«

On Dec 24, 2:05*am, Winniethep...@100acrewoods.org (GMAN) wrote:

> >An expensive one. *One license per scanner model, not transferable (IIRC).
>
> Even though VueScan is a decent piece of software, Silverfast is lightyears
> ahead in features. If your gonna do it right , its worth the price!!!

I've used both and I can say that is not correct.
Vuescan if anything is the one that provides better control.

On Dec 24, 3:16*pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Yes. Mine still works well, but I don't use it very much anymore. I have
> scanned all of my important slides, and I am taking fewer all the time,
> since I bought a D700. I wonder how long it will be before I tire of taking
> digital pictures in the dark, at high ISO's and go back to real
> photography....:^)

Hehehe! Get a m43 system and start enjoying it all over again!
90% of my digital shooting now is with an E-PL1. It's that good, and
heaps of fun.
The RAW converter from Oly is a POS, though. I've found Phase One
Express 6 to be heaps better.
I'm now a NX2 and Phase One convert, for Nikon and Oly digital.
But film is still my most used gear. That Mamiya 645 is awesome and a
Konica Hexar RF just joined the RF stable - and is amazing!

"Bill Graham" <> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> Konica Minolta scanners are good when they work, but since the
>> takeover of K-M's (D)SLR division by Sony, the availability of spare
>> parts has varied from poor to non-existent. So buying a used one is a
>> bit of a leap in the dark. However, if you already have one, and it
>> is still working, it is definitely worth keeping.
>
>Yes. Mine still works well, but I don't use it very much anymore. I have
>scanned all of my important slides, and I am taking fewer all the time,
>since I bought a D700. I wonder how long it will be before I tire of taking
>digital pictures in the dark, at high ISO's and go back to real
>photography....:^)


I know exactly what you mean. I gave away my D700 when I sold my
wedding photography business earlier this year - much of my equipment
went with it. Initially, I was lost without the D700 and I soon
replaced it with a well worn D3 which has the same sensor.

Recently I bid for a contract for a theatre management group. My
submission included a portfolio of images taken at several of the
theatres that the group manages, all of them taken with the D3 using
only available light.

They asked me to attend an interview this week to clarify my bid, but
the only questions they asked concerned how I managed to obtain such
noise-free images without using flash. I replied that I used only
equipment that was best suited to the job - Nikon DSLR cameras and no
lens slower than f/2.8. I came away with a three-year contract that I
probably could not have won with any other brand of equipment.

I think the Nikon D3 and D700 have redefined the term "real
photography" and there is nothing older that I want to go back to. I
certainly would not give up ultra-low noise Nikon DSLRs for anything
else that is currently available.

In article <>, Alan Browne <> wrote:
>On 10-12-23 10:05 , GMAN wrote:
>
>> Even though VueScan is a decent piece of software, Silverfast is lightyears
>> ahead in features. If your gonna do it right , its worth the price!!!
>
>If you know what you're doing you don't need expensive crutches.
>
No, but you do need a software that fully supports the features of ones
scanner.

Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 25/12/2010 5:42 PM:

>
> Yes. The convenience of no film, and changing ISO's from shot to shot is hard to
> beat. Now, all we have to do is wait for denser sensing planes. I see no reason
> why they won't be building them at a molecular level within the next 10 years or
> so. They should keep up with the storage chips, you'd think.

You lost me there. "denser sensing planes"?
Deeper colours?

Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 25/12/2010 5:36 PM:

>> I'm now a NX2 and Phase One convert, for Nikon and Oly digital.
>> But film is still my most used gear. That Mamiya 645 is awesome and a
>> Konica Hexar RF just joined the RF stable - and is amazing!
>
> My son-in-Law, Charles Cole, used to take some awesome portraits with a Mamiya
> 645. Now, He is into carving pipes, and just uses his camera for photographing
> his pipes. He's got a website if you are into smoking pipes.....

Not into smoking, but I do wood carving.
Let me know the url - addie in header is true.

On 12/25/2010 1:36 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

>
> My son-in-Law, Charles Cole, used to take some awesome portraits with a
> Mamiya 645. Now, He is into carving pipes, and just uses his camera for
> photographing his pipes. He's got a website if you are into smoking
> pipes.....


It's a nice website whether or not one smokes pipes. <G>



--
Peter

On 12/25/2010 3:03 AM Noons spake thus:

> Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 25/12/2010 5:42 PM:
>
>> Yes. The convenience of no film, and changing ISO's from shot to
>> shot is hard to beat. Now, all we have to do is wait for denser
>> sensing planes. I see no reason why they won't be building them at
>> a molecular level within the next 10 years or so. They should keep
>> up with the storage chips, you'd think.
>
> You lost me there. "denser sensing planes"?
> Deeper colours?

No, smaller elements = higher resolution.

Shows Bill's childlike belief that "they" can always make things
smaller, better, faster without limit.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 26/12/2010 12:55 PM:

>>>
>>> I am not into smoking anything, but I must complement him on some
>>> fine work.
>>> ...and his pipes don't look bad either.
>>> < http://www.colepipes.com/ >
>>>
>>>
>> I smoked pipes (a pound of tobacco every week or two) for several
>> years, but quit 37 years ago when I had a rather scary-feeling
>> feeling in my throat. The ENT said it had nothing to do with smoking
>> pipes but nevertheleass I quit immediately and permanently. If I
>> still smoked I would like some of those pipes. Nice work.
>> Allen
>
> Yes. I was a cigarette smoker, but in either case, you are a "tobaccohaulic". I
> quit in 1983, but I know that one cigarette and I would be back on a pack and a
> half a day within two weeks. There are just some things that one can only learn
> the hard way, and that's one of them.

Nice stuff! Stopped smoking 9 years ago, but if I ever went back it'd be with
a pipe: totally different experience.

David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 26/12/2010 9:28 AM:

>
> No, smaller elements = higher resolution.
>
> Shows Bill's childlike belief that "they" can always make things smaller,
> better, faster without limit.
>
>

Except for light waves, no doubt?