Lives in United States San Francisco Bay Area, United States
Has a website at
Joined on Mar 12, 2008


Total: 111, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I must be missing something, because I don't "get" the appeal of this. Can someone explain why people like this?

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2021 at 21:23 UTC as 13th comment | 7 replies

A literary nothingburger.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2021 at 03:54 UTC as 6th comment

Why would anyone want to shoot 110 film? Back in the day, I had a very small travel camera, the Olympus XA, which used 35mm film and produced great image quality.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2021 at 20:11 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies

Seems like the itinerary would be constrained by (1) only two weeks available, including travel between places, and (2) places that have a Days Inn for overnight stays.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2021 at 03:19 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

an_also: I've just started shooting film a month ago using my dad's old Olympus OM-1 and I absolutely love it. I love the experience of using a fully mechanical camera. And I quite enjoy not knowing what I will get with the processed roll of film. It's a beautiful mystery. It's quite the chance of pace from my main type of photography which is wildlife. (all digital with telephoto etc).

Thank you DPR for these film articles. I've enjoyed reading and learning from them.

I had an OM-1 from near the time they were released until I switched to digital in 2002. Loved that very small 35mm SLR.

I also had a tiny Olympus XA for several years until a friend I loaned it to lost it. What a great super-small travel camera, and full-size 35mm film.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2021 at 20:47 UTC
In reply to:

silverlakerCA: Is this standalone the same as what's in DxO Photolab 4 (which I was about to purchase)?

I sure don't want to buy something additional if it's in the other package.

I have (and love) DxO PhotoLab 4, so see no reason at all to get this new stripped-down version. PL4 contains everything this new version has plus so much more.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2021 at 13:52 UTC

I can't imagine wanting to artificially "animate" an old photo. What in the world for...

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2021 at 19:33 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

le_alain: Tried this one:
not that bad ! :)

I just tried it on a landscape photo of mine, and it did a better job than Photoshop upsizing (using Preserve Details - Enlargement). It's also the only non-Adobe AI enlarger I've found that accepts large images.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2021 at 03:39 UTC
In reply to:

AntonJA: Of course this assumes a couple of things such as working in the post-processing (aka darkroom) with some dodging and perhaps filtering. And, of course, the tolerances of film as a medium.

Nor much tolerance shooting Kodachrome slides.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2021 at 06:08 UTC

Long ago I had a Leica IIIf with no meter. I did have a handheld meter but mostly didn't use it. I shot a lot of Kodachrome slides using the "Sunny 16" rule and many came out exactly right.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2021 at 06:07 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Gesture: What's the print interface and engine like. This is where Lightroom and Photoshop excel for many of us who print.

I convert RAW files with DxO, and print (if I do) using Photoshop on the exported file.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 02:00 UTC

I tested DxO PhotoLab 4 (free trial) when it was released last Fall. I found DeepPRIME NR to be a significant improvement over PRIME (which was already great), so I bought the upgrade. Also, as before, its ClearView (now Clearview Plus) is the best haze reducer for landscape photos I've ever found. It also makes other adjustments very easy. I bought DxO mainly for my Sony RX-100M3, but like it so much it's now my RAW converter for my Canon T7i.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2021 at 01:57 UTC as 56th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

peripheralfocus: Not really relevant to anyone interested in shooting film today, but as a historical aside:

A fascinating experience for me was touring Kodak's Palo Alto Processing Lab in the late 1980s. It was a giant, factory-scale industrial film processing plant.

It had one of the original Kodak processing lines for Kodachrome -- only 7 or 8 were ever built. Supposedly, that original Kodachrome process required many dozens (maybe over 100?) separate steps. The line was easily 100 ft. long, as I remember it, maybe twice that. I feel privileged to have witnessed it, a vanished piece of history. I wrote a little bit about it in the film photography forum a few months back, if anyone is at all interested:

Also as an aside, the owner of the camera store that I managed swore that Kodachrome II was the finest color film ever made. Kodak killed it in the early 1970s for (I believe) environmental reasons.

The Kodachrome slides I shot back in the 1960s were essentially perfect when I had them scanned several years ago. Other types of slide film definitely deteriorated during that time.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 00:00 UTC

Love that photo booth. Including because it did a seemingly-perfect and fast job of separating "me" from the background and nearby items. I've never seen a tool made for that that did such a good job.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2021 at 01:15 UTC as 52nd comment

Does that mean that Canon first entered the SLR market in 1987? If so, they were certainly a late-comer. Nikon and Olympus had SLRs (and of course lenses for them) much earlier.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2021 at 18:59 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

I've read many of the comments here, both for and against film. As for me, I grew up shooting film and had a darkroom in the basement at home as a teenager. I had a Speed Graphic, then a Leica IIIf, then an Olympus OM-1 as soon as they were available and used it until I switched to digital in 2002. I see no reason at all to use film again, unless it's for nostalgia purposes. For those who want to, that's fine. But it won't be me.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2021 at 23:47 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply

I have a "soft spot" for Olympus because the OM-1 was my first (and only) film SLR, and was the first SLR to be small enough for me to consider buying one. I bought it soon after it was released (I think 1973) and used it until I got my first digital camera in 2002. When I finally sold it (on eBay) after not using it for quite a while, I was reminded of how small it was and also how finely made (it just "felt" like quality).

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2021 at 21:32 UTC as 107th comment
On photo Sunday Drive in the Automotive challenge (7 comments in total)

I'll guess that's a 1938 Packard convertible.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2020 at 04:26 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

mkochano: Polish black friday prices for bodies seem to reflect DPR findings:

A7 III: 6789 PLN / 1805 USD
Z6 II: 9999 PLN / 2658 USD (+47% to A7 III)
R6: 12390 PLN / 3294 USD (+24% to Z6 II).

Although I wonder if R6 is actually almost twice as good as A7 III.

>The 80-20 rule is often applied to prices as well (~ you get 80% of the goodness for 20% of the price). The additional 20% are expensive.<
That's why I stick with my Canon APS-C DSLR. I have no desire to pay the large premium for FF when APS-C does everything I need.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2020 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: This particular SLR isn't very appealing but you can pick up any of the previous Rebels for next to nothing. If you think the supply of inexpensive lenses for a Rebel is limited, get a Z50 and see how many bargain lenses are available.

I see the T7i on Amazon for the same price as the T8i.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2020 at 21:35 UTC
Total: 111, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »