Re: aquarium photography ... getting WAY off topic. :)

[Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>]

As a magazine publisher/hobbyist/speaker/computer professional/photography
semi-pro, I guess I should say something. 

First, I am astounded at the lack of scanning facilities available on a
service bureau/rental basis.

At 12:43 AM 5/3/2000 -0700, Erik asked:
> I wonder if there are places online where
>you could send the file and get slides mailed to you for a few bucks each?

There should be, but I don't think there is.   Maybe Fox Photo, their
prints are almost OK.  They over process (too much sharpening for example).

>> You've mentioned scanning both slides and, here, print negatives. In my
part
>> of the world, those types of scanners run far and above the cost of
>> reasonably sharp flat beds and the like. Can you dwell a little on what
>> you're using here? 
>HP Photosmart.  www.photosmart.com was the site.  Picked it up from a tip
>from Richard Sexton, I think.  They retailed around $400 when I bought
>mine in late 1998, but also had a $100 rebate.  There's a newer version; I
>don't know if the price is still $400. 

This is still around (S-20).  The price is more like $500 now.    But it
seems like far and away the best deal.

> At $1 per scan for photo-CD's (my
>previous way of digitizing slides),

Photo CD is not acceptable if you have a lot of plants in the picture.
That is what went wrong with the pics in the premier issue of Planted
Aquaria Magazine.

>Not exactly sure what the point is above...  Is it that one should
>go 100% digital, or 100% analog?  The former case just isn't affordable
>for me yet.

This is a cinch.  A top digital camera is still in the five figure range
and doesn't have the range of capabilities of a top SLR at one fifth the
price.  The top film speed is around ASA1600, and the top resolution is in
the 8-25Mpixel range.  This may only matter if you are looking to make a
poster, tho.

>  The latter isn't practical for what I want to do, which is a
>combination of web, 100% xerox-ready printed artwork, and occasional
>pro publication photos (like 1 so far).  As you say, why bother to tweak
>the analog photo via printing and then scan it?

The best I have come up with is a good digital and a good SLR and a good
4.5x6cm.   Then I pick the camera depending on the intended use of the
image.  

>I go right from the negative or slide, clean up the photo (dodge, burn,
>retouch, color correct, etc) on computer, thengo to web or
>publication (directly into the document).  

This is where I want to go.

>Maybe print on a good
>photo-quality color printer (though that's mostly just for family).  I
>don't have a darkroom (haven't for about 11 years), and don't really want
>to invest the time & money in it; certainly don't want to do color
>printing again!  To me, working off high-resolution neg/slide scans is a
>dream come true, something I'd waited 11 years for.  What I am keeping my
>eye on now are services that will take high-res digital images and render
>them on high quality photo-type paper.  Then the circle will be complete;
>I can put some of our retouched apisto pictures on the walls of our
>fishroom.

You might want to look into Fox Photo larger size prints.   I don't know if
they are any good, but the 4x6" could be fine if they would learn to keep
their hands of the sharpen knob.


--
Dave Gomberg, San Francisco            mailto:gomberg@wcf.com
Jobe's Fern and Palm Spikes FREE        http://www.wcf.com/pam

-----------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!