[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Digital, digital, digital. Bah, humbug!

Subject: [OM] Re: Digital, digital, digital. Bah, humbug!
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Joel Wil... (Oops, that was close) wrote:
> There's an element of ritual in a good slide show.

I did one a few weeks ago in a classroom setting.  I've worked
so much with digital projection the past three or four years
that I forgot how "special" a slide show can be. Took me a while
to figure out which way to load the slides in the tray, though. 
There's just something special about the "acha cha" sound and
the brilliance of a slide hitting the screen after a moment of
darkness. It's retro now and retro is cool.

> I am not seeing the images on the slides on 
> > the screen, read research and experiment but still 6 or 7
> > years later cant get a good image.

It is tough. I use a older slide/film scanner, but the latest
VUESCAN software is only two days old.  Don't venture near an
older scanner without it.

> Good point.  Since film is the source, I think a lot of
> people don't think of the scanner as "digital" in the same
> way as a digicam.  You're often trying to match the look of
> the slide on the light table or the c-print from the
> photofinisher.  It really isn't quite the same as diving
> fully into digital capture.  Psychologically, you don't have
> to answer the question in your own mind as to whether film
> or digital is "better."

In the pro audio world they have had similar arguments over what
defines a "digital audio" process. Is going through an outboard
processor via a DA-AD process enough to disqualify the entire
track from being DDD?

With photography, we have AAA, ADD, ADA, DDD, DDA.

> I'm strictly a 35mm/4:3 sensor shooter.  I'm just not
> interested in MF or LF, not in the slightest. People rave
> about the quality, I could care less....
> I guess I shouldn't say I have no interest in LF.  I do sort
> of (tilt and shift -- yummy).  Someday maybe.

Don't forget the 2/3 sensor too. Compared to these small digital
formats, 35mm is BIG STUFF!  Once we get together to compare
E-1s, Joel, I'll let you shoot a picture with my 4x5.

As to the darkroom question mark and pregnancy, well, I'm a
little leary about color processing as it's a bit more toxic,
however, except for selienium toner, just about every *modern*
B&W chemical is pretty harmless. One slice of pizza probably is
more hazardous.  B&W is pretty cost effective, and sustained my
photography for three years while I was going through a similar
financial stress. During that time I shot very little color
print or chromes.


Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz