Sunsets

Phil Cook said:

There's always landscape format. Image on one page and text on the
facing one.

Yep.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Printers are useful for proofing,

Quoted message said:

I'd need a better printer, I think. Also, when I'm sending fifteen
trail shoe images to TGO, for example, I don't want to print out each
one.

Firstly you wouldn't have to. If they're all very similar (I mean
similar brightness, contrast & colour) you'd only have to print one as a
test. Or you could combine the whole lot into one image and print a
page of thumbnails.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That may well be the case. Most people may not require the full
quality advantages that RAW files offer.

I suspect most people don't know what these advantages are.

All the more reason for a book explaining them then.

Quoted message said:

Most people are novices with digital post processing.

All the more reason...

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

I really don't see why not, even the basic Canon software does a
perfectly good job of converting the RAW images using the settings
set in the camera.

Quoted message said:

In that case why not just use JPEGs though?

To preserve the originals at top quality.

Quoted message said:

I would guess that many photographers ruin their images during post
processing.

Maybe, but a simple RAW conversion needn't involve any post processing.

Quoted message said:

In my experience unprocessed JPEGs and TIFFs from Raw files can look
flat compared with an in camera JPEG.

I don't know if you noticed a recent post of mine, but a couple of days
ago I tried converting an image from RAW using the Canon software and
the result was good, colourful, contrasty, but when I loaded the same
RAW file into Photoshop the result was flat. Clearly the RAW converters
use different default settings, perhaps yours does too.

Images saved in the AdobeRGB colour space should look flat anyway, since
it has a much wider gamut than sRGB. It's actually an advantage for
post-processing.

Quoted message said:

One result of this thread is that I'm going to shoot some more
identical JPEGs and RAW files and compare them.

Compare them with the Canon RAW converter too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay, I'll accept that, with certain qualifications. But I can't
accept that a jpeg is better than a RAW file.

He's not claiming it is, just that JPEG files can be very good and
better than badly processed RAW files so if you're not going to bother
learning how to use RAW properly you'll be better off with JPEGs and
will get better results.

I still have a problem seeing the words "better" and "jpeg" used in the
same sentence, but I see what you're getting at.

Quoted message said:

My guess is he's seen an awful lot of poor images from RAW files and
this piece is in part a hint to people to either learn how to use RAW
properly or else stick to JPEGs.

Fair enough.

Quoted message said:

I've never spent an hour processing a shot.

You might with some advanced techniques, until you get used to them.

Quoted message said:

15 minutes maybe. Most
take a few minutes. Some take no time at all. I guess if I wanted to
do the work you did with that shot of the beach it would take a lot
longer but I wouldn't keep such a shot, except as an example.

Well I quite like it, but it's not an arty or dramatic shot, just a shot
of a local landmark, a postcard type shot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To be honest, I'm not totally happy. But I'm making do with it for
now. I'd like at least 10-12MP, and once that becomes affordable in a
lightweight DSLR, I wouldn't use anything less.

I can't see anything wrong with the results from my 300D so I'm happy
with it.

There's nothing wrong with it, but I'd like a higher resolution. I've
made good quality 18x12 prints from it, but when you look really
closely, they're not pin sharp, not like a 1Ds print.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't do any post processing then you may as well convert
straight to the 8 bits. If and when you do start doing any post
processing, be sure to do it in 16 bits, then convert to 8 bit later.

I'll need Photoshop for that.

Here's a useful tip if an when you do get it. Even if you start off
with an 8 bit image, convert it to 16 bit before you start, you'll get
better end results. Not as good as if you started with a true 16 bit
image, but better than doing all your processing in 8 bit.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Photographers whose books are picture books rather than word
>>> books - Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Gordon Stainforth - do often
>>> have the final say as to how their images appear.

And the format? Square format for example?

I haven't seen any of these in square format. Rowell's Mountain Light
and Stainforth's The Cuillin are fairly typical formats.

