marike6: Would absolutely love a digital camera like a Nikon FM2 Digital (or FM-D) that had a split prism view finder. It makes manual focus so easy. I have a couple of AIS Nikkors ready, I have a cable release, I'm just waiting for Nikon. :-)
The other stuff like the 4x5 film holder I still have, but I purchased it after I had already been shooting digital. Few hobbies are as fun and rewarding as large format photography. The prints just look so good.
Well, that is interesting. I still have my Arca-Swiss 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 view camera with the Wide Field Caltar recommended by Ansel Adams. There are 7 "Fidelity Deluxe" holders for the film and an unopened packet purchased in 1974 (could be getting stale). The holders each take 2 sheets of film. I have the Nikor steel tank for this film as well. If there were a source of the cut film I'd resume using this equipment today. You can use a Mamya RB67 roll film back (which I also have) on the Arca but that negates one of the big advantages of cut film: individualized development. The Fidelity holders had a problem with light leaking in at the corners but I plugged all the gaps with soft rubber back in '74 and they are fine. Maybe Ferrania will start making the film - http://www.filmbodies.com/newsviews/ferrania-coming-back.html
Very familiar. Great article. But where's the "Jingle Bell" mechanical timer and that finicky stainless steel Nikor tank? How about that gurgling automatic print washer and blotter roll? Just yesterday I donated all my film equipment (Nikons, darkroom, etc) apart from medium format gear to the University. I'm 70 so it was time and I really do prefer digital. The "U" has a very active film program and were delighted to receive the bonanza (probably $15k worth of stuff going back to 1965). The department head says teaching film is still the best way to encourage respect for craftsmanship in photography even if the student then takes up digital. Tip: Kept my biggest blotter roll. It is perfect for uncurling (by reverse curling for a couple of days) sheets of inkjet paper cut from a roll. Don't give away everything ;-)
This is evidently an excellent camera from the standpoint of image quality. The problem for me is absence of an optical or electronic viewfinder. Out-of-doors your are stuck with the point-and-pray method of composition/framing or, as I call it, "zombie photography" with arms outstretched while squinting and walking slowly toward the subject. You could always purchase one of those stick-on "loupes" and I have one of these for shooting video with the D800. These work extremely well but seriously compromise what many will see as a prime attraction of this camera - compactness.
Adobe's decision may very well provide competitors with the business they need to develop their products into complete/superior alternatives. For many years I used JASC (now Corel) Paintshop and switched to CS a few years ago only because I needed support for 48 bit images. Corel then announced support for 48/16 bit and I was happy being able to go back to Paintshop a couple of years ago. For me, it is the technically superior product with a similar (but better) interface to Photoshop, accepts the same plugins and is 10% the cost. The scripting is more flexible and easier to do than Photoshop "Actions". A single license lets you install to 3 machines ... my main unit, backup and portable. I'd have to buy 2 licenses from Adobe to use Photoshop that way. I realize you can transfer a Photoshop license but it's a nuisance. Unfortunately, no Paintshop Apple version but the way Corel has ramped up support and been promoting Paintshop suggests that may come.
Klindar: This sort of problem is wide-spread in the industry. Canon has recently reported almost the same thing for a couple of its DSLRs so I doubt anyone will avoid the issue by brand hopping. Mt D800 has remained perfectly clean but my Panasonic LX5 has oil spots and - no way to get in there yourself. A colleague with an LX5 also has oil spots too. He didn't notice them in his pictures until I pointed them out. Now he is miserable.
This is the digital camera's Achilles heel. With film you get a new sensor surface with every advance. With digital stuff just accumulates.
My point is that dust/oil spots are a common problem and not just with Nikon. This is a weakness in digital photography fundamental to the technology. My Sony snapshooter has picked up a few spots as well over the years. I am by no means attempting to defend Nikon's customer relations policy which so often involves attempts at "saving face" and evasion of accountability.
This sort of problem is wide-spread in the industry. Canon has recently reported almost the same thing for a couple of its DSLRs so I doubt anyone will avoid the issue by brand hopping. Mt D800 has remained perfectly clean but my Panasonic LX5 has oil spots and - no way to get in there yourself. A colleague with an LX5 also has oil spots too. He didn't notice them in his pictures until I pointed them out. Now he is miserable.
EmmanuelStarchild: There is still one thing that would keep me from buying this as my image editor: Color gamut. Still no Adobe RGB, Photo-Pro, or LAB?
Oh and one other thing, there is no mention if it will support Canon RAW files? Hopefully someone can answer this.
