Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
You seem to be in denial William. The point is that the majority of the labs
were bad, and that they failed the consumer en-masse. With the technology
available to them 1 hour cheap and fast was entirely acheivable. The problem
was that the industry got greedy and lazy. Not just a few labs, but
And finally William accepts the arguments put to him.
U-turn?
Antonio
On 25/8/04 7:55 am, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My lab could.
My lab closed in 1997.
The one I work for now can do very good on occassion, but not
consistently.
Excellence hasn't existed in my industry for
Nope, the film industry killed film. Digital just speeded up the process. If
folks were happy with film they wouldn¹t abandon it as fast as they have.
A.
On 24/8/04 5:00 pm, Chris Stoddart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't dare after this. I'm afraid I am more with William Robb now;
the
On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I
guess a question that still remains to be answered is what people will
think about digital cameras after they have been using them for a while.
In nearly two years and 10,000 shots all I've done is blown dust off the
sensor about half a
On 24/8/04, David Schneider, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3939333.stm
(Although, nailing a memory card to a tree seems a tad extreme. On the
other hand, perhaps we should try to nail a D20 to a tree and see what
happens? grin)
I'd like to see them try all
Didn't one of them die last year? Huge funeral with Victorian horse-drawn
hearse. Very colourful.
Of course, those days aren't over. We still have Van Hoogstraten.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3301361.stm
John
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:21:03 -0400 (EDT), John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Toralf Lund wrote:
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take your digital PS,
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, John Forbes wrote:
Didn't one of them die last year? Huge funeral with Victorian
horse-drawn hearse. Very colourful.
Hard to believe, but it was four years ago now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/962612.stm
Read it and you realise the Monty Python sketch wasn't satire,
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Toralf Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
back, deleted the ones you don't like and then drop off the memory
card and get back a bag full of prints that you have chosen out of
the ones that you took.
Frank,
Both positives and reversals are used in Norway. The latter is an old term and not
widespread. The most common term dias is derived from diapositive.
Cotty,
Are you sure you have read the fine print? :-)
George Lucas has announced the next StarWars film to be purely digital, btw. So
Great shots, John. Love the F1 Ferarri and the 1930 Alpha.
On Aug 25, 2004, at 1:02 AM, John Francis wrote:
Spurred on by Mark's images from Mid-Ohio,
here's a dozen of my shots from a week ago:
http://jfwaf.com/MH2004/
All shots were taken with the *ist-D, generally with
the FA* 80-200/2.8 (or,
I'm not happy.
I took my *istD into the museum to photograph some shells for a
presentation I'm preparing, set up my 2 AF360 flashes for wireless
operation, turned on the *istD and popped up the flash for wireless
mode. And the battery indicator dropped to empty.
OK I thought, I'll put in the
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:40 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off the flash
card, get a
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:40 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off
Gonz wrote, in part:
Interesting side note: found a used roll of Kodacolor VR-G 200 36exp
film in it. Should I develop it and see what was in it? What if it was
taken 10 years ago, would they still be usable?
I ran into the same situation: found a couple of exposed rolls about a
decade old,
Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't need to turn the lights off?
You should. Ambient light will affect the appearance of your monitor :)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spurred on by Mark's images from Mid-Ohio,
here's a dozen of my shots from a week ago:
http://jfwaf.com/MH2004/
Love the special Starbucks coffee cup holder in the Ferrari cockpit!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Robert Woerner felt lonesome in his filmness and wrote:
You digital guys are bringing me down.
Non illegitimi carborundum. The digitalphiles are a bunch of pinheaded geeks
who would rather waste countless hours in Photoshop trying to fix their
awful contrast inhibited detailess soulless
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Great shots, John. Love the F1 Ferarri and the 1930 Alpha.
Me too, Paul, but what pleased me most is the sideways shot of that 12
cylinder, nail-chewing V-12 '59 Testa Rossa. Seeing that minimum clearance
of the exhaust pipes (¾? maybe an 1?) meant I'd never be able to get
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off the flash
card, get a bag full of prints.
They got smarter. They first download to the computer then drop off the
flash card or a CD-ROM at the lab. If the lab screws them, they have a
backup copy.
the camera shop around my corner has the choice between fast (1 hour) and quality, or
slow (2 days) and cheap. I always used the first option, but I don't know what the
majority chooses.
