Decisions, decisions...
Hello everyone! My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains hurts too Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu (which don't knows what "brief" means ;) )
Decisions...Decisions...
Ok, I've got a bit of a dillema here, what would you do? Between Christmas gifts and personal savings, I've got about $1K cdn itching to get back into circulation. What do I do with it? Currently I have: PZ-1, MZ-10 bodies. 28-70/4 FA 70-210/4.5-5.6 F-SMC 50/1.7F 28-200 FA 105/2.8 Kiron Macro 400/5.6 Sigma APO 1.7x AF Teleconvertor Manfrotto Tripod. I burned about 30-40 rolls of slide film last year, mostly through holidays, but I love to get out into the forest or near the waterfront for a couple of hours. Everything from Landscapes, wildlife, macro, family snapshots. My ideas : 1) Hold onto it & save towards an *istD. Because I love the PZ-1 so much over the MZ-10, I think I'd prefer the D. That'll be tough, just to wait 2) Pick up another PZ-1 body. Used both bodies alot over the holidays last year and I'm not crazy about going back to the constantly switching lenses. 3) Look around for some faster glass. Perhaps I could get a third party 28-70/2.8 and a 70-210/2.8. 4) Get a better ballhead for my tripod. 5) Forget gear, buy more film. 6) Any other ideas? thanx dk
Decisions Decisions
Argh. Take the camera an unexplained gut feeling tells me is the one I want with me this evening (Program Plus), the one that still has five frames left on the already loaded roll (PZ-10), or both (which seems like overkill for letting a couple of friends take me on a couple of errands)? -- Glenn
Re: Decisions, decisions...
One big question is how much you are willing to spend. The DS is about as low as it is going to get. A great time to buy it. The D replacment will likely come in at a price point significantly higher - could be as high or higher than when it was introduced. Are you willing to spend $1500-$2000 USD for a body? If not, the DS is the one to get right now. HTH, Bruce Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 1:07:55 PM, you wrote: ACS> Hello everyone! ACS> My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to ACS> some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. ACS> I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't ACS> stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few ACS> more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very ACS> expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, ACS> it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this ACS> year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes ACS> better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. ACS> But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new ACS> cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 ACS> cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see ACS> another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera ACS> only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. ACS> Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D ACS> replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at ACS> this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains ACS> hurts too ACS> Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Well, in Romania the *istDS is over 1000 euro (strange, but there is an *istD at a slightly lower price. Hmm... faster or wireless flash&grip? ). I'm willing (but not happy) to pay the price, but for the *istD2... 2000$ (1500euro, but I guess it will be closer to 2000 around here) is simply too much. Yes, that would help me delay replacing the camera - but at double the price; so the options seems to be: a) buy the *istDS b) wait a little for the DS2 (well, buying from bhphotovideo is cheaper) c) wait for the DS2 replacement. That could mean... next summer? Or I can hope to see it at PMA? WTF, my car is cheaper than a camera . No kidding. Alex Sarbu On 9/6/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One big question is how much you are willing to spend. The DS is > about as low as it is going to get. A great time to buy it. The D > replacment will likely come in at a price point significantly higher - > could be as high or higher than when it was introduced. Are you > willing to spend $1500-$2000 USD for a body? If not, the DS is the > one to get right now. > > HTH, > > Bruce > > > Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 1:07:55 PM, you wrote: > > ACS> Hello everyone! > > ACS> My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to > ACS> some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. > ACS> I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't > ACS> stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few > ACS> more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very > ACS> expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, > ACS> it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this > ACS> year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes > ACS> better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. > ACS> But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new > ACS> cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 > ACS> cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see > ACS> another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera > ACS> only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. > > ACS> Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D > ACS> replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at > ACS> this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains > ACS> hurts too > ACS> Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. > > >
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Last time I looked (yesterday) KEH had two LN- istD bodies for $725.00 Shel > [Original Message] > From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu > To: > Date: 9/6/2005 1:43:14 PM > Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... > > Well, in Romania the *istDS is over 1000 euro (strange, but there is > an *istD at a slightly lower price. Hmm... faster or wireless > flash&grip? ). I'm willing (but not happy) to pay > the price, but for the *istD2... 2000$ (1500euro, but I guess it will > be closer to 2000 around here) is simply too much. Yes, that would > help me delay replacing the camera - but at double the price; so the > options seems to be: > a) buy the *istDS > b) wait a little for the DS2 (well, buying from bhphotovideo is cheaper) > c) wait for the DS2 replacement. That could mean... next summer? Or I > can hope to see it at PMA? > > WTF, my car is cheaper than a camera . No kidding. > > Alex Sarbu > > On 9/6/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One big question is how much you are willing to spend. The DS is > > about as low as it is going to get. A great time to buy it. The D > > replacment will likely come in at a price point significantly higher - > > could be as high or higher than when it was introduced. Are you > > willing to spend $1500-$2000 USD for a body? If not, the DS is the > > one to get right now. > > > > HTH, > > > > Bruce > > > > > > Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 1:07:55 PM, you wrote: > > > > ACS> Hello everyone! > > > > ACS> My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to > > ACS> some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. > > ACS> I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't > > ACS> stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few > > ACS> more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very > > ACS> expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, > > ACS> it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this > > ACS> year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes > > ACS> better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. > > ACS> But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new > > ACS> cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 > > ACS> cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see > > ACS> another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera > > ACS> only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. > > > > ACS> Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D > > ACS> replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at > > ACS> this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains > > ACS> hurts too > > ACS> Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. > > > > > >
Re: Decisions, decisions...
The Ds is often selling for less than the DL these days, which for what it is, makes it an incredible bargain. The Ds2 will probably sell for an intermediate price between the D, (which is still a current model), and DL. I don't think you could find a better price/performance ratio than the Ds currently represents. The Ds2 is an incremental improvement over the Ds, the biggest improvement being the larger review screen on the back. Not that useful IMHO. If the Ds is really such a large investment, you'll probably be waiting a long time for the D follow on to become as great a bargain. Get a Ds and enjoy shooting. Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote: Hello everyone! My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains hurts too Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Decisions, decisions...
I am quite happy with the image quality and capabilities of the DS for my work. When I realized that it sufficed for my needs, I decided to wait through the summer to see if anything substantially better would be announced for release before the end of the year. The DL was announced, end of summer came, and nothing else was announced, so I sprang for a second DS body. Within a week or so, the DS2 was announced, but reviewing the changes and considering the additional cost a new model will carry, the DS was a very good choice. It will take significantly "better" specs/capabilities to entice me to spend the additional money for another new body within a year. A D replacement/upgrade will need 8-10 Mpixels with the same or better noise characteristic, improved write speed, larger buffers, hopefully SD & CF card capability (or SD card), etc, priced in the vicinity of $1100-1200 to be worth my while upgrading.. What all this says is that it's really up to your desires and needs. The 6Mpixel DS body is quite a good performer and will do a very good job, and it's a very very favorable price at present (in the US anyway). A better body will come along, but expect to pay substantially more for it and wait a while. I count the time until it gets here as "number of photo opportunities missed", that's significant to me. It might not be for you, but only you can say that. Godfrey On Sep 6, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote: Hello everyone! My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains hurts too Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu (which don't knows what "brief" means ;) )
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On 9/7/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, >Run in circles, (scream and shout). > That's an excellent ideea! Thanks! (no offence, I really appreciate your help - and I think you're right) -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu
Re: Decisions, decisions...
I agree 100% with Peter and Bruce, unless you want to go for a used body. Then the KEH offer sounds pretty good. If after using the DS for a while, I find that I like the idea of digital, I'm thinking that a good used D may be my second body, unless there's something really new from Pentax which causes a great change in the price structure or available models. Shel > [Original Message] > From: P. J. Alling > > The Ds is often selling for less than the DL these days, which for what > it is, makes it an incredible bargain. > The Ds2 will probably sell for an intermediate price between the D, > (which is still a current model), and DL. > I don't think you could find a better price/performance ratio than the > Ds currently represents. The Ds2 is an > incremental improvement over the Ds, the biggest improvement being the > larger review screen on the back. Not > that useful IMHO. If the Ds is really such a large investment, you'll > probably be waiting a long time for the D > follow on to become as great a bargain. Get a Ds and enjoy shooting. > > Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote: > > >Hello everyone! > > > >My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to > >some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. > >I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't > >stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few > >more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very > >expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, > >it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this > >year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes > >better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. > >But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new > >cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 > >cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see > >another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera > >only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. > > > >Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D > >replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at > >this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains > >hurts too > >Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Shel, I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need some D specs. Dario - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:11 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... I agree 100% with Peter and Bruce, unless you want to go for a used body. Then the KEH offer sounds pretty good. If after using the DS for a while, I find that I like the idea of digital, I'm thinking that a good used D may be my second body, unless there's something really new from Pentax which causes a great change in the price structure or available models. Shel [Original Message] From: P. J. Alling The Ds is often selling for less than the DL these days, which for what it is, makes it an incredible bargain. The Ds2 will probably sell for an intermediate price between the D, (which is still a current model), and DL. I don't think you could find a better price/performance ratio than the Ds currently represents. The Ds2 is an incremental improvement over the Ds, the biggest improvement being the larger review screen on the back. Not that useful IMHO. If the Ds is really such a large investment, you'll probably be waiting a long time for the D follow on to become as great a bargain. Get a Ds and enjoy shooting. Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote: >Hello everyone! > >My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to >some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. >I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't >stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few >more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very >expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, >it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this >year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes >better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. >But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new >cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 >cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see >another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera >only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. > >Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D >replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at >this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains >hurts too >Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. > > > -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Decisions, decisions...