Apologies if we are not talking about the same thing but if you go into PSP's "Color Management" setup under "File" you can work in any color space you have installed on your PC, including Adobe RGB and Pro. You can choose converting your image to that space or assigning it etc. I usually work in aRGB with PSP or even in the uniquely defined color space of my wide gamut monitor and no problems at all. My only complaint is that color management is not implemented as conveniently as in Photoshop. For example, to change color space you must close all open images ... a nuisance when you must do it but I seldom change my color space preference anyway.
I switched to Paintshop Pro from Photoshop (CS5) when X4 was announced and have never regretted it. I need imaging software on more than 2 machines simultaneously and the Adobe prices are insane even if you can live with just 2 machines supported per license (yes, I know about the license transfer mechanism but it's a nuisance and is limited to a small number of uses). Paintshop does everything Photoshop does at a tiny fraction the price and IMO the user interface is far better. All my plugins work perfectly and I much prefer the Scripts to Actions, in part because you can edit them as plain text. I do agree with the complaint they are slow providing RAW support but I tend to use the camera manufacturer converters anyway. Also, for faster file handling we could use a 64 bit version. It has always puzzled me why Paintshop isn't more popular given its capabilities, pricing and the way Corel has gotten serious about support but guess there's no accounting for brand loyalty :~
Hauer: Folks there are plenty of alternative programmes out there that amply do the job and cost a lot cheaper. Typical attitude when a Company gets too much market share... they become arrogant and over-confident!
For me there is an alternative to Adobe and it's Paintshop Pro X4. I have used both products for years and Adobe (CS5) exclusively for the last two because of full 48 bit image support. Paintshop now supports 48 bit images for practically everything. I find it a superior product in almost every respect. A license for three machines is under $100. Only one photographic function now does not work with 48 bit images but I found a free plug-in that does the job perfectly.
My uses are strictly photo editing/enhancement. I have a couple of other products for printing and auxilliary functions where PSP is still a bit weak. That's no issue for me at all in terms of workflow. My total icense cost for four machines is still less than 5% what it would be if I were staying with Adobe and I have all the functionality.
Far too many photogs think they *need* Photoshop when they do not, based on actual use. Much of Photoshop's popularity has to do with hype and name recognition.
Update: After a few days using X4 I am wondering if I will ever go back to Photoshop again. This is much better looking with superior information displays, easier to use and just as functional. 48 bit images are supported by practically all photo functions now. Many artistic effects are still 8 bits/channel but could care less. You will need a plug-in for clone brush which is the main photo tool still not supporting 48 bits. There are lots of good ones out there. It's a shame Corel did not try to mount a serious challenge to Adobe using this fine product as a foundation but at least now there is hope. And yes, they ought to support Apple where many photographers live. This would greatly expand their base of loyal supporters. Also dump the annoying copy protection scheme and do this the Adobe way with a serial number transfer mechanism.
Klindar: I used Paintshop for years before obtaining Photoshop and now have both. The interfaces are similar and in many important respects Paintshop is the better product with the icing on the cake being you can sometimes get a license for as little as $29 compared to the $900 Adobe soaks you for with Creative Suite. Adobes upgrades alone cost more than a whole new license for Paintshop and IMO the value is poor when you consider what Paintshop does.
I bought Photoshop when it became apparent Corel were dragging their feet in regard to Paintshop fully supporting 48 bit images and supporting only 32 bit plug-ins (these are Photoshop compatible, BTW). I would also prefer that Paintshop be a true 64 bit piece of code as that is the way the world has gone. No matter for now as Windows runs all this legacy stuff to perfection.
Bought it today and installed. Only $60 and does practically anything CS5 can do and some things CS5 can't. Looks like Corel is getting serious about competing with Adobe ... an excellent upgrade. The only important feature that still does not work with 48 bit images is the clone brush but found a free plug-in that's actually better. *ALL* my Topaz, Nik, etc. plug-ins work on 48 bit images. Agree the Adobe UI is not as good, BTW. It's tough going back to CS5 after using Paintshop again. Still not a 32 bit app but a minor criticism. Also agree Corel's copy protection can be a pain under some circumstances. That's the one area where they might want to do it the Adobe way. Corel may finally be listening to customers. 48 bit image support is an important advance. If you are on X2/X3 this is worth the small cost to upgrade.
I used Paintshop for years before obtaining Photoshop and now have both. The interfaces are similar and in many important respects Paintshop is the better product with the icing on the cake being you can sometimes get a license for as little as $29 compared to the $900 Adobe soaks you for with Creative Suite. Adobes upgrades alone cost more than a whole new license for Paintshop and IMO the value is poor when you consider what Paintshop does.