tissues or the occasional jocular references to fraudulent prognosticators. I couldn't resist looking at your profile here. I assume you are the subject of the displayed portrait. Come on, now. Admit it. You're really Leon Redbone travelling under a pseudonym here, aren't you? Inquiring minds want to know. If so, I'm a longtime enthusiast for your work. I also never believed you were really Frank Zappa.</p>

<p>I gather you never read beyond the title of the posting, old boy. The specific references to E-6 and my 35mm Nikon F100 in the body of the posting established the parameters of the question. You don't acquire much information from just scanning the headlines.</p>

<p>If there's a joke there, it's about as obscure as some of W. S. Burroughs' prose scribbled when he was under the influence of hallucinogens. Or perhaps I'm just becoming too literal-minded. But then, I fail to see how body tissues and electron microscopes even begin to "fit" here. If joke it was, it must stem from your own, purely private sense of humor. Perhaps you're an aspiring coroner--they get to study body tissues and use cameras, too.</p>

<p>Sounds like a nom de plume for a scrivener of childrens' tomes. I still would like an explanation of the relevance of histology here.</p>

<p>Who or what the hell is "Harry Turtledove"? Moreover, the relevance of "histological" here is rather obscure to me.</p>

<p>Oh, one last thing (or two). First, I have been a fierce partisan of film for years, as my old and sometimes bellicose battles with "cyberheads" on this very site will attest. So I have NOT been a "cyberhead" from the beginning. Second, if I had my way, cybernetics and photography would never have become even casual acquaintances. The advent of digital "photography" was the result of a crisis in the camera industry during the 90's, when 35mm camera sales went sharply downward because consumers, satisfied with the excellent and durable 35mm instruments they had, stopped sucuumbing to the temptation to "move up to the latest thing." Alas, something had to be done. So, said the great viziers of Nikon, Canon, and ultimately Sony, we shall simply stop making 35mm cameras and replace them with junky, overpriced digital product. We've done enough R&D to do that. Idiots will pay $800 for our 3MP toys (after they are taught what "MP" means); we shall meanwhile continue digital R&D and eventually create a new, vast market that will rise from the ashes of the "old hat, you don't want that" 35mm stuff we peddled for so long. After all, we have a generation of kids coming along who will snap up anything that even remotely connotes cybernetics. The older folks will eventually join the bandwagon, and happiness will once again reign in The Land of the Rising Sun.</p>

<p>I received a telepathic transmission from the Pythia of Delphi earlier in the evening. I consider her more credible than that dreary early Renaissance fraud Michel de Notre Dame, aka Nostradamus. It was then rephrased by the Sybil of Cumae as follows: "Leviathans of West and East/One hue of Mars' face and Sol Invictus and other of hue verdant/Destroy punctured strips of transparent parchment/During second reign of a Moab black and white." </p>

<p>In further response to Mr. Rosener, I specifically noted in the original posting that I was concerned about continued availablity of "E-6 emulsions" for use in my Nikon F100. I assumed that most persons who would bother to respond would know that the F100 is a rather celebrated 35mm SLR that has been around for some years. In short, I think your criticism on this score is groundless. Yours, Shane Usary, soon to become "Cybershane." </p>

<p>I believe, Mr. Sarile, that I have on at least two occasions thanked the respondents, thinking this thread had played itself out. But in the interest of good manners, I again thank all who responded for the wealth of useful information.<br>

Mr. Rosener, I believe if you consult my initial posting I specifically mentioned E-6 film. I said nothing of print or larger formats. I realize that the old "slide show" on the trusty Ektagraphic started going out of vogue some years ago. I, however, still project my slides. A bit quaint, perhaps, but that does not bother me in the least. I thank ALL again for the responses. The number quite exceeded my expectations.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In response to the missive above, I note that the majority of those who predict the continued viability of film proclaim that it is still being made in larger formats, so why worry? That doesn't relieve those of us who use 35mm E6 exclusively. I've no interest in carrying a Hasselblad around, since most of my photography these days is done during travel abroad, and I'd prefer to keep my neck unbroken. There are, I believe, digital alternatives in medium format. So, you see, my initial inquiry that launched this thread-become-rope was not "boneheaded." Reliable labs for E6 processing/mounting can be counted on the digits of one hand. Nobody does K64 now. Like The Prophet Daniel, I believe I can discern the meaning of the various symbols on the wall. </p>