I don't see what difference it makes. I shoot different brands and types of film. Why don't you think it a good idea? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Dario Bonazza < > Shel, > > I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need some > D specs. >
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Because different cards donìt give you different taste on images (like different film). Because memory cards aren't disposable (like film), hence you are not forced to buy them again and again for shoting. Using different cards will only force you to buy more cards for having enough CF and enough SD for your needs. Why? Dario - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... I don't see what difference it makes. I shoot different brands and types of film. Why don't you think it a good idea? Shel [Original Message] From: Dario Bonazza < Shel, I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need some D specs.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
In other words, if you need say 1GB (max.), you have to buy 2 GB (1 GB CF + 1GB SD) for having 1 GB wit any camera (in case one fails, in case you are continuing using one for some reason, etc.). Dario - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... I don't see what difference it makes. I shoot different brands and types of film. Why don't you think it a good idea? Shel [Original Message] From: Dario Bonazza < Shel, I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need some D specs.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
OK, thanks ... there's some sense in what you say. However, first I must spend some time with a properly set up and working DS to know better how I like digital and what features I really want and need. I shall keep your comments in mind when/if the time comes to get a second body. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Dario Bonazza > Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... > > In other words, if you need say 1GB (max.), you have to buy 2 GB (1 GB CF + > 1GB SD) for having 1 GB wit any camera (in case one fails, in case you are > continuing using one for some reason, etc.). > > Dario > > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM > Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... > > > >I don't see what difference it makes. I shoot different brands and types > > of film. Why don't you think it a good idea? > > > > Shel > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Dario Bonazza < > > > >> Shel, > >> > >> I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need > > some > >> D specs. > >> > > > >
Re: Decisions, decisions...
IF you buy a DS and have a few SD cards, THEN buy a D, you are not necessarily in a bad position. There are several vendors offering SD- >CF card adapters that allow you to use your SD cards in CF cameras, with a 10-20% performance penalty. This is not so bad as it seems since the D has relatively slow write performance anyway: the card plus adapter is not the bottleneck. If you have a D and then buy a DS, that's a bit of a pain as you have to buy SD cards: there's no adapter possible that will allow a CF card to be used in an SD slot. However, storage cards are reasonably inexpensive and generally a one- time purchase. Two 1G cards rated at 45-60x, in either CF or SD format, are a little less than $160. That's ten rolls of film plus processing, less than two/three weeks film consumption for me, and you can reuse the cards for many thousands of cycles. Godfrey On Sep 6, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, thanks ... there's some sense in what you say. However, first I must spend some time with a properly set up and working DS to know better how I like digital and what features I really want and need. I shall keep your comments in mind when/if the time comes to get a second body. Shel [Original Message] From: Dario Bonazza Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... In other words, if you need say 1GB (max.), you have to buy 2 GB (1 GB CF + 1GB SD) for having 1 GB wit any camera (in case one fails, in case you are continuing using one for some reason, etc.). Dario - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... I don't see what difference it makes. I shoot different brands and types of film. Why don't you think it a good idea? Shel [Original Message] From: Dario Bonazza < Shel, I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need some D specs.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
In a message dated 9/6/2005 1:44:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: a) buy the *istDS b) wait a little for the DS2 (well, buying from bhphotovideo is cheaper) c) wait for the DS2 replacement. That could mean... next summer? Or I can hope to see it at PMA? WTF, my car is cheaper than a camera . No kidding. Alex Sarbu === Surprisingly, 6mp makes for a very fine picture. 8mp is not much better, and most claim they can't see a difference. It has to be more like 12mp before you can see a difference. H_ll, I was tempted by the DS (I have the Canon digital rebel). So if I were you, I'd go with the DS if its feature set is good enough for you. I doubt they will go lower and they might start disappearing. My .02 cents. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > However, storage cards are reasonably inexpensive and generally a one- > time purchase. Two 1G cards rated at 45-60x, in either CF or SD > format, are a little less than $160. That's ten rolls of film plus > processing, less than two/three weeks film consumption for me, and > you can reuse the cards for many thousands of cycles. > > Godfrey > Yeah, storage is just so cheap, it isn't worth too much thought these days. I picked up a 2GB SD card for $209 aussie the other week, and already it has paid for itself I think, just in the convenience. And just a quick calculation (*), use the card fully about three times, and it's paid back in D&P costs. Only weird thing, while the card reads fine on my reader at home, the card reader at work won't recognise the 2GB. It comes up as a FAT disk, but it's all gobbledygook in Windows explorer. * 188 frames=5 rolls of film = ~$50 for film + $25 for developing only. 209/75=2.8
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Thanks for the reminder about the adapter. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > IF you buy a DS and have a few SD cards, THEN buy a D, you are not > necessarily in a bad position. There are several vendors offering SD- > >CF card adapters that allow you to use your SD cards in CF cameras, > with a 10-20% performance penalty. This is not so bad as it seems > since the D has relatively slow write performance anyway: the card > plus adapter is not the bottleneck.
RE: Decisions, decisions...
People who wants to buy a computer often ask the same question. Perhaps if I wait, something better will be around, and probably cheaper. It's getting cheaper and better alle the time. Well, it doesn't change that fast. Pentax doesn'øt change that fast. Most earlier Pentax top (film) models have lasted 5-15 years. For digital they'll probably be in the market for a year, perhaps two. That's true, but IMHO not a good reason to wait. Get on board now. The sooner the better. Get some experience and a lot of nice shots. Go for a high end digital camera now (DSLR) camera. It's not important wich one as long as it's a Pentax - to facilitate your expensive lenses - and future lenses. Changing brand is a very expensive PITA. Be prepared to buy a new body every 2-5 years. The same as with (other) computers. 6MP is fine for most work - you can make nice prints in A4-size (8x12") at 300 ppi - and even larger if you res up a lot in PS or similar. If you wmat 8 , 10 or 14 MP you must remember to spend more money on new harddrives as well. When I shoot appr, 130 pics takes up 1,5 GB of hard drive space. More MP's means more need for computer space. When will you need a larger picture than 8x10"? I love using the "D", except the buffer is too small (make five shots, then wait 30-40 seconds :-( AF is too slow for some occations. It's not a camera for sports photography. For that you'll need 8 4-8 FPS, a larger buffer and very fast AF. For "normal" shooting it's an excellent choise and a very pleasant camera to use. Very high quality. Mine has done almost 20.000 shots and works and looks exactly as when I first got it one year ago. I don't know the DS, but it seeems to be higly valued in reviews. It has a larger buffer than the "D" but can't make TIFF's (who needs this anyway - I shoot RAW exclusively?) Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. september 2005 22:08 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Decisions, decisions... Hello everyone! My brain hurts. To be brief, I decided to go digital - mostly due to some unpleasant experiences with film&minilabs. I'm sure I'll enjoy an *istDS, it's a great camera. But... I can't stop thinking "what will the next model looks like?" - you know, few more MPs would help me change the camera later (for me it's a very expensive acquisition so I want to keep it as long as possible). Yes, it's not a good idea to always wait for the next model (I won't - this year or the next I'll have one) and the camera from your hand takes better pictures than the camera you're just dreaming at. But... it's September, few months until PMA (and that means new cameras). What if Sony will have a new sensor? Or... Pentax said 3 cameras/year, and if the silver DS doesn't count, we should see another announcement this year. I would really hate to buy a camera only to find out I really wanted that newly-announced model. Can anyone guess what will happen? When we'll see a the DS2/D replacements? Or at least try to give me an advice, think a little at this; what will you do in my place - it helps to know your brains hurts too Uhh... few months earlier or later I wouldn't had any problem. -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu (which don't knows what "brief" means ;) )
RE: Decisions, decisions...
