True, but slides and trannies on a light table just look better. ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Moose
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:05 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: OT - on returning to film
>
>
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
> > Well, I think it is a bit odd that convenience of viewing would be
> > cited as a reason.
> Having just looked through four boxes of slides from an old trip, I
> certainly agree. First, set up the slide sorter. At least I
> upgraded a
> while ago to a new one that hasn't yellowed and will hold a full 40
> slides at once. Then pull out individual ones to view with
> loupe on the
> small daylight light box. And then back and forth, and back
> and forth......
>
> It was really crazy making after being used to the ease of a viewers
> like Picassa, FastStone, IrfanView, etc, that allow easy browisng
> zooming, side by side comparisons, etc.
>
> And negs are worse. You can't really tell anything about them
> from the
> film and so many old commercial prints obscure more than they reveal
> about what's available in the neg. When my younger son was a kid, my
> late wife got matte finish prints to avoid fingerprints. They
> are 3.5x5
> inches with a sort of pebble finish. You can't see any detail
> in them at
> all!
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|