Ever seen any of Charlie Waite's books? Many of his are in square
format.
http://www.charliewaite.com/books.htm

I've got one of his, but it's not square. I see George Phillips publish
a whole series of his square format books. As he takes 6x6 photos it
makes sense.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark South said:

Quoted message said:

Slides can degrade though, develop fungus problems, can be lost,
burnt in a fire etc,

Yes. All of these can also happen to CDs/DVDs as well.

But duplicates can be stored in different places, so the chances of
losing your entire collection to a fire are far less.

It's admittedly easier and cheaper to store duplicates, but that's what
archivists have been doing with paper copies as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

unlike digital which can have multiple perfect copies
made which will never degrade

Not so. There is a lot of research worth looking at on the lifetime
of various physical disc formats.

No, I wasn't referring to the lifetime of the media it's stored on, I
meant the image itself. Every digital copy is identical to the
original, whereas analogue copies aren't. Technological considerations
aside, a digital image taken today could be perfectly preserved for the
next 1000 years, or 10,000 years, or a million years or whatever.

The copy is identical to the original only if it's made when the original is
undegraded.

If you wait a few years the cosmic rays will degrade the image on your CD by
randomly changing a few bits and any copy you make will have those bits
different from the way the original USED to be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are new problems with storing digital. We don't have enough
experience yet to know how serious they are.

True.

Quoted message said:

But there isn't any
format that has the stable 300 year life of an archival quality B&W
print or the 100 year life of a carefully made Cibachrome/Ilfochrome
print.

True, but what happens to those when they fade? I think we need to
detach our ideas about longevity from the media to the digital data
itself, that can potentially last forever, but the new issue is regular
transfers of digital data from one media to another.

There are well-established procedures for measuring the fade on archived prints
and then making copies when they are needed. The point is merely that protocols
like that are (a) completely opaque to the average digital user, (b) difficult
to work out correctly from scratch, and (c) potentially require huge effort to
implement over even a half-lifetime.

I and Chris and Mike would really like you to acknowledge these difficulties and
use your energy to work out how best to deal with them, rather than just saying
that it's OK because digital solves everything. It doesn't.

Anyway, much as I'm enjoying this, and much as it's OT as ever, I'm going to do
what has come to be know as a Paul Saunders and disappear for the next week.

In my absence you may refer to me as The Lately Departed One :-)
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Printers are useful for proofing,

Quoted message said:

I'd need a better printer, I think. Also, when I'm sending fifteen
trail shoe images to TGO, for example, I don't want to print out each
one.

Firstly you wouldn't have to. If they're all very similar (I mean
similar brightness, contrast & colour) you'd only have to print one as a
test. Or you could combine the whole lot into one image and print a
page of thumbnails.

I usually send a page of thumbnails to editors so they can see at a
glance what's on the CD.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That may well be the case. Most people may not require the full
quality advantages that RAW files offer.

I suspect most people don't know what these advantages are.

All the more reason for a book explaining them then.

Quoted message said:

Most people are novices with digital post processing.

All the more reason...

Indeed. The digital books I've looked at seem to be mostly about
choosing equipment and taking pictures (and much of the latter would
apply equally to a film camera). A technical and inspirational book on
RAW and post processing would be valuable.

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

I really don't see why not, even the basic Canon software does a
perfectly good job of converting the RAW images using the settings
set in the camera.

Quoted message said:

In that case why not just use JPEGs though?

To preserve the originals at top quality.

I guess that's worth doing for images that might be of use in the future
at a higher quality. (And just in case I'm keeping original RAW files -
probably too many of them).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would guess that many photographers ruin their images during post
processing.

Maybe, but a simple RAW conversion needn't involve any post processing.

Again, something that needs pointing out. I've read several times in
photo magazines that the only point of using RAW is for post processing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my experience unprocessed JPEGs and TIFFs from Raw files can look
flat compared with an in camera JPEG.

I don't know if you noticed a recent post of mine, but a couple of days
ago I tried converting an image from RAW using the Canon software and
the result was good, colourful, contrasty, but when I loaded the same
RAW file into Photoshop the result was flat. Clearly the RAW converters
use different default settings, perhaps yours does too.

Images saved in the AdobeRGB colour space should look flat anyway, since
it has a much wider gamut than sRGB. It's actually an advantage for
post-processing.