Buy two 512 or 1024 MB cards. Get a portable hard drive with a card reader. It will suit both CF and SD for the next years of camera buys! If you have two different cameras at the same time - no problem. A portable hard drive is cheaper than a few 4GB cards. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. september 2005 23:52 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Decisions, decisions... Because different cards donìt give you different taste on images (like different film). Because memory cards aren't disposable (like film), hence you are not forced to buy them again and again for shoting. Using different cards will only force you to buy more cards for having enough CF and enough SD for your needs. Why? Dario - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:45 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... >I don't see what difference it makes. I shoot different brands and types > of film. Why don't you think it a good idea? > > Shel > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Dario Bonazza < > >> Shel, >> >> I don't find to be a great idea mixing SD and CF, unless you truly need > some >> D specs. >> > >
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:29:44AM +0200, Jens Bladt wrote: > > I love using the "D", except the buffer is too small (make five shots, then > wait 30-40 seconds :-( > AF is too slow for some occations. It's not a camera for sports photography. > For that you'll need 8 4-8 FPS, a larger buffer and very fast AF. Strangely enough, several of us seem to manage quite well with the "D" A higher frame rate, and faster AF, would definitely be welcome. But unless it's your primary source of income the "D" can serve quite well.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On 9/8/05, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Go for a high end digital camera now (DSLR) camera. It's not important wich > one as long as it's a Pentax - to facilitate your expensive lenses - and > future lenses. Changing brand is a very expensive PITA. Be prepared to buy a > new body every 2-5 years. The same as with (other) computers. > > Jens Bladt > Arkitekt MAA > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > Well, my "expensive lens" is the FA 50mm f/1.7. But you're right, it will be a Pentax DSLR. Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this sensor in spring (or am I wrong?). I could keep a 10MP camera 2-5 years, but I would be surprized to keep an *istDS more than 2. I'm a lousy photographer, so I need more pixels for croping ;) With the computers it's not exactly the same situation. I could upgrade it when necessary, add more RAM, a new hard drive, even change the mainboard&CPU (I'll have to do that someday in order to be able to use a PCI Express video card). With a camera, I don't have this option. -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote on 08.09.05 11:01: > Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a > prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason > I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The > problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this sensor > in spring (or am I wrong?). Actually the sensor used in this new Sony is SLIGHTLY smaller than APS-C. It has 1.7x crop compared to 35 mm frame. I bet there will be another new APS-C sensor from Sony, but I am afraid that now Konica-Minolta would have priority acess to it because of cooperation between these two companies. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Decisions, decisions...
I agree with you Jens. Digital cameras aren't a new technology that needs several improves anymore. Those days are gone. (even if it was three years ago) What we have now is enough for most people. Of course you can wait for the next model, but then, why not wait more for the *next one* again? (and so on) As you say it's the same with computer, everyday the prices go down and the specs go up, so maybe the real question is "do I need/want a digital camera today?" If your answer is "yes" go buy what you can find now (this is also a particular moment, when you may find a new *Ist-D for less than 900$, as someonewlse said). If your answer is "I can wait" then wait, but when you'll can't don't wait for "the next one", cause there will always be a "next one" to drool onto! lol If your answer is "I need it but I will also want the newer model that, within an year will reach the shelves", then consider buying one used one instead.. In this "everyday better" scenario, you, pentax users, have also some advantages, as pentax camera seems to "resist" longer than other brand's ones (canon for one). It's like buying a Mac, you know that that model will last longer than a PC... (not that it will become better with time, hey it's not a bottle of wine!!) just my 2 cents. by, danilo.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On 9/8/05, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Strangely enough, several of us seem to manage quite well with the "D" > > A higher frame rate, and faster AF, would definitely be welcome. But > unless it's your primary source of income the "D" can serve quite well. > I think we've reached the point now where many "improvements" may be more sales hype than devices that will allow one to obtain better photos. Prices of dslr's seem to have stabilized, and are such that quality bodies loaded with useful features are available for most amateurs. I don't think that waiting for the "next" model will provide a significant improvement that's cost effective. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Decisions, decisions...
I agree. Faster AF hasn't been an issue for me since all I have are manual focus lenses. As with computers, the latest model is always a bit obsolete by the time it hits the market - its never ending. My biggest concerns are image quality and how it handles and the D does very well in each respect. And, I've begun to figure out the processing of RAW files and am very impressed with the results. RCB - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:58 AM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... On 9/8/05, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Strangely enough, several of us seem to manage quite well with the "D" A higher frame rate, and faster AF, would definitely be welcome. But unless it's your primary source of income the "D" can serve quite well. I think we've reached the point now where many "improvements" may be more sales hype than devices that will allow one to obtain better photos. Prices of dslr's seem to have stabilized, and are such that quality bodies loaded with useful features are available for most amateurs. I don't think that waiting for the "next" model will provide a significant improvement that's cost effective. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005
Re: Decisions, decisions...
all of Pentax's SLRs and all of their DSLRs have limitations that prevent me from capturing in about 10% of the situations i shoot, by design. these are situations where i know the mid-level Nikon's and Canons are capable of getting the shot. Herb... - Original Message - From: "R.C.Booth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:09 AM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... I agree. Faster AF hasn't been an issue for me since all I have are manual focus lenses. As with computers, the latest model is always a bit obsolete by the time it hits the market - its never ending. My biggest concerns are image quality and how it handles and the D does very well in each respect. And, I've begun to figure out the processing of RAW files and am very impressed with the results.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Herb Chong wrote: all of Pentax's SLRs and all of their DSLRs have limitations that prevent me from capturing in about 10% of the situations i shoot, by design. these are situations where i know the mid-level Nikon's and Canons are capable of getting the shot. Out of interest, what are the features in question that the mid-range Canons and Nikons have over the Pentax DSLRs? Kostas
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Herb Chong wrote: all of Pentax's SLRs and all of their DSLRs have limitations that prevent me from capturing in about 10% of the situations i shoot, by design. these are situations where i know the mid-level Nikon's and Canons are capable of getting the shot. Out of interest, what are the features in question that the mid-range Canons and Nikons have over the Pentax DSLRs? Kostas The only one I'm aware of is the (much) larger buffer in the D70, D50 and 350D/XT and the generally better write speeds. AF is essentially on par (Nikon's with AF-S and Canon's with proper ring-type USM may be faster in some situations, but the SAFOX VIII sensor has better coverage and more cross-type sensors than the competition. Neither the 350D or the D70 are AF speed-demons). -Adam
Re: Decisions, decisions...
buffer size and AF speed. some of them handle focus tracking of moving objects better too. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... Out of interest, what are the features in question that the mid-range Canons and Nikons have over the Pentax DSLRs?
Re: Decisions, decisions...
i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... The only one I'm aware of is the (much) larger buffer in the D70, D50 and 350D/XT and the generally better write speeds. AF is essentially on par (Nikon's with AF-S and Canon's with proper ring-type USM may be faster in some situations, but the SAFOX VIII sensor has better coverage and more cross-type sensors than the competition. Neither the 350D or the D70 are AF speed-demons).
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Those, being full-on Pro bodies for PJ work, would not be 'mid-range' in my books. Mid-range in my books is the D70 or 20d (Since Nikon doesn't have a real mid-range body at the moment). The -Adan Herb Chong wrote: i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... The only one I'm aware of is the (much) larger buffer in the D70, D50 and 350D/XT and the generally better write speeds. AF is essentially on par (Nikon's with AF-S and Canon's with proper ring-type USM may be faster in some situations, but the SAFOX VIII sensor has better coverage and more cross-type sensors than the competition. Neither the 350D or the D70 are AF speed-demons).
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On 8/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed: >i said mid-range Nikon and Canons. that means 1D Mk2 and D2H. Please define a top-of-the range Nikon and Canons. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On 9/8/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that waiting for the "next" model will provide a > significant improvement that's cost effective. > > cheers, > frank > Neither do I. But more MP will give me more room for cropping (yup, I'm a lousy photographer who can't get the composition right :) ) and will allow me to keep the camera longer. I decided few years ago that I'll go digital when I could buy a nice 8MP+ DSLR, and the *istDS *is* a nice camera. I thought I could wait for the next Sony sensor, but... 4 rolls or film destroyed by our dear minilabs and suddenly waiting doesn't seems such a god ideea. And 6MP are certainly enough for A4 prints. I guess it's just the fear my brand new camera will be outdated one month after purchase. Quite silly. Thank you (all) for your replies - you're really helpful when it comes to enablement In fact - to be honest - I'm waiting for a camera with "Ansel"&"HCB" modes - instead of those useless Picture Modes nobody uses -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu
Re: Decisions, decisions...
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this sensor in spring (or am I wrong?). Actually the sensor used in this new Sony is SLIGHTLY smaller than APS-C. It has 1.7x crop compared to 35 mm frame. I bet there will be another new APS-C sensor from Sony, but I am afraid that now Konica-Minolta would have priority acess to it because of cooperation between these two companies. By my reading of the dpreview article, that sensor is for EVF cameras, not DSLRs. S
Re: Decisions, decisions...
they cost about half the price of the top of the line bodies. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:18 AM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... Those, being full-on Pro bodies for PJ work, would not be 'mid-range' in my books. Mid-range in my books is the D70 or 20d (Since Nikon doesn't have a real mid-range body at the moment). The
Re: Decisions, decisions...
