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.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|