steve_baldwin

I've been wondering the same thing. In fact I found this thread while searching for suggestions. So far the one I'm most impressed with is printroom.com. Still looking for other options. Any other suggestions out there?

I've had an FM, F, F100 and F3HP. While the F100 is an amazing camera its a pretty different type of tool than the F3. If you want a manual focus Nikon the F3HP is by far the best of the Nikons that I've used. And I liked the others a great deal.

The only things that bother me on the camera are the small on/off switch and the slightly small + and - indicators for manual exposure setting. Both of these are, I think, pretty minor issues compared to the wonderful, feel, build, and magnificent viewfinder of this camera. Even compared to my M6 the film advance and rewind are buttery smooth. I'll always keep mine.

Thanks Julio, I just checked out your scanscience page and found it really interesting. I was not familiar with fluid scanning. I've been scanning my 35mm slides for years but have so far not had a need for a flatbed but I really want to save some of the old family prints and the negs are no longer available and fluid scanning sounds like it really only is feasible for negs and transparencies. Do I understand this correctly? It looks like this set up is mainly for large format shooters looking to get the most out of their negs/transparencies.

Hey everybody, hoping to get some insight into my next major purchase. I have

been saddled, willingly, with the job of scanning, restoring and sharing the old

family photo albums. Some of them are from the late 19th century and will need

some work. I want to scan photo album pages as well as some delightful small

prints and am hoping that I can find something that will do both. Final output

will be to the web with the hopeful option of making some prints as well. I want

as much resolution and dynamic range as I can afford. The question is, what sort

of scanner resolution will I really need to make nice prints from very small

original prints and medium format negs for output to the web mainly but also

some enlargements made from small prints. By small I mean as small as 2"x 2" or

so and I hope to increase the print size as much as possible. So far I'm looking

at the Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL Pro, 3200 x 6400 dpi, Tabloid Size, Flatbed

Scanner with Transparency Adapter. I'm hoping to be able to also scan my 645

chromes with the thing. Any advice would be much appreciated.

There are some seriously wonderful old photos in this project and I'd love to do

them justice!

You're right in that you need additional software. You will need to convert the RAW file to something that Photoshop and other programs can read, usually a TIFF. I'm surprised if the Ricoh didn't come with a RAW converter and a RAW extractor as it probably should come with any camera capable of shooting RAW, but maybe not. You can either get a converter software off the web or upgrade to CS2 as I think you're right in that it does have a built in converter. There are lots of options out there without spending a lot of money but others with more expertize will have to chime in. I've only used the software that came with my Fujifilm camera and it works fine although I haven't compared it to anything else. It's a lot more work but its fun and gives additional control, especially over things like color temperature. Do a search for RAW converters and I'm sure you'll come up with a lot of options. Here's another thread on PS with some info.http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FvQz

I also would consider donating a camera out of the closet but would want some verification (as others have suggested) that this is a worthy cause and that I can also maybe get a tax deduction. Hey Charles, help us out here with some links maybe to references, etc.

Old farm in Nevada.

Fuji S2 Pro, Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70 f/2.8<div></div>

Old farm in Nevada.

Fuji S2 Pro, Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70 f/2.8<div></div>

<div></div>

Highway 95, Great Basin, Nevada

Scott's right, you need the arcitectural plate. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=216481&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

You don't need to spend $600 to get a system that prevents the camera from twisting. I have a Bogen ball head and it works great with these plates.

gsagdfdgdfg would definitely be holding the money!

I think you've done a very nice job in your presentation of conveying the feel of the day and the old building especially. One picture however (scour1.jpg) has a cast that I find distracting, especially as its look is very out of step with the others. I do love these abandoned old barns and buildings though. Its nice to see someone photographing them as they will soon be gone. I've often thought of doing a photo essay on the old buildings and abandoned homesteads around here. Thanks for sharing,,,,,,,,

I've had good luck with the Tokina AT-X Pro 20-35 f2.8. The lens feels very solid with good smooth action on the focus and zoom rings and the quality seems good to me although I'm not a lens test freak. For wider stuff (usually landscape type stuff) I use a rectilinear AF Nikkor 14mm f2.8D. It was a bit pricey but it sure is nice. You don't get to use filters though but I haven't found this to be too much of a drawback. Keeps me from over using the polarizer like I normally do. Plus it has the added benefit of being ridiculously wide when mounted on the F3.

I've had good luck with the Tokina AT-X Pro 20-35 f2.8. The lens feels very solid with good smooth action on the focus and zoom rings and the quality seems good to me although I'm not a lens test freak. For wider stuff (usually landscape type stuff) I use a rectilinear AF Nikkor 14mm f2.8D. It was a bit pricey but it sure is nice. You don't get to use filters though but I haven't found this to be too much of a drawback. Keeps me from over using the polarizer like I normally do. Plus it has the added benefit of being ridiculously wide when mounted on the F3.