D2X and 1Ds Mk2. price is enough. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 3:53 AM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... Please define a top-of-the range Nikon and Canons.
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On 9/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed: >D2X and 1Ds Mk2. price is enough. Sorry Herb, I have to disagree. Why would Canon run the 1DsmkII and the 1DmkII in tandem? The answer is that they both fulfil different needs, based on current technology. If a sports shooter had unlimited funds and had to choose between the two Canon models above, which one do you think he would choose? And so you're saying he's settling for second best? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions, decisions...
from a megapixels point of view, they have settled. higher frame rate has its cost. on the film side of things, the tradeoff never had to be made in the same way. a piece of film has the same resolution in every camera body, as JCO is fond of pointing out. Herb - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:27 PM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... If a sports shooter had unlimited funds and had to choose between the two Canon models above, which one do you think he would choose? And so you're saying he's settling for second best?
Re: Decisions, decisions...
On 10/9/05, Herb Chong, discombobulated, unleashed: >from a megapixels point of view, they have settled. higher frame rate has >its cost. on the film side of things, the tradeoff never had to be made in >the same way. a piece of film has the same resolution in every camera body, >as JCO is fond of pointing out. AFAIK it is Canon's plan to consolidate the top line into one model, obviously full frame with the higher frame rate, and that's just a matter of the electronics handling the data quickly enough. It will happen. They don't want people using ~200mm 2.8 focal lengths for sport when there's much more expensive ~300mm and 400mm 2.8s to be sold Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions, decisions...
i understand and my guess that in about 3 years, they will be selling full frame sensors at all but the entry level cameras. however, that is about 3 years too late for me. Herb - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:40 AM Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions... AFAIK it is Canon's plan to consolidate the top line into one model, obviously full frame with the higher frame rate, and that's just a matter of the electronics handling the data quickly enough. It will happen. They don't want people using ~200mm 2.8 focal lengths for sport when there's much more expensive ~300mm and 400mm 2.8s to be sold
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
You dont have any really wide glass. And it sounds like you need one. Get a nice wide prime, or get the 16-45 designed for the digital, but usable on a full frame. That way you get to enjoy wide now and have a nice lens for the *istDxxx when you get one! my $.02 worth rg Dave Kennedy wrote: Ok, I've got a bit of a dillema here, what would you do? Between Christmas gifts and personal savings, I've got about $1K cdn itching to get back into circulation. What do I do with it? Currently I have: PZ-1, MZ-10 bodies. 28-70/4 FA 70-210/4.5-5.6 F-SMC 50/1.7F 28-200 FA 105/2.8 Kiron Macro 400/5.6 Sigma APO 1.7x AF Teleconvertor Manfrotto Tripod. I burned about 30-40 rolls of slide film last year, mostly through holidays, but I love to get out into the forest or near the waterfront for a couple of hours. Everything from Landscapes, wildlife, macro, family snapshots. My ideas : 1) Hold onto it & save towards an *istD. Because I love the PZ-1 so much over the MZ-10, I think I'd prefer the D. That'll be tough, just to wait 2) Pick up another PZ-1 body. Used both bodies alot over the holidays last year and I'm not crazy about going back to the constantly switching lenses. 3) Look around for some faster glass. Perhaps I could get a third party 28-70/2.8 and a 70-210/2.8. 4) Get a better ballhead for my tripod. 5) Forget gear, buy more film. 6) Any other ideas? thanx dk
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Hmmm... Interesting comment. Now that you mention it, I do remember wishing for some wider glass during the Northern Lights a couple of months ago, and it is the one thing I don't have. Thanks for the input. dk On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:38:12 -0600, Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You dont have any really wide glass. And it sounds like you need one. > Get a nice wide prime, or get the 16-45 designed for the digital, but > usable on a full frame. That way you get to enjoy wide now and have a > nice lens for the *istDxxx when you get one! > > my $.02 worth > > rg > > > Dave Kennedy wrote: > > > > > > Ok, I've got a bit of a dillema here, what would you do? > > Between Christmas gifts and personal savings, I've got about $1K cdn > > itching to get back into circulation. > > > > What do I do with it? > > Currently I have: > > PZ-1, MZ-10 bodies. > > 28-70/4 FA > > 70-210/4.5-5.6 F-SMC > > 50/1.7F > > 28-200 FA > > 105/2.8 Kiron Macro > > 400/5.6 Sigma APO > > 1.7x AF Teleconvertor > > Manfrotto Tripod. > > > > I burned about 30-40 rolls of slide film last year, mostly through > > holidays, but I love to get out into the forest or near the waterfront > > for a couple of hours. Everything from Landscapes, wildlife, macro, > > family snapshots. > > > > My ideas : > > 1) Hold onto it & save towards an *istD. Because I love the PZ-1 so > > much over the MZ-10, I think I'd prefer the D. That'll be tough, just > > to wait > > > > 2) Pick up another PZ-1 body. Used both bodies alot over the holidays > > last year and I'm not crazy about going back to the constantly > > switching lenses. > > > > 3) Look around for some faster glass. Perhaps I could get a third > > party 28-70/2.8 and a 70-210/2.8. > > > > 4) Get a better ballhead for my tripod. > > > > 5) Forget gear, buy more film. > > > > 6) Any other ideas? > > > > thanx > > dk > > > > > > > >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 13/1/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed: >6) Any other ideas? Hi Dave. Yeah, sell everything and get an *istD and a couple of used lenses: a fast prime and a longish zoom like a 70-200 2.8. :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 14/1/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: >Hi Dave. Yeah, sell everything and get an *istD and a couple of used >lenses: a fast prime and a longish zoom like a 70-200 2.8. Apologies, I meant ' a fast prime and a fast zoom like..' Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
It is tough to wait, but (if the rumors prove to be true) it sounds like Pentax is going to end the *istD and announce a successor, possibly with an 8MP sensor. The additional MP isn't that exciting by itself, but there is the chance that some of the D's warts will be fixed. The next likely opportunity for announcements is the PMA show in Orlando, Feb 20th-23rd. Tim On 1/13/05 15:14, Dave Kennedy wrote: > 1) Hold onto it & save towards an *istD. Because I love the PZ-1 so > much over the MZ-10, I think I'd prefer the D. That'll be tough, just > to wait
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
I assume you are happy with the lenes you already have, as well as shooting film. You may consider supplementing your selection of lenses with a wideangle. Perhaps a 24mm or a 20mm, preferably an FA verison. My SMC-A 2.8/20mm is one of the lenses I have used the most, even before I went digital. Or perhaps an AF500FTZ flash, if you don't have a TTL-flash already. Otherwise sell it all, except the SMC-F 1.7/50mm, and get an *ist D/DS with a 16-45mm. Consider which telephoto lens may want to keep too. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Dave Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 14. januar 2005 00:14 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Decisions...Decisions... Ok, I've got a bit of a dillema here, what would you do? Between Christmas gifts and personal savings, I've got about $1K cdn itching to get back into circulation. What do I do with it? Currently I have: PZ-1, MZ-10 bodies. 28-70/4 FA 70-210/4.5-5.6 F-SMC 50/1.7F 28-200 FA 105/2.8 Kiron Macro 400/5.6 Sigma APO 1.7x AF Teleconvertor Manfrotto Tripod. I burned about 30-40 rolls of slide film last year, mostly through holidays, but I love to get out into the forest or near the waterfront for a couple of hours. Everything from Landscapes, wildlife, macro, family snapshots. My ideas : 1) Hold onto it & save towards an *istD. Because I love the PZ-1 so much over the MZ-10, I think I'd prefer the D. That'll be tough, just to wait 2) Pick up another PZ-1 body. Used both bodies alot over the holidays last year and I'm not crazy about going back to the constantly switching lenses. 3) Look around for some faster glass. Perhaps I could get a third party 28-70/2.8 and a 70-210/2.8. 4) Get a better ballhead for my tripod. 5) Forget gear, buy more film. 6) Any other ideas? thanx dk
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:14:09 -0500, Dave Kennedy wrote: > > >Ok, I've got a bit of a dillema here, what would you do? >Between Christmas gifts and personal savings, I've got about $1K cdn >itching to get back into circulation. > >What do I do with it? >Currently I have: >PZ-1, MZ-10 bodies. >28-70/4 FA >70-210/4.5-5.6 F-SMC >50/1.7F >28-200 FA >105/2.8 Kiron Macro >400/5.6 Sigma APO >1.7x AF Teleconvertor >Manfrotto Tripod. > >5) Forget gear, buy more film. Forget film and buy more gear. When you get the istD you won't use film any more. Buy an istD, sell your film bodies save a bit more and buy another istD so you don't have to change lenses. You will have 2 bodies which are identical and don't have different operating philosophies and film costs will be a thing of the past. In 5 years time I don't expect to be able to project my slides any more as slide projectors get more expensive (to buy and repair) and data projectors get cheaper. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Two different bodies has always been a pain to me when using them to avoid switching lenses, but I wonder how many amateurs would actually own 2 dslrs? I know it would take me quite a while to justify a second digital body (it seems hard enough to get one). That's 2 comments suggesting I sell the film. Wow. I would find that difficult making the jump from film to digital "cold turkey". hmmm On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:20:33 +1100, Leon Altoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:14:09 -0500, Dave Kennedy wrote: > snip> > Buy an istD, sell your film bodies save a bit more and buy another istD > so you don't have to change lenses. You will have 2 bodies which are > identical and don't have different operating philosophies and film > costs will be a thing of the past. In 5 years time I don't expect to > be able to project my slides any more as slide projectors get more > expensive (to buy and repair) and data projectors get cheaper. > > Leon > > http://www.bluering.org.au > http://www.bluering.org.au/leon > >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 15/1/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed: >That's 2 comments suggesting I sell the film. Wow. I would find that >difficult making the jump from film to digital "cold turkey". hmmm You'd be surprised. I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and actually used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't - but I just don't want to. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Hi! DK> What do I do with it? DK> Currently I have: DK> PZ-1, MZ-10 bodies. DK> 28-70/4 FA DK> 70-210/4.5-5.6 F-SMC DK> 50/1.7F DK> 28-200 FA DK> 105/2.8 Kiron Macro DK> 400/5.6 Sigma APO DK> 1.7x AF Teleconvertor DK> Manfrotto Tripod. DK> My ideas : DK> 1) Hold onto it & save towards an *istD. Because I love the PZ-1 so DK> much over the MZ-10, I think I'd prefer the D. That'll be tough, just DK> to wait You can probably sell MZ-10 and 28-200 to that end. DK> 2) Pick up another PZ-1 body. Used both bodies alot over the holidays DK> last year and I'm not crazy about going back to the constantly DK> switching lenses. Oh, then may be you should keep 28-200 anyway. But me so thinks 28-70 and 70-210 that you have (and me too) are that much better... DK> 3) Look around for some faster glass. Perhaps I could get a third DK> party 28-70/2.8 and a 70-210/2.8. If you do, then I suggest you sell the corresponding slower glass... DK> 4) Get a better ballhead for my tripod. That would be my option of choice if you insist on spending money. DK> 5) Forget gear, buy more film. That is the ultimate question. I'd say yes, but enablement on this list is so strong - it actually never stops. DK> 6) Any other ideas? F(A) 20-35/4? The spice must flow. Therefore the spice will flow. The spice flows as I am writing this... :) Boris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Why? Do you find that shooting digital affords better final quality prints? Are most of your photos destined for the web or email in some way, bypassing prints in most instances? If you make prints, how large are they? (Did you send my high quality B&W print yet?) Do you prefer digital because you can bypoass the darkroom? Did you do your own darkroom work before moving to digital? I ask because, for me, it seems that the reason to move to digital is because there are times when I'm just too lazy to process film at home (I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want to spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film processed. Actually, the more i think about it, the more I realize that what digital means to me, and the main reason I'm considering it, is that I won't have to spend time processing film, either at home or driving to the lab. If I could shoot film and have it processed to my standards without having to spend the time doing it myself, I'd not be thinking about digital at all except for simple snaps for eBay and to send Q&D pics to family and friends, and that sort of thing. Shel > On Jan 16, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Cotty wrote: > > I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and actually > > used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't - but I just > > don't want to.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > (I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want to > spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film processed. Don't you do mail order in the US? I get a 36exp-colour film processed, printed twice at 6x4 and a CD for 9.75 (around 18-20 dollars, I would say), incl. stamps and what have you. I have done cheaper (but not as good) in the past. Kostas