<p>Nice to see Herr Weinberg appear here again; are you the retired professor from the Plains? I think we have exchanged barbs here before, when I travelled here under a different moniker (an immoderate moderator kicked me off here for making snide remarks about another moderator who was an extreme photographic cyberhead). Anyway, I love your comment. As for the remainder, I'm going to keep my aged but still Ex+++ N90 and slap the old 50 on it for times when I want to use film (mostly Ilford HP-5, I imagine), sell the F100, and purchase a new digital body w/some DX/FX lenses. I feel that I am just bowing to the inevitable. Ah, the vicissitudes of fate in the marketplace. Well, at least no more buying film and paying rising costs for processing E6 (I send it currently to some lab that will provide plastic mounts). I have three slide projectors, of which one is a classic Leitz Pradolux RT-300 (the one that used the Kodak Carousel trays, built by Singer, I think). I suspect I'll market it. Any of you film enthusiasts still project slides? If so, I'll make you a nice deal on the Pradolux. LN- condition with the original Leitz luggage-style case and its metal clasp locks. Thanks for the many informative responses. Yours, Shane Usary.</p>

<p>Sounds as if the consensus is that I had better sell my F100 before it becomes virtually valueless. Hell of it is, I bought it new a year ago.</p>

<p>I realize this question has been asked repeatedly over the last several years, but opinions seem to change by the month and I haven't checked this out in a good while. What are current, informed opinions or facts as to how long 35mm reversal/slide film will be available? I have a mint Nikon F100 as well as a Nikon P7000 as my digital, so I would like for obvious reasons to think that E-6 emulsions will be available for the F100 for years to come. Thanks for any responses, Shane Usary.</p>

<p>I just looked at their website and not a single reversal 35mm film is present. Fuji, on the other hand, has many choices, all the traditional products from Sensia to Velvia. </p>

<p>Agreed re Kodachrome. I have thousands of old ones but with little fading or degradation. But they required heavy application of PS to make them presentable as digital images.</p>

<p>I haven't considered this for a while, but would like to hear from users of various E-6 emulsions as to which slide film scans best or perhaps the two or three that are the best choices for scanning purposes. Thanks in advance for any opinions/info.</p>

<p>Yes, I noticed that. My 28-200 on the P7000 is described as "35mm equivalent."</p>

<p>As Fagin says in "Oliver!," I'm reviewing the situation. I bought the 18-35 "D" in the first place because most of my photography these days is travel, and the 18mm max width coverage was the selling point of that lens. I would hate to have to give it away on eBay or some such and go deep into the pocket for a true wide angle DX/FX that would afford the same coverage. I have a Nikon Coolpix P7000 with a 28-200 (35mm translation=approximately 42-300, I suppose) that will cover the normal to tele range. Verdict: I think I'll keep my N90 so that I get what I paid for out of my lens collection, rather than seeing it degraded to "ordinary" or unneeded focal lengths. The N90 mated to the 18-35 and 50 can cover very wide to wide, the 50 "normal," and the P7000 can cover the "normal" to high tele ranges. Besides, I would have the best of both worlds. That is assuming, of course, that E-6 emulsions and processing/mounting for them don't disappear any time soon. But, as I used to tell my university students, "'assume' makes an ass of u and me," so now I must find out hereon the latest opinion as to the longevity of E-6 emulsions. I note that Fuji soldiers on but Eastman seems slowly to be withdrawing from the film market altogether, both E-6 and C-41. Thanks to all; you have helped me make a kind of Solomonic decision, I think. </p>