I use the S2 and the SB-28 and it works great in TTL mode. In fact this was one of the reasons I chose the S2 over a nikon DSLR as with the nikon I would have to have bought a new flash in order to get the TTL. I'll bet you're good to go.

I would take a look at the S2. I got one a couple of years ago and have been extremely happy. I also liked the fact that I didn't have to upgrade my SB-28 to the SB-80 in order to keep TTL flash. The camera is easy to use and has held up better than my F100 did. On the down side I really miss mirror lock up but this doesn't seem to be a common feature in modern digital cameras for some reason. Also the viewfinder, while miles better than the less expensive dSLRs is nowhere near as big and bright as my F3HP, which I still carry as a backup and enjoy running some Velvia 100 through now and then.

On a side note does anyone understand why MLU has faded by the wayside? Major irritant!!!!!!

Hi all, can anyone tell me if the linkage to the aperture ring on an

auto extension tube for a m645 has a return spring or does it rely on

the return spring in the lens and camera body. I understand that the

linkage is there to stop down the lens for the exposure and that the

lens will return to it's wide aperture after the exposure but I'd

like to know whether a return spring in the ext. tube is also

necessary or even present. I just sold a set that has worked for me

for many years and the buyer is complaining that there is no return

spring in the tubes aperture linkage. Thanks in advance for any help.

I have the R2 with a Konica 35 f/2 and I absolutely love it. I'm told it's no Leica but not having used a Leica I can't say. I use this camera for hiking, backcountry skiing and climbing as well as travel and find it a joy to use, very sharp and super light. Make sure you are more inclined to wide lenses rather than super teles. My only gripe is that it doesn't have framelines for anything wider than a 35mm although the super wides need a seperate viewfinder anyway. I'm told that if you don't wear glasses it's not too hard to use the whole viewfinder as a general guide for a 28 but I do wear glasses and I think it would be a little annoying but not prohibitive. The silver lining here is that the image in the viewfinder is not too tiny. I does make a very small kit that produces extremely sharp pics, feels good in your hand and works smoothly. My 2 cents.

I think this is an interesting thread, Scott Eaton excepted and I think that the references to the Leica's ability to help one look more critically or differently at their photography are great. I think however that the renewed perspective is not exclusive to Leica but rather to the rangefinder camera. I don't have a Leica but I do have an SLR, a DSLR, a MF SLR and most importantly and most fun, a couple of rangefinders. For fun shooting and a return to the basics of photography there is nothing like a rangefinder. I know I have to think about DOF, composition and shutter speed when I use a DSLR but somehow when I use the rangefinder there is a more direct connection. I think it is partly because I have to think about these things before I bring the camera to my eye rather than after. When you raise a camera and don't shoot it shatters your confidence and of course the confidence of your subject. You feel and appear inept. The rangefinder forces (helps) you to think in advance, visualize the photo, set the focus and aperture, raise the camera and take the picture. It is of course completely reasonable to acquire this same sense of competence with any kind of camera and one day I hope to do so, but using a rangefinder has helped me look at the process of taking pictures in a more critical way and that has been very valuable to me, even if it can't be seen in my pictures.

I also think Jack's photo is quite nice and definitely has that glow, whatever it is. I like the limited and carefully applied depth of field.

Anybody try anything like this?

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/6607/wlf.htm

Might look cheesy but it might work.

I second the idea that it's best to shoot in color (whether you shoot in RAW or JPG) as the conversion to B&W is done in PS with a lot more creative control through channel mixer than the camera will allow. Let the camera gather all the information it can and work with it later in post processing to get the look you want whether it's in B&W or color. With channel mixer you can do the same thing that we used to do shooting B&W with color filters, except its reversible and changable after the fact. And as mentioned above the view finder is still in color, maybe you just need to pretend you're shooting Tri-X and not look at the preview/postview.

I know many people believe in RAW mode but I've found I get excellent results shooting JPG but in this case it seems best to shoot in org/org and I've always left sharpening off as I find that some shots benifit from sharpening and some don't so I prefer to do it in PS. If I shoot in high or even standard color and tone I seem to get blown out highlights unless the scene has pretty even light. Even then the color seems wierd sometimes if I shoot in standard or high color. You can always bump up the color or contrast in PS with a lot more control but if you blow it out in the camera you've got a bad start and less data to work with.

I've taken a number of pics using a combination of incandescent light and flash light and found that the custom white balance works wonderfully. You set the custom white balance using the menu and the 4 way switch and test shoot a white card, a white piece of paper works OK but a 90% white card works better. Auto white balance seems to frequently get overly warm skin tones, I'll bet even more with hot lights.

It looks like a pretty neat camera except for the ridiculous price. Plus they lost me when they said "Extra large picture storage card with 64 MB". I know you can buy a different one but still, what hype!?