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
I'd NEVER send my film out to be processed by mail order! While I find processing film to be boring, my B&W generally gets done right here so I can have control, no matter how much it pains me to do it, and the local pro labs handle my color so I can talk with them about how I want the processing handled, get a clip if need be, and be assured of film that's not damaged. In the rare circumstance that I want B&W processed outside, I'll have one of two labs here do it to my specs, using my developer and time/temps Plus, in the past (years ago) a couple of rolls of film got "disappeared" when sent from the west coast to a lab in NYC. Never Again! And, if film doesn't get lost, there's no guarantee as to how it's handled during transit. And mail order takes too long. If I drop my film at the color lab I can have it done in a few hours should I desire. No need to wait a week or so for the film. For $5.00 or so I can get a 36exp roll of color neg processed, a little more for slides, and the rest is up to me - scanning, burning CD's or DVD's if that's what I want, and prepping for printing. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/16/2005 6:56:00 AM > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > (I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want to > > spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film processed. > > Don't you do mail order in the US? I get a 36exp-colour film > processed, printed twice at 6x4 and a CD for 9.75 (around 18-20 > dollars, I would say), incl. stamps and what have you. I have done > cheaper (but not as good) in the past. > > Kostas
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
I used my Leica iiif once. When I did my first shoot with the digital, I took my 6x7 along, but it never came out of its case. Paul On Jan 16, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Cotty wrote: On 15/1/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed: That's 2 comments suggesting I sell the film. Wow. I would find that difficult making the jump from film to digital "cold turkey". hmmm You'd be surprised. I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and actually used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't - but I just don't want to. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: (I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want to spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film processed. Don't you do mail order in the US? I get a 36exp-colour film processed, printed twice at 6x4 and a CD for 9.75 (around 18-20 dollars, I would say), incl. stamps and what have you. I have done cheaper (but not as good) in the past. Thats a way to get film processed, it is not necessarily a good way to get the results you want. Unless what you want is the lowest common denominator. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... Why? Do you find that shooting digital affords better final quality prints? Are most of your photos destined for the web or email in some way, bypassing prints in most instances? If you make prints, how large are they? (Did you send my high quality B&W print yet?) Do you prefer digital because you can bypoass the darkroom? Did you do your own darkroom work before moving to digital? I ask because, for me, it seems that the reason to move to digital is because there are times when I'm just too lazy to process film at home (I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want to spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film processed. Actually, the more i think about it, the more I realize that what digital means to me, and the main reason I'm considering it, is that I won't have to spend time processing film, either at home or driving to the lab. If I could shoot film and have it processed to my standards without having to spend the time doing it myself, I'd not be thinking about digital at all except for simple snaps for eBay and to send Q&D pics to family and friends, and that sort of thing. Shel, I don't think digital is going to be a good choice for much of what you do. There are no really good black and white solutions out there for the digital camera user, and you do shoot a lot of black and white. Digital is a very good solution for the colour negative shooter, especially as more and more photo labs are turning to scanning film for printing. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and actually used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't - but I just don't want to. I have, when I need my 15 to act like a really wide angle lens. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Hi, > Don't you do mail order in the US? I get a 36exp-colour film > processed, printed twice at 6x4 and a CD for 9.75 (around 18-20 > dollars, I would say), incl. stamps and what have you. I have done > cheaper (but not as good) in the past. > Kostas The man who recommended mail-order procecssing to Sheldon Belinkoff: http://www.antiqueprintshop.co.uk/images/hum007lp.jpg -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > > Don't you do mail order in the US? I get a 36exp-colour film > > processed, printed twice at 6x4 and a CD for 9.75 (around 18-20 > > dollars, I would say), incl. stamps and what have you. I have done > > cheaper (but not as good) in the past. > > Thats a way to get film processed, it is not necessarily a good way > to get the results you want. > Unless what you want is the lowest common denominator. That's a generalisation you are making there. I am at least as happy with the outcome of the mail order lab as I am with my locals. Actually, the mail order lab in question uses a Frontier lab and Crystal Archive, my preferred paper, unlike my locals. OTOH, I dumped Ilford for B&W, for damaging a film and being unable to follow simple instructions. Never lost a film yet (tempting fate :-). Kostas
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
I shoot a fair amount of color these days ... there's a place for digi here, but the reasons may not be the same as for other people. Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Shel, I don't think digital is going to be a good choice for much of > what you do. There are no really good black and white solutions out > there for the digital camera user, and you do shoot a lot of black > and white. > Digital is a very good solution for the colour negative shooter, > especially as more and more photo labs are turning to scanning film > for printing.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Without even looking I can imagine Shel's response to this (grin). Most folks who still do serious B&W would respond similarly. If you shoot nothing but lab processed 35mm color negative, then yes get a DSLR, you will never pick up a film camera again. Me, I can not see a digital camera replacing my Speed Graphic. I mean if I already choose to use it over that LP35CN where I have to load individual films, scrounge no longer made flashbulbs, setup the 4x5 enlarger & darkroom in the bathroom and tear it down again a couple of hours later. Convenience is obviously not the most important factor to me. It seems to be for most of the DSLR users. Of course I do not shoot 1000's of photos a year anymore either and it would take a long time at current usage to justify paying a $1000 for a new camera. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: (I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want to spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film processed. Don't you do mail order in the US? I get a 36exp-colour film processed, printed twice at 6x4 and a CD for 9.75 (around 18-20 dollars, I would say), incl. stamps and what have you. I have done cheaper (but not as good) in the past. Kostas -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
why not do C41 at home too? Its quick, cheap, easy, and wont get mishandled. I have been doing my own for about a year now and would do any labs again. I used to think is was hard, I was wrong. I do 85 deg. F so all you have to do is warm up the bottles for a few mins befor processing. Results are excellent. JCO -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:20 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... I'd NEVER send my film out to be processed by mail order! While I find processing film to be boring, my B&W generally gets done right here so I can have control, no matter how much it pains me to do it, and the local pro labs handle my color so I can talk with them about how I want the processing handled, get a clip if need be, and be assured of film that's not damaged. In the rare circumstance that I want B&W processed outside, I'll have one of two labs here do it to my specs, using my developer and time/temps Plus, in the past (years ago) a couple of rolls of film got "disappeared" when sent from the west coast to a lab in NYC. Never Again! And, if film doesn't get lost, there's no guarantee as to how it's handled during transit. And mail order takes too long. If I drop my film at the color lab I can have it done in a few hours should I desire. No need to wait a week or so for the film. For $5.00 or so I can get a 36exp roll of color neg processed, a little more for slides, and the rest is up to me - scanning, burning CD's or DVD's if that's what I want, and prepping for printing. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/16/2005 6:56:00 AM > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > (I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want > > to spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film > > processed. > > Don't you do mail order in the US? I get a 36exp-colour film > processed, printed twice at 6x4 and a CD for 9.75 (around 18-20 > dollars, I would say), incl. stamps and what have you. I have done > cheaper (but not as good) in the past. > > Kostas
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... why not do C41 at home too? Its quick, cheap, easy, and wont get mishandled. I have been doing my own for about a year now and would do any labs again. I used to think is was hard, I was wrong. I do 85 deg. F so all you have to do is warm up the bottles for a few mins befor processing. Results are excellent. Most people don't realize how simple C-41 processing is. Are you using a two step or a three step process? William Robb
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