Quoted message said:

One result of this thread is that I'm going to shoot some more
identical JPEGs and RAW files and compare them.

Compare them with the Canon RAW converter too.

I will.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Okay, I'll accept that, with certain qualifications. But I can't
accept that a jpeg is better than a RAW file.

He's not claiming it is, just that JPEG files can be very good and
better than badly processed RAW files so if you're not going to bother
learning how to use RAW properly you'll be better off with JPEGs and
will get better results.

I still have a problem seeing the words "better" and "jpeg" used in the
same sentence, but I see what you're getting at.

It's relative. It's like saying auto settings are better than manual for
someone who doesn't know about exposure because they are likely to get
more good results.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My guess is he's seen an awful lot of poor images from RAW files and
this piece is in part a hint to people to either learn how to use RAW
properly or else stick to JPEGs.

Fair enough.

Quoted message said:

I've never spent an hour processing a shot.

You might with some advanced techniques, until you get used to them.

Quoted message said:

15 minutes maybe. Most
take a few minutes. Some take no time at all. I guess if I wanted to
do the work you did with that shot of the beach it would take a lot
longer but I wouldn't keep such a shot, except as an example.

Well I quite like it, but it's not an arty or dramatic shot, just a shot
of a local landmark, a postcard type shot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To be honest, I'm not totally happy. But I'm making do with it for
now. I'd like at least 10-12MP, and once that becomes affordable in a
lightweight DSLR, I wouldn't use anything less.

I can't see anything wrong with the results from my 300D so I'm happy
with it.

There's nothing wrong with it, but I'd like a higher resolution. I've
made good quality 18x12 prints from it, but when you look really
closely, they're not pin sharp, not like a 1Ds print.

I haven't had any 18x12 prints made yet. I rarely have prints made at
all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't do any post processing then you may as well convert
straight to the 8 bits. If and when you do start doing any post
processing, be sure to do it in 16 bits, then convert to 8 bit later.

I'll need Photoshop for that.

Here's a useful tip if an when you do get it. Even if you start off
with an 8 bit image, convert it to 16 bit before you start, you'll get
better end results. Not as good as if you started with a true 16 bit
image, but better than doing all your processing in 8 bit.

Thanks. In Capture One it's easy to set it for 16 bit output.

Chris

Mark South said:

The copy is identical to the original only if it's made when the
original is undegraded.

Well that's obviously the whole idea.

Quoted message said:

I and Chris and Mike would really like you to acknowledge these
difficulties

Eh? When have I not acknowledged them? I've never said this wasn't a
problem, merely that I consider it to be less of a hassle than the
previous hassle of using film. And I don't think it's as much of a
hassle as some are suggesting.

Quoted message said:

and use your energy to work out how best to deal with
them,

I am dealing with with, triple hard disk backups, one on a removable
drive, archiving onto CD.

Quoted message said:

rather than just saying that it's OK because digital solves
everything. It doesn't.

I never said digital solves everything, I just said it was better than
film. The advantages of digital are better than the advantages of film
IMO, and the disadvantages of digital aren't as bad as the disadvantages
of film IMO.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, much as I'm enjoying this, and much as it's OT as ever, I'm
going to do what has come to be know as a Paul Saunders and disappear
for the next week.

Enjoy yourself.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

| The copy is identical to the original only if it's made when the original
is
| undegraded.
|
| If you wait a few years the cosmic rays will degrade the image on your CD
by
| randomly changing a few bits and any copy you make will have those bits
| different from the way the original USED to be.

Hey Paul, I'd never thought of that one before, how do you get past a
problem like this? Is this just a rare possibility, or something which
needs to be planned for?

<snip>

| Mark South

Ste

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Michael S said:

Quoted message said:

Are you sure about that? I've got 5800 digital photographs stored on
less than a quarter of a 120 gig hard drive. Now what did that cost
me? Not much more than £100 I don't think. And how much would 290
slide sleeves cost?

I'll tell you:

To store 5800 slides would take me 11.6 packs of 25 slide sleeves
(each sleeve storing 20 slides). The packs cost me £4.95. That
equates to £57.42. Which is approximately half the price of "not much
more than £100".