On Wednesday 25 August 2004 06:06, William Robb wrote:
FJW
FJW - Original Message -
FJW From:
1.) Adorama still stocks several very high dollar pro 35 slrs.
2.) My local camera shop added 2000x3000 35mm scanning to their lower
quality scanning, they have also just added another fridge for pro films.
3.) The local shop is also now stocking 6 more types of 35 and 120 film.
4.) I have
I agree with Paul. The lens seems to perform fine considering we are making
that judgement on a 72 dpi scan, which I maintain is no way to judge a lens. I
find that, with the exception of the colorful wall, the subject matter you
have chosen is very weak and probably goes a long way in
You're not alone. Yes digital is fun and is probably the future. I have a
point and shoot that I enjoy very much, but am not about to give up my film
bodies when I can have the best of both worlds- shoot film, scan the best ones...
Vic
Didn't Kodak used to own (and maybe still does) Hasselblad?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/24/2004 2:46:25 PM
I like the idea of a camera that will take an optional digital back, as
is
the case with some med format bodies. I'll soon be looking at a
Hasselblad, which seems to offer the best of film and
Comparative thoughts:
You may, if you wish, go out and buy a turntable. But expect to have to get a really
good one. Can't find a cheap BSR new? How about a BIC 960? Denon doesn't make any
more, afaik. But I think you can still get a Thorens or a Linn. Be willing to shell
out.
William Rob wrote by going fast and cheap they gave up the right to expect
quality.
I agree entirely. That's why I shoot slides for most of my serious work. As
far as print film goes, if they're snaps I go for fast and cheap. If it's more
serious stuff, I go for quality. If I get a nice
Pentax SMC-FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL (IF) lens in EX+ condition.
Includes caps, bayonet tulip hood, and Pentax soft lens case.
$275.
Joe
--
Joe Wilensky
Staff Writer
Communication and Marketing Services
1150 Comstock Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-2601
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel:
Vic penned:
I agree entirely. That's why I shoot slides for most of my serious work. As
far as print film goes, if they're snaps I go for fast and cheap. If it's more
serious stuff, I go for quality. If I get a nice snapshot that is printed
poorly
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I get a nice snapshot that is printed poorly (often the case) I scan
it myself...
This leads nicely into a question i;ve been meaning to ask for a while -
does the development of the negatives by minilabs vary as much as the
printing?
ie. does it
G'day All.
I did some pricing today with my local Photographic outlet.
A Canon 300D is about $1700 AU with a Canon EF 24-85 zoom.
A *ist D is about $2500 AU with a poxy Sigma 28-70 f2.8.
I can see why the punters are flocking to the 300D. It only takes a
single tax return and one is playing with a
Hi Dave: I scan my favourite slides as well as negs with a Canon FS2710 slide
scanner. In the past, it was difficult to get good prints from slides but one
of the great things about digital (and I don't mean digital cameras) is that
it really no longer matters if you shoot slides or negs. By
Hey Billy: I don't think it matters much where you get your negs developed.
My experience has been that when I get some brutal prints back (shots I would
have normally just thrown away and think that I screwed up) if I scan them I
can get them to look the way I wanted them to in the first
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trevor Bailey wrote:
I did some pricing today with my local Photographic outlet.
A Canon 300D is about $1700 AU with a Canon EF 24-85 zoom.
A *ist D is about $2500 AU with a poxy Sigma 28-70 f2.8.
I can see why the punters are flocking to the 300D. It only takes a
If Black and White film were to be dropped by manufacturers tomorrow,
I could almost foresee a return to dry plates. If film and the chemicals
were no longer readily available, a new renaissance in plate photography
could well be a subsititute. Remember, _REAL_ photographers coat their
own
I'm sorry but your digital workflow listed below is not simpler than
35mm film.
The 35mm camera is simpler, even a sosphisticated one, and it is much
easier to unload a film cassette and drop off then to have to
download and review and edit photos on a PC before dropping off.
There are still
--- John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
After reading the first few lines of your post, I
knew almost EXACTLY what
the last line would be! :-)
The almost means I reckoned without Delgado.
I'm nothing if not predictable vbg.
Besides, as a few have pointed out, undoubtedly,
Chris Stoddart replied...
