Yeah, sometimes their advice is dopey. I remember in an article on spot
metering, the photographer had used a mixture of strobe, available light,
and tungsten lights, then added filtration that added up to ND plus a
correction. I suspect he was guessing. (Maybe he knows more than I do?)
Sometimes their photos don't match the text very well. They've been
printing pictures backwards, then apologizing almost monthly since I started
reading it (on and off) in 1969.
They recently reviewed a very expensive printer that is intended for
pre-press checks ($2,000 I think) but they completely missed the affordable
6-color inkjets that MacWorld 'caught'. Where are the film scanner reviews?
They have cover stories on oddball stuff instead like fisheye attachments.
Pop Photo has huge "blind spots" but they did a nice job of covering the new
Canon EOS D60 and Nikon D100 digital $2,000 bodies. Bodies they understand.
Printers and scanners they don't which is really weird because, to me,
that's where the advanced amateur LIVES.
Lama
They have done a number of film scanner reviews. You might check back
issues for the past year.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|