There are three bottles, Developer, bleach-fix, and stabilzer-wetting agent. The kit I have been using is a powder kit from freestyle photo supply and goes by the Arista brand name. the 85 deg processing times are easy. developer - 6.5 min (constant agitation) bleach-fix - 10 min (intermittant agitation) rinse - 5 mins stab-wetting - 2 min (intermittant agitation) hang til dry I use a beseler print drum roller to agitate film tanks for 35mm and 120 and I use print drums to develop 4x5/5x7/8x10 FILM sheets on same print drum roller. My intermittant agitation is set for 5 seconds on, 25 seconds off. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:29 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... > why not do C41 at home too? Its quick, cheap, easy, and wont get > mishandled. I have been doing my own for about a year now and would do > any labs again. I used to think is was hard, I was wrong. I do 85 deg. > F so all you have to do is warm up the bottles for a few mins befor > processing. Results are excellent. Most people don't realize how simple C-41 processing is. Are you using a two step or a three step process? William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Over the past 2-3 years, I've moved all my photography to digital cameras. Reason: I get better quality this way, and can produce more work 80% of my photography is B&W. I'm printing the best B&W I've ever done now. It is much much more facile to render B&W in Photoshop than in the darkroom. Godfrey --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Shel, I don't think digital is going to be a good choice for much >of what you do. There are no really good black and white >solutions out there for the digital camera user, and you do shoot >a lot of black and white. Digital is a very good solution for the >colour negative shooter, especially as more and more photo labs >are turning to scanning film for printing. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=1001&pid=708 The 1 quart capacity is at least 400 square inches which is about 8 rolls of 135-36 film. JCO -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:42 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... There are three bottles, Developer, bleach-fix, and stabilzer-wetting agent. The kit I have been using is a powder kit from freestyle photo supply and goes by the Arista brand name. the 85 deg processing times are easy. developer - 6.5 min (constant agitation) bleach-fix - 10 min (intermittant agitation) rinse - 5 mins stab-wetting - 2 min (intermittant agitation) hang til dry I use a beseler print drum roller to agitate film tanks for 35mm and 120 and I use print drums to develop 4x5/5x7/8x10 FILM sheets on same print drum roller. My intermittant agitation is set for 5 seconds on, 25 seconds off. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:29 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... > why not do C41 at home too? Its quick, cheap, easy, and wont get > mishandled. I have been doing my own for about a year now and would do > any labs again. I used to think is was hard, I was wrong. I do 85 deg. > F so all you have to do is warm up the bottles for a few mins befor > processing. Results are excellent. Most people don't realize how simple C-41 processing is. Are you using a two step or a three step process? William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
I'll put to you the same challenge I put to Cotty: show me the best DSLR-Photoshop B&W you've done, then we'll talk. If you've got something up on a web site, let's see it, but real prints speak the loudest and the clearest. To say that you're making the best B&W you've ever done means little to anyone but you without knowing the results you were getting before. It may be that what you're doing now IS better than what you were doing , but it would be interesting to see (not hear about) how that compares to some truly fine B&W silver-based prints on good quality fiber-based paper. "Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production rates. They usually mean compromised quality. Shel the Skeptic > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Over the past 2-3 years, I've moved all my photography to > digital cameras. Reason: I get better quality this way, and can > produce more work > > 80% of my photography is B&W. I'm printing the best B&W I've > ever done now. It is much much more facile to render B&W in > Photoshop than in the darkroom.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 16/1/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >Why? Do you find that shooting digital affords better final quality >prints? Yes. I needed a print from some 200 ISO colour neg recently, so I scanned it and printed it off and frankly I was shocked at the *grain* !! Digital originals are so much smoother. >Are most of your photos destined for the web or email in some way, >bypassing prints in most instances? When I shoot a picture my thoughts are always to print. I only ever shoot at one quality level, which is large/fine jpeg. This suits me better than RAW. I have printed from RAW and jpeg and I can see no difference (but then wadda I know ;-) Some get squeezed down for my web site or for email. >If you make prints, how large are >they? Usually 11 by 8 inch. For landscapes that get framed, 16 by 11 inch or thereabouts. >(Did you send my high quality B&W print yet?) Ah yes yes yes yes yes. No. It's on the to-do list. >Do you prefer digital >because you can bypoass the darkroom? Absolutely, but not the primary reason. I don't mind developing film, but it is a drudge. I like digital because the images are much cleaner, and I prefer them over film. >Did you do your own darkroom work >before moving to digital? No. I got back into photography properly when I got a scanner. I would shoot neg (mono, I processed, colour went to the lab) and then scan. I *hate* scanning. I have wet printed but that was back at art college in 1978, and then for a few years afterwards in a darkroom at my father's place of work. >I ask because, for me, it seems that the reason to move to digital is >because there are times when I'm just too lazy to process film at home >(I've always disliked processing film - B-O-R-I-N-G), or don't want to >spend the time traveling to and from the lab to get the film processed. >Actually, the more i think about it, the more I realize that what digital >means to me, and the main reason I'm considering it, is that I won't have >to spend time processing film, either at home or driving to the lab. If I >could shoot film and have it processed to my standards without having to >spend the time doing it myself, I'd not be thinking about digital at all >except for simple snaps for eBay and to send Q&D pics to family and >friends, and that sort of thing. O Lord, Shel go buy an *ist D! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 16/1/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >Shel, I don't think digital is going to be a good choice for much of >what you do. There are no really good black and white solutions out >there for the digital camera user, and you do shoot a lot of black >and white. Damn, I'm gonna get that print out this week if it kills me. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Please, Cotty, don't go to such an extreme. A simple stay at the hospital would be more than enough. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Damn, I'm gonna get that print out this week if it kills me.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and various other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the neighborhood of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It included several dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked about the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and converted in PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was with custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some fine art photographers. > I'll put to you the same challenge I put to Cotty: show me the best > DSLR-Photoshop B&W you've done, then we'll talk. If you've got something up > on a web site, let's see it, but real prints speak the loudest and the > clearest. > > To say that you're making the best B&W you've ever done means little to > anyone but you without knowing the results you were getting before. It may > be that what you're doing now IS better than what you were doing , but it > would be interesting to see (not hear about) how that compares to some > truly fine B&W silver-based prints on good quality fiber-based paper. > > "Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production rates. They > usually mean compromised quality. > > Shel the Skeptic > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Over the past 2-3 years, I've moved all my photography to > > digital cameras. Reason: I get better quality this way, and can > > produce more work > > > > 80% of my photography is B&W. I'm printing the best B&W I've > > ever done now. It is much much more facile to render B&W in > > Photoshop than in the darkroom. > >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Shel, >I'll put to you the same challenge I put to Cotty: show me the >best DSLR-Photoshop B&W you've done, then we'll talk. If you've >got something up on a web site, let's see it, but real prints >speak the loudest and the clearest. I post photographs pretty regularly, taken with KM A3, Canon 10D, Panasonic FZ10 and now Pentax *istDS cameras ... you can see the 2004 "Picture A Week" set and "Others" sets on my website: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/ http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/Others4/ It's a potpourri of photos, some casually done and some more taken a bit more seriously. This is one of my favorite B&W portraits, taken with a 10D+28/1.8 lens last April: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/18.htm It prints to an 11x14 very very nicely. Of course, what you see on the website are derezzed web images and not what is on paper. It's darn hard to evaluate what the prints look like unless you actually have one in your hand. I'm printing up to A3 Super prints in B&W and up to 8x12 in color. Hanging the results next to work that was done in a wet lab in a show, I have to tell people which ones were produced with negative and darkroom, which ones negative/scanner/inkjet printer, and which ones are digital capture/inkjet printer. >To say that you're making the best B&W you've ever done means >little to anyone but you without knowing the results you were >getting before. It may be that what you're doing now IS better >than what you were doing , but it would be interesting to see >(not hear about) how that compares to some truly fine B&W >silver-based prints on good quality fiber-based paper. Obviously. But I've been doing photography for 42 years and have had three businesses that made a significant percentage of my income with my photography in that time, so I suspect the quality of my prints is decent. >"Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production >rates. They usually mean compromised quality. More facile means "more easily'. Synonyms for the word "facile" are: - accomplished, adept, adroit, apparent, articulate, breeze, child's play, cursory, deft, dexterous, effortless, fast talk, flip, fluent, glib, glib, hasty, light, obvious, picnic, practiced, proficient, pushover, quick, ready, royal, shallow, simple, skillful, slick, smooth, superficial, uncomplicated, untroublesome, vocal, voluble, walkover - There is no connotation in the word facile of "compromised quality", only of ease. You should perhaps not read so much into it. I'm more productive as I don't waste so much time cleaning up film defects, and dodging & burning is done much more precisely and quickly. Less waste, more work. Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver fiber-based B&W print. When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I know his work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell quality from trash. You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and various > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the neighborhood > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It included several > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked about > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and converted in > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was with > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and color. > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they produced in years > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and > some fine art photographers.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