Well the 'poxy Sigma lens' performance is probably no worse than the
'poxy
Canon lens' at that price point. Also the *ist D competes with the Canon
10D not the 300D, so you need to price it against that. IF (- big if)
we
get a Baby *istD at Photokina then that should
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Trevor Bailey wrote:
If I wanted to lay down the cash, I want a Pentax, But price is telling
me 300D Canon. As to the 10D, have never seen one in the flesh.
Trevor,
Price once told you to buy the MZ-60; was that a good decision? How
much money did you lose on it so as to
On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
But what I was driving at was more of the images-on-the-PC way of doing
things. I think the way most people with digicams operate today, is they
transfer the files to the PC, then clear the memory card and possibly
email the pictures to some
I'd agree with you on that. My parents just have their digital images printed
directly from the memory card. They don't make a copy on the PC (I'm trying to
encourage them to do that). I'm not sure if they use DPOF or the image choosing
machines in the photo processors shop.
On the digital vs
Uh, portability?
A.
On 25/8/04 3:23 pm, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Black and White film were to be dropped by manufacturers tomorrow,
I could almost foresee a return to dry plates. If film and the chemicals
were no longer readily available, a new renaissance in plate
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
My feeling is that the 300D is a money-pinching instrument on behalf
of Canon, a brutally downsized fill in the right Canon model. I hope
that Graywolf was right in his comments the other day that the Baby-D
will not be the same thing, though
when I was researching such things, it seemed like the Nikon D 70 was
superior to the Canon in every way, for not too much more money. If I was
going to buy one I would go with the Nikon. It seems like the Canon gets
talked about a lot more, maybe because it's the cheapest of the options at
Shel,
If Shackleton's 1914 expedition was the one where the ship was crushed in
pack-ice, forcing the leader and a small party to sail to South Georgia
Island in the ship's boat, to summon relief, while the rest of the crew had
to winter-over in Antarctica (no small business in those times), then
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Waterson
Subject: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance
Seriously though, why not a return to plates? All those years ago,
the
chemicals were available and it would certainly bring back a little
romance and art to photography. Something I
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I'm sorry but your digital workflow listed below is not simpler
than
35mm film.
The 35mm camera is simpler, even a sosphisticated one, and it is
much
easier to unload a
William Robb write:
...[it] seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising and stock
photography, although I wonder how, when the quality doesn't come up
to medium format film.
I have recently become vary aware of a trend towards poor quality pictures
in magazines. Images of a quality that
I've only got about 9 months one mine now, but with two bodies
probably in the neighborhood of 13,000 frames and my face hurts from
grinning.
It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a DSRL,
thinking they will use film cameras along with it, find that they
rarely use the film
It started during the Gulf War. They were printing at that time some
kind of poorly enlarged 320x200 video frames. They noticed they could
get away with it, so why not continue it's much cheaper and enhances the
bottom line.
Mick Maguire wrote:
I have recently become vary aware of a trend
I disagree. By the time you print an image on an offset press, you can't distinguish
between a 10 megapixel digital shot and medium format. I wish I could show you the
images Clint Clemens shot for Jeep and Chrysler European advertising with his 10
megapixel Canons. They are magnificent and
In regard to stock, the stock houses with which I am familiar want 50 megabyte files
max. At that size I don't think there's enough difference between MF and even 6
megapixel digital to warrant the large neg.
William Robb write:
...[it] seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, William Robb wrote:
There are a couple of extra steps in digital that you have left out:
Prior to your step one:
Go into menuland and set up the following:
1) resolution.
2) file compression
3) colour space.
4) saturation.
5) contrast
6) sharpness
7) sensitivity (not as
On 25/8/04, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:
Very valid points.
What I would say is that the industry is pushing this PictBridge thing,
where cards can poop out of a camera
ROTFL
What a slip!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
Digital still cant match what you can do with a 4x5 FILM
camera and lens that costs less than a DSLR body alone.
For people who's reference of quality is 35mm or Medium
format film, sure DSLR can replace that, but it isnt
even close to 4x5 quality and wont be for quite some
time to come unless
Hello Don,
1 - What we can't tell with Adorama and BH is what is in stock vs how
fast stock is turning. My local camera store sells everything Nikon
and pentax 35mm and Medium Format. When I bought my *istD last
November from them, they told me that film camera sales had polarized.
