Regarding the OM's viewfinder... I agree that it could be a
problem for some people--especially eyeglass wearers, but the OM
viewfinder is one of the critical reasons why I haven't switched
systems. There is NOTHING like careful composition on an OM
focusing screen. It is as enticing to an artist as a new set of
brushes.
>4. I have decided to have my digital darkroom...
I just augmented my digital darkroom with a new printer. Canon
S9000. Simply amazing. However, it isn't quite there, as far as
photo-quality is concerned. It's actually TOO sharp. I was
suprised that the printer produced EXACTLY the same thing as I
saw on the monitor (once I corrected the brightness which one of
my daughters had "adjusted"). I've never had to NOT make
adjustments for the printer before.
That said, it's the SOURCE that is so important. I've got a
second-hand Nikon Coolscan II. It does ok, but 8x10 is the
maximum I can go with it unless I do some serious resampling. I
wouldn't get anything but a 4000dpi scanner with ICE or some
other dust/scratch removal.
Software? Photoshop rules. However, it's not the only game in
town. My primary editor of choice remains Macromedia's XRES.
It's so old, I'm suprised it even works on the latest versions
of windows. THE GIMP is coming on strong--and it's free! Some
of the filters aren't quite there, but others are better than
anything else I've ever used.
I'm using VUESCAN for input from the scanner and VUEPRINT for
the output. Absolutely no gripes with either software. I get
far more consistant results from VUEPRINT than from any of the
editor programs. I'm always screwing up the printer paper,
orientation, image size, etc. With VUEPRINT, it's always
straightforward and you get exactly what you wanted. Resizing
is a breaze.
>What film should I use? What I need is a film that does not
>require refrigeration,
You should be good to go with any slower speed (ISO 100-200)
color print film. As was previously mentioned by Moose, lower
contrast films work better in scanners than high contrast films.
I personally find that Kodak print films scan easier than Fuji
print films. Slide films are actually easier for me to scan
than print films. B&W films can be scanned, but the results are
far from what I like to get.
>6. I know I am going to learn it in that class, but can you
>print b&w pictures from color print and slide film?
Yes, and you can do so much more! It's easy to apply a "RED"
filter to the scene after the fact.
I maintain (and am continuing to grow) my B&W chemical darkroom.
There is little chance that digital is going to replace my
darkroom anytime soon. I may occasionally print a trouble
picture digitally, but I have an artistic freedom and initiative
in the darkroom that doesn't happen in the computer. With the
computer I apply broad strokes or fine nit-pick speck control
but you cannot get the same "feel" to the generation of the
final print. The digital darkroom is too "steril" of an
environment and doesn't take "emotions" to generate the final
print. It's very similar to a musical jam session vs a keyboard
jocky generating sequenced music. There is just something to
sticking a dodge-tool under the enlarger during the exposure.
No two prints are exactly the same, nor is digital able to
reproduce the subtle tonal differences a second can make. Even
though, I can do most anything in the computer that I can in the
darkroom, I usually don't.
Maybe you will find the same, IF you get experience in a real
darkroom and are coached by a good photographer.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|