If you've attended a lot of gallery shows lately, you may have seen some digital BW and not realized it. Then again, maybe not. A fair comparison of digital and silver print BW is difficult to achieve, because a good darkroom print maker may not be a good digital print maker. Only time and the weight of evidence will eventually decide this issue. Nevertheless, I look forward to printing your files. Hope to receive some soon. > Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I have > not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters a high > quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on fiber based > silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've not yet seen > one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen numerous prints > made by many photographers, but have yet to see an actual print that > compares with or betters a high quality silver fiber-based B&W print. > > When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can do > is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit to me > that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I know his > work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell quality from > trash. > > You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling us > what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you as a > photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your idea of > quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. > > All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I > have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. > > True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as I > get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close our > concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the challenge > goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals or betters a > quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet darkroom. When I see > one I'll shut up. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and various > > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the > neighborhood > > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It included > several > > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked > about > > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and > converted in > > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was > with > > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and > color. > > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they > produced in years > > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but > hobbyists and > > some fine art photographers. > >
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
I have been following digital darkroom stuff for about 5 years and I have never read anywhere, even recently, that there was ANY commmercially available monochrome digital printers that can even come close to matching BW wet prints let alone exceed. Best results are now obtained with custom ink sets and drivers but even they don't claim to match wet prints yet, Maybe someday we will get there but for now, no way... JCO -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:10 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver fiber-based B&W print. When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I know his work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell quality from trash. You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and > various > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the neighborhood > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It > included several > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked about > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and converted in > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was with > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and color. > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they produced in years > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and > some fine art photographers.
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
Hmm, Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. Have you seen a good BWE digital print? They can be very, very good. Paul > I have been following digital darkroom stuff for about 5 years > and I have never read anywhere, even recently, that there was ANY > commmercially > available monochrome digital printers that can even come close to > matching BW wet prints > let alone exceed. Best results are now obtained with custom ink sets and > drivers but even > they don't claim to match wet prints yet, Maybe someday we will get > there but for now, no way... > > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:10 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > > Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I > have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters > a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on > fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've > not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen > numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an > actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver > fiber-based B&W print. > > When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I can > do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a whit > to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. For all I > know his work could be crap and the people judging it couldn't tell > quality from trash. > > You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're telling > us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect for you > as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. Your > idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am skeptical. > > All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. I > have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. > > True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon as > I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how close > our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, the > challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that equals > or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a wet > darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and > > various > > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in > the > neighborhood > > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It > > included > several > > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked > about > > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and > converted in > > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was > with > > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and > color. > > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they > produced in years > > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but > hobbyists and > > some fine art photographers. > >
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
Pros = always make money, not = always make quality. It may cost too much time and money to still make them wet especially if manipulation is wanted or needed. Have you ever seen large format or ULF BW contact wet prints? They arent very very good, they are INCREDIBLE! That's why formats larger than 8x10 still exist to this day. Its not that you really need more resolution than 8x10, its that you don't want to enlarge and hence need really big cameras for really big prints at that astonishing level of quality... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:51 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... Hmm, Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. Have you seen a good BWE digital print? They can be very, very good. Paul > I have been following digital darkroom stuff for about 5 years and I > have never read anywhere, even recently, that there was ANY > commmercially available monochrome digital printers that can even come > close to matching BW wet prints > let alone exceed. Best results are now obtained with custom ink sets and > drivers but even > they don't claim to match wet prints yet, Maybe someday we will get > there but for now, no way... > > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:10 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > > Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I > have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters > a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on > fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've > not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen > numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an > actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver > fiber-based B&W print. > > When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I > can do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a > whit to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. > For all I know his work could be crap and the people judging it > couldn't tell quality from trash. > > You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're > telling us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect > for you as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. > Your idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am > skeptical. > > All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. > I have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. > > True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon > as I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how > close our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, > the challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that > equals or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a > wet darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and > > various > > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in > the > neighborhood > > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It > > included > several > > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked > about > > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and > converted in > > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it > > was > with > > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and > color. > > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints > > they > produced in years > > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but > hobbyists and > > some fine art photographers. > >
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
I use my Pentacon Six TL frequently. Film is still better resolution than digital (IMO), 6x6 is even better. I use digital because it's so convenient - I hate scanning all those negs! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. januar 2005 11:57 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Decisions...Decisions... On 15/1/05, Dave Kennedy, discombobulated, unleashed: >That's 2 comments suggesting I sell the film. Wow. I would find that >difficult making the jump from film to digital "cold turkey". hmmm You'd be surprised. I wonder how many DSLR owners have picked up a film camera and actually used it since acquiring the digital? It's not that I can't - but I just don't want to. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
> > > Have you ever seen large format or ULF BW contact wet prints? They arent > very very > good, they are INCREDIBLE! Of course. I've seen many large format contact prints, including those at MOMA. I've also spoken to Clint Clemens, who has a print on display at MOMA and who once shot a lot of large format. (He now shoots digital exclusively.) Of course large format wins the day if you're considering finite resolution only. But if you want to talk about control and photographer input in the final result, digital is still a better answer. As I said, fine art photogrphers will continue to shoot film for some time to come. But the numbers will grow smaller and smaller. And BW is no longer exclusive to film.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... "Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production rates. They usually mean compromised quality. Honestly, I can't imagine any way possible for the work coming off my istD to be in any way superior to what I am getting off my Tachihara. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... Hmm, Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... Please, Cotty, don't go to such an extreme. A simple stay at the hospital would be more than enough. How about if it give him a hangnail? Would that be good enough? William Robb Damn, I'm gonna get that print out this week if it kills me.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Hi Bill ... I was wondering when someone was going to make that point. Being a "pro" doesn't always mean anything more than being able to sell your work, to have a market for it. Those who say that it must be good because it's done by a pro are laboring under a misconception. That's not to say a lot of pros don't do good, or even great, work. It depends, I think, on their field and where their work is marketed. A pro newspaper photographer has an entirely different agenda than a pro advertising photographer or a pro fine arts photog, and so on. Because a pro uses a digital camera for his or her work doesn't mean it's the right piece of gear for a pro in a different field or for the serious and skilled amateur. There are lots of pros out there using film, but their market doesn't dictate a need for digital. As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for it, but what is acceptable, or even good or great quality, in one field may not cut it in another. When I talk about quality B&W work I am describing exhibition quality prints made to a very high - perhaps even the highest - standard, which is not often seen these days. I know a very well known pro - you'd know him and his work in a heartbeat - who was made famous by his photographs as were his subjects. He has many well known magazine covers and stories to his credit. His work, from the POV of quality prints, is at best mediocre. He was great at making a personal connection with his subjects, getting acceptable quality work to the magazine on time, and coming up with interesting and sometimes intimate images. They were not high quality images, though. One of his most well known covers was 60% blown out highlights, but that worked for the magazine because that's where they put the copy. OTOH, you won't find that image hung next to a Weston print (any Weston) or an Ansel Adams print, just as you probably wouldn't find their prints hanging in the pop culture section of the museum. So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints. Are such prints out there? maybe. But I've not seen 'em. Show me an Adams quality print, or a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera. Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. > > William Robb >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