Basically
On 25/8/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
There are a couple of extra steps in digital that you have left out:
Prior to your step one:
Go into menuland and set up the following:
1) resolution.
2) file compression
3) colour space.
4) saturation.
5) contrast
6) sharpness
7) sensitivity
- Original Message -
From: Billy Abbott
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
They don't *have* to do that...they can just use the default
setting. Like
someone with a new do-everything-but-mow-the-lawn film PS they may
have a
quick read through the
Hello Billy,
My experience over the years has not been that great. Fast,
inexpensive labs have problems with squeegee scratching, chemical
deposits, bad chemistry and cutting negs poorly. I have tons of
examples of all the above.
Just hang around and watch the staff handling of film for awhile
In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing screens can
be used in the LX.
In the LX focusing screens manual, it says that LX focusing screens are
exclusively for the LX.
Does that mean that LX focusing screens cannot be used on the MX, but
the converse can?
Has anyone ever
I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and stamina to
shoot 4 x 5.
I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses and a 12
pound tripod/head get pretty heavy, even on a several mile hike. I guess
that why some peope have llamas.
Tom C.
From: J. C.
- Original Message -
From: Gonz
Subject: Focusing screens MX - LX
In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing screens
can
be used in the LX.
In the LX focusing screens manual, it says that LX focusing screens
are
exclusively for the LX.
Does that mean that LX
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and
stamina to
shoot 4 x 5.
I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses
and a 12
pound
I fully agree with you in regards to quality. Even when I compared my
67 stuff to 6mp digital, there is clearly more detail in the 67. If I
was shooting scenics and landscapes mostly, I might still be shooting
film. But for closer, frame filling subjects, like weddings and
portraits, the
Is any record company making LPs anymore? You can buy new turntables,
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.
rg
CRB wrote:
Comparative thoughts:
You may, if you wish, go out and buy a turntable. But expect to have to get a really
good one. Can't find a cheap BSR new? How about a BIC
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton
Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
I fully agree with you in regards to quality. Even when I compared
my
67 stuff to 6mp digital, there is clearly more detail in the 67.
If I
was shooting scenics and
Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore? You can buy new turntables,
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.
Maybe not LPs, but vinyl singles are still insanely popular amongst DJs.
S
Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore? You can buy new turntables,
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.
rg
There are lots of new LP's made. They are a bit more difficult to find
and get hold of though. Electronic music and Hardrock especially.
/Henri
From: Tom C
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:09:27 -0700
I love the purist in you, even though I do not have the time and stamina
to shoot 4 x 5.
I say that, never having done it, but a camera bag with 4-5 lenses and a
12
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Daisy wheel looks better than a good modern laser printer?
Isnt Daisy wheel limited to one size font per wheel?
Not only that, but the graphics on a daisy wheel really hoover compared
to a laser. LOL.
rg
There are a LOT of new vinyl LPs being made today, both
new music and reissues. Reason? Still the best sounding
format given the best playback equipment. Only catch is
the LPs now cost $15-$30 a piece because most are now
on thick virgin vinyl and limited editions.
JCO
-Original Message-
That wouldn't have happend if he'd been using an *ist D with it's
nuclear-blast hardened body.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sandisc CF cards are pretty tough.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:36:34 -0600
Maybe you ought to try a few color 4x5s of the bride and groom
and enlarge to about 11x14. Maybe digital is good enough.
until you see that!
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:20 PM
To: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: Re:
Hi All!
I guess the point I was making was we don't have to worry about film vanishing in the
next year or two.
For those of us who still use film it will become more of a hassle and we will have to
decide when enough is enough.
I agree that my older bodies will probably outlast my zx/mz's.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions
of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to
do 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital
is not simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint.
JCO
You
Bruce Dayton wrote:
It is ironic how often those who actually start to use a
DSRL, thinking they will use film cameras along with it, find
that they rarely use the film cameras anymore.
I find that my digital camera is used alongside my film cameras. Although I
am reducing the number of
I usually like Robb, but this one I don't agree with.
A bad shot can't be saved. A good one can poke through
mediocre processing, though.
Put a great orchestra on Louie Louie and a fair-to-middling
quartet on Pachabel's Canon in D. See which one you'd want
to listen to every day of your life.
