Quoting swisspace <swisspace@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I switched to true OM which is okay but then I switched
> to kodachrome,
> great now I see what I have been missing. I get a
> projector, fine but
> its a pain to drag it out and then getting people around
> to share the
> images becomes an event and how do I send these to my
> friends and relatives.
There's an element of ritual in a good slide show. When
showing others your stuff, be very selective and pick your
times wisely. After a nice meal, while having coffee,
before they all get sleepy. A good quality screen is
helpful. Show too few slides rather than one too many.
Most people have forgotten the terror of Uncle Ernie's
godawful slide shows from the late '60s. You get carte
blanche now to do it your way, the right way, without
preconceptions.
> so onto next step, buy a scanner Hmm reviews on FS2700
> look good, buy it
> and find out its useless, 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's a very steep learning curve. When it was the only way
to get images to the web or through an inkjet, it was
certainly worth it. I would point someone to a digital
camera if their main interest is web images and quick
turnaround.
> I decided that it must be to go digital in some way by
> either buying a
> new scanner (but having been bitten once I am wary) or
> getting a DSLR.
> Surely a scanner is classed as digital or has the
> acceptance now grown
> so that it is not really thought of in that manner.
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."
> I do have a medium format kit, but have never used it
> much so was
> thinking of selling that kit and getting one or other of
> the above.
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 delete all MF posts
unread, mostly, and there are quite a few of them actually.
That's just me. I do think it is interesting that MF or LF
seems to be viewed as a sort of "safe haven" for folks who
are seeing the world as going to hell in a digital handcart,
as though 35mm film is now no longer really "there," whereas
Graham is showing us almost on a daily basis how great 35mm is.
I guess I shouldn't say I have no interest in LF. I do sort
of (tilt and shift -- yummy). Someday maybe.
>
> So cutting a long dilemma short, walt don't go I need all
> sides of the
> argument to make sure I take the right direction in life
> :-)
Are you sure it's a dilemma? You can't have a messy,
delicious mixture of things? It's a big bright beautiful
world out there. :)
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|