As usual, this discussion devolves back to a statement of belief. Believe what you want, Shel. It's a waste of time for me or anyone else to debate it. I'm sure if I sent you a print you would tell me it was a piece of crap too, since it's quality is all a matter of your belief. I won't waste my time with that, I have better things to do. One of these years when you learn how to make a presentation quality B&W print using digital machinery, you'll reflect back on how foolish the whole debate is. If you ever do, that is. Godfrey --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for > it, ... __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
That's a strange argument. You mean there are a lot of amateurs who are turning down 10K a day paychecks just to preserve their amateur status? Are they something like the olympic athletes of photography. truomg to preserve their amateur status by not acceptin money for their work? If they're really setting the standards, why wouldn't they capitalize on it? Are they all that pure? I dont' give a rat's ass what kind of technology is used to make a picture. If glass plates worked best, I would shoot with those. And as you know, just a couple of years ago, I was certain that film was still the way to go. But I'm not so blind that I can ignore the evidence. > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... > > > > Hmm, > > Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. > > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. > > William Robb > >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
pcn> Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for pcn> both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than pcn> the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's pcn> obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some pcn> fine art photographers. Paul, is this some kind of your crusade or what? Most pros I have spoken too are just plain lazy and without time to make silver prints... simply. A lot of pros don't recognize a good silver print. After all, their output is high gloss paper magazine... A lot of pros don't recognize a good print as well. These are just examples. Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film, just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important to you that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own. Good light! fra
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
I'm not crusading for anything. Just reporting what I see. I intend to continue shooting film. I enjoy my darkroom, and I find the film process quite fascinating. However, I dispute the contention of others, that high quality digital BW is impossible and that results that are the equal of traditional BW techniques are not possible. I've simply seen evidence to the contrary. I'm surprised that you have decided to turn what had been a polite discussion into a personal attack, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised because I have seen that from you before. I will not contribute to this thread again. Paul Stenquist > pcn> Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for > pcn> both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than > pcn> the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's > pcn> obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some > pcn> fine art photographers. > > Paul, is this some kind of your crusade or what? Most pros I have spoken too > are just plain lazy and without time to make silver prints... simply. > A lot of pros don't recognize a good silver print. After all, their > output is high gloss paper magazine... A lot of pros don't recognize a > good print as well. These are just examples. > > Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film, > just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important to > you > that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own. > > Good light! >fra >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
Yes, that's all well and good. And two years ago, I would have made the same arguments. But today I can't find ANYONE who's livelihood depends on photography who's not shooting digital. I'm sure there are some out there. But of the hundreds of portfolios I've reviewed this year, I haven't seen one. You can expound endlessly on the art of Adams and Weston and the beauty of large format silver prints. But when you talk about what's the most reliable path to good work for the average photographer, it isn't film. If you haven't seen great BW digital prints, you really haven't been getting out to the galleries. The evidence is on the wall. > Hi Bill ... > > I was wondering when someone was going to make that point. Being a "pro" > doesn't always mean anything more than being able to sell your work, to > have a market for it. Those who say that it must be good because it's done > by a pro are laboring under a misconception. That's not to say a lot of > pros don't do good, or even great, work. It depends, I think, on their > field and where their work is marketed. A pro newspaper photographer has > an entirely different agenda than a pro advertising photographer or a pro > fine arts photog, and so on. > Because a pro uses a digital camera for his or her work doesn't mean it's > the right piece of gear for a pro in a different field or for the serious > and skilled amateur. There are lots of pros out there using film, but > their market doesn't dictate a need for digital. > > As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for it, but what > is acceptable, or even good or great quality, in one field may not cut it > in another. When I talk about quality B&W work I am describing exhibition > quality prints made to a very high - perhaps even the highest - standard, > which is not often seen these days. > > I know a very well known pro - you'd know him and his work in a heartbeat - > who was made famous by his photographs as were his subjects. He has many > well known magazine covers and stories to his credit. His work, from the > POV of quality prints, is at best mediocre. He was great at making a > personal connection with his subjects, getting acceptable quality work to > the magazine on time, and coming up with interesting and sometimes intimate > images. They were not high quality images, though. One of his most well > known covers was 60% blown out highlights, but that worked for the magazine > because that's where they put the copy. OTOH, you won't find that image > hung next to a Weston print (any Weston) or an Ansel Adams print, just as > you probably wouldn't find their prints hanging in the pop culture section > of the museum. > > So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital > workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. > I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle > gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints. Are such prints out > there? maybe. But I've not seen 'em. Show me an Adams quality print, or > a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell > my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. > > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys > > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and > > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. > > > > William Robb > > > >
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
On 16/1/05, Frantisek, discombobulated, unleashed: >Paul, why don't you stop your crusade, and let those who like film, >just use it in peace? You are just spreading memes... Is it so important >to you >that you convert the others to digital? Each to his own. Paul is not on a crusade, he is taking part in a debate in its own thread on the PDML and is merely putting his point of view across. As such, he is using his vocabulary as he sees best, and is imparting information. He is doing nothing wrong. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... One of these years when you learn how to make a presentation quality B&W print using digital machinery, you'll reflect back on how foolish the whole debate is. If you ever do, that is. One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make a black and white print to match my standard of quality. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints. Are such prints out there? maybe. But I've not seen 'em. Show me an Adams quality print, or a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera. That day may come, I expect it will come. At the moment, too many megapixels, and too much bit depth is required for the technology to deliver. My benchmark at the moment is a print I made myself from a 4x5 FP-4 negative onto Zone VI Brilliant. William Robb
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:41:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make a black and white print to match my standard of quality. William Robb There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge is usually goes. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
HP has that. And Epsons can be converted. Still you can not get the contrast range that you can with a good silver print. And when that becomes possible they will still have to be able to beat a platinum print which are a bit better than silver. However, the point has been made that most pro output is used in print media which digital is definitely up to. If you want a silver print that will reproduce well as a quality halftone you need to make it slightly less contrasty than the best you can make for direct viewing. For that matter in my personal opinion digital is not yet quite up to the best quality chemical/optical custom color print either. But understand, no one who is trying to get the very best quality is going to use a small format (35mm or digital) original either. When you are using 4x5 or larger originals the grain argument becomes specious. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:41:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of these years, I am sure the technology will be in place to make a black and white print to match my standard of quality. William Robb There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge is usually goes. Marnie aka Doe -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
There are ... bit that doesn't mean there will be comparable tonality and depth to the printed images. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There are still no dedicated B&W inkjet printers? You'd think someone (Epson, > Canon, etc.) would jump on that sooner or later. Or have an all black > cartridge (with shades of gray) that can be loaded in where the color cartridge is > usually goes. > > Marnie aka Doe
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
> HP has that. And Epsons can be converted. Still you can not > get the contrast > range that you can with a good silver print. I just heard about a company called Lyson that sells a package of black inks, software and print drivers for making homemade inkjet prints. I don't know how good it is though. http://www.lyson.com Amita
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
So you equate grain, or rather, the lack of it, an indicator of quality ... correct? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Why? Do you find that shooting digital affords better final quality > >prints? > > Yes. I needed a print from some 200 ISO colour neg recently, so I scanned > it and printed it off and frankly I was shocked at the *grain* !! > Digital originals are so much smoother.
Re: Decisions...Decisions...
When you (or JCO) get a moment, can you provide a brief rundown on what's needed. No rush ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Most people don't realize how simple C-41 processing is. > Are you using a two step or a three step process? > > William Robb
RE: Decisions...Decisions...
I never thought about, always believing it was too complicated. Might give it a try ... thanks for the info. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/16/2005 9:23:09 AM > Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... > > why not do C41 at home too? Its quick, cheap, easy, and wont get > mishandled. I have been doing my own for about a year now > and would do any labs again. I used to think is was hard, I was > wrong. I do 85 deg. F so all you have to do is warm up the > bottles for a few mins befor processing. Results are excellent. > JCO