I
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
or some other digital media. That is NOT simple
to someone with
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:37:46 -0700
--
I disagree. By the time you print an image on an offset press,
you can't distinguish between a 10 megapixel digital shot and
medium format. I wish I could show you the images Clint Clemens
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
With digital you now have the extra
I've done just that by getting a Pentax 645. I always fancied one and they're now at
an affordable price on eBay.
I'll probably use the *istD a lot too. Along with the MZ-S for projectable trannies.
Anyone got any suggestions on how to carry it all in a small bag?
Nick
-Original
The operative word is HIGH QUALITY. They were rare back then, and
they are rare today. I'm sure the selection is for the birds. Try to
find a modern label, normal LP and you're SOL.
rg
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
LPs are still being made. In fact there are more
HIGH QUALITY turntables and LPs
The difficulty with this discussion is that us serious, knowledgeable
photographers are trying to compare what the other side would do
digitally or with film.
For those that actually save their negatives, film is simpler.
However, you would be appalled at how many times I have encountered
people
Stateside you might get a visit from the FBI, wondering why you needed
these chemicals, post 9-11.
rg
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Waterson
Subject: The end of film and a dry plate renaissance
Seriously though, why not a return to plates? All those years ago,
We'll have to pay attention on the Aug 32. ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/25/2004 2:14:37 AM
G'day Peedeeemmellers,
Anyone else noticed the trend in Pentax's recent announcements? Just
pulling the days/dates off DPReview gives the last three (macro lenses,
two compacts, another two compacts) as
My brother liked the pics I got from my *istD. But he bought a
Digi-rebel. :(
He is not into the hobby at all. Brought the camera home, took it out
of the box, didn't bother to read the manual. Shot with factory
defaults! Got great pics. For every advanced consumer/hobbyist, there
are
Ah. I completely forgot about the metering aspects. I thought it was
something mechanical, like an extra flange or something.
Thanks,
rg
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Gonz
Subject: Focusing screens MX - LX
In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
Only problem is when they lose your film or scratch it or put their paws
on it in order to archive their fingerprints.
With digital you now
Gonz wrote:
Ah. I completely forgot about the metering aspects. I thought it was
something mechanical, like an extra flange or something.
Thanks,
rg
Someone had changed his screen on the MX and didn't notice any
difference in exposure. The difference between an old and a newer one is
William Robb wrote:
Be that as it may, they as often as not manage to bugger something
up, usually file size. I print a lot of 640x480 files up to 4x5 inch
prints.
Perhaps this is the default setting for the cameras, I don't know.
No it's not the default, it's the users that bugger it. Main two
--- Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many folk state the instant capture and review of
the image is the all
important feature, and being able to e-mail a
picture immediately a 'must
have' today. Even I know if I have got the shot I
want with my LX, so the
immediate review of the
I'm sure that there are plenty of Polka records still available in
vinyl. You can have my share!
frank theriault wrote:
I don't know what may be out there in,
say, country or polka or
small-french-songstresses-who-always-dressed-in-black
or anthing like that.
It is equally interesting how all the film users have an equal number
of justifications. Seems to be a rather natural thing about humans.
We all want everyone else to think our choices make sense. I don't
get the feeling from most on this list that anyone has made a bad
decision given their
In the MX focusing screens manual, it says that MX focusing screens can
be used in the LX.
In the LX focusing screens manual, it says that LX focusing screens are
exclusively for the LX.
Does that mean that LX focusing screens cannot be used on the MX, but
the converse can?
Has
http://www.cowfish.org.uk/paw/grafwall.html
A wall down the road from my house. This is pretty much as scanned - just
tweaked to make it more like the print in sharpness and contrast. Comments
always welcome.
It's a bit minimal, but i like it :)
billy
--
The secret of my infestation of
JCO posted:
NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very
important, ARCHIVING.
With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
With digital you now have the extra work of somehow
transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD
or some other digital media. ...
I hear
These guy seem to be doing it so I expect there are others...
http://www.europadisk.com/index1.htm#Anchor-7649
Gonz wrote:
Is any record company making LPs anymore? You can buy new turntables,
but it appears that all LPs are legacy copies.
rg
CRB wrote:
Comparative thoughts:
You may, if you
They would really be upset if after you wiped the card for them it wouldn't
work in their camera! Deleting just the images is usually ok, but of course
many digital cameras including mine will not work if you do not format the
card in the camera itself. For some reason I also wind up with
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
