FWIW, My two cents worth... my digital cannot replace or surpass a 35mm in a couple of areas: speed and control. For speed, I am referring to photgraphing a movng train.... when you are used to having a 3-5 fps motordrive at your disposal, you will be disappointed. As far as control, it depends on whether you can control apeture, depth of field, shutter speed, etc. from you camera. These are generally areas that digitals cannot compete. As the technology improves, so will the digital pictures. In their defense, I have pics that I have taken with my digital camera and printed on an old printer (2 yrs +) that folks swear must be "film" photograpghs. Harold
It's really a matter of horses for courses. I have both film and digital, and though digital has been the medium of choice in the last 6 months, I'm not going to forego my 35mm Pentax for a digital only existance. As most have stated at some point, speed and flexibility is simply not there with digitals within reach of the average person. If I need to get a quick-fire set of images, the 35mm does the work. If I'm doing a set piece where I can set up the scene, or I need a photo to get across a point via the net, then the digital wins hands down. No flaming or anything here... just some serious, and not so serious, banter about pros and cons. Ed, I have a couple of shots of the shop area alone in the same size. I add them to my site so everyone can have a look. JLS, when you're talking slide film, you are talking away and beyond traditional film or digital.It's amazing what it does with detail. That's why it is the choice for cover shots on magazines. Paul, I reckon I could get away with doing a long exposure shot like yours with the Nikon. Have you seen the digital shots I have of Sydney during the Olympics and 2001 NYE fireworks? Gary.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Most of my photographs that I scan in are 8" by 6" and the rest are 7" by 5", I wouldn't go any lower than these sizes to scan in. I set my scanner to 600dpi (dots per inch) then scan the photo into either Adobe Photoshop or Paint shop Pro. Once the photo is in the computer the size of it is huge, about 17mb big. Too big to upload anywhere, but the quality is very good. Now, I save that first to my HD. As a bitmap, not jpeg. So I always have the original scan. Next I reduce the image size in Paint shop Pro In resize I use percentage of Original and put that to 30% I tick resize all layers and tick maintain aspect ratio, then press OK. Then next job is to go to image- noise- and despeckle. Once this has been accomplished, I turn my attention to the image sharpness and brightness/contrast sections. When these are correct, I use Gamma correction, this moves RED GREEN & BLUE all together. What in effect you are doing is altering brightness in a way, but keeping the colours together. When I think the photograph is okay, I save it as a jpeg ready to upload to my website. So now I have gone from a 17meg photo to one which is around 150 KB mark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You will find that the industry standard for scans and for digital is the tiff format, not the bmp. If you stay with that format you will be much better off when and if you need to sell your pictures. Most professional shop will only accept the tiff. For your information even a mid-range Nikon like the 950 digital will shoot a tiff that is about 8 megs in size, and the picture will be so sharp that you can see the grain in metal. The Nikon 950 can be purchased from Nikon on the web for under $500. Once you move to digital you will use your scanner for a paperweight. Art
I have had good luck scanning 35mm pics and the results are usually pretty good. The one problem that I do have is if I try to scan glossy style photos (although 90% of my pics are matte finish, my personal preference). When I scan these I get images that appear faded and sometimes, the scanner itself has trouble scanning them and gives an error message. Anyone else encounter this problem or know a better way to scan glossy pics? I have a lot of old glossy photos that I would like to preserve digitally. Russ/NYC The Hoffman Valley RR NARA member#28
As a personal observation, I've found glossy prints will give a better result than matt when scanned. The matt prints tend to be a little blurry and require sharpening within the manipulation program. Gary.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Templar: Hi Gary, No I didn't see the shots, can you post some? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, Paul, I missed your post. head to http://www.pnc.com.au/~audiosat/photos/digital/ Gary.