Thanks for that.

Quoted message said:

And slide sleeves don't crash, or become corrupted, or degrade in a
few years...

Slides can degrade though, develop fungus problems, can be lost, burnt
in a fire etc, unlike digital which can have multiple perfect copies
made which will never degrade and different copies can be stored in
different places.

This is not going to start turning into another compass vs. GPS type
debate is it? We know there are problems with storing digital images
but that doesn't mean there aren't problems with storing film images
too.

Paul

I hope not - the film vs digital debate is very dull (as is the
compass vs GPS debate), and has been discussed at great length all
over the internet for yonks (as has the compass vs GPS debate). I
shoot both film (Canon EOS and Leica 35mm and Mamiya medium format)
and digital (EOS 300D) - I think I'm on about 5000 shots from the EOS
300D in around 10 months, so not a massive amount of shooting with it,
though more than I've taken with film in that time. I like both film
and digital (for different reasons) - I have no plans to ditch film at
all, and it is still my preferred medium for the most important shots.

Michael S

Mike Clark said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders

URL: said:

Chris Townsend wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, yes I know all that. But as my collection of digital images
grows I can see an ever increasing problem in keeping enough backups
to allow for failures, checking that these backups are okay and
transferring all these backups to new media.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not necessarily an ever increasing problem, it may well decrease.
Once upon a time we all used floppy disks for backup and the though of
having to use hundreds of floppies to back something up was
horrendous. Then CDs came along, and now DVDs.

Quoted message said:

Yes but you've highlighted the problem. The formats are still changing
rapidly and you need to convert from one to another as you go. If you
fail to copy from one format at any point you may lose that data
forever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How much bigger will hard drives get in the next few years? There's
no sign of the storage capacity increase slowing down. What new
backup technologies will be invented to make DVDs seem tiny? I'm
optimistic that large digital image collections will be much easier to
store and archive in the future.

Quoted message said:

Yes but that doesn't mean you won't have to convert every few years.

Every few years is a bit of an exaggeration. And if you're already a
computer user for other purposes you'll be doing it anyway for your
other files.

I've got one document that started life over 30 years ago as a large
roll of punched paper tape. It has since migrated from that to
Sinclair QL random access tape thingies, from there to 3 inch
floppies, then to a large hard disc, and its current temporary resting
place is on a compact flash card. During all those migrations over 30
years it changed format only 4 times.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Mike Clark said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<URL:[email hidden]> wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

Look at text file storage for example. How much text could you fit on
a floppy disk? Now how much text could you fit on a 250 gig hard
drive? Far more than you could fill in a lifetime's work. Just wait
until we have 250 terabyte hard drives. We'll probably be able to fit
a lifetime's worth of digital images onto one drive. For #100. So
buy three.

It can only get cheaper and easier in the future.

Quoted message said:

You've obviously not come across Microsoft Word then ;-)

Quoted message said:

As my hard disk space has increased in size so has the size of the
bl**dy text files that people keep sending me in word format!

Some folk are astounded at how very much smaller their Word files
become when they translate them to some alternative
representation. Then they translate them back and discover that they
become huge again, with no loss of information. They're baffled.

I'm not :-)

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Mark South said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I wasn't referring to the lifetime of the media it's stored on, I
meant the image itself. Every digital copy is identical to the
original, whereas analogue copies aren't. Technological considerations
aside, a digital image taken today could be perfectly preserved for the
next 1000 years, or 10,000 years, or a million years or whatever.

Quoted message said:

The copy is identical to the original only if it's made when the original is
undegraded.

Quoted message said:

If you wait a few years the cosmic rays will degrade the image on your CD by
randomly changing a few bits and any copy you make will have those bits
different from the way the original USED to be.

Which doesn't matter a damn provided that it's within the scope of the
error correction built in to the record format, or, if there isn't
one, then of course you will have a few copies of the image from which
a perfect original can be reconstructed with the aid of the error
detection built in to the record format.

When considering backup procedures, media lifetime, and
corruptibility, whether or not there is error correction in the
format, and how much (single bit, double bit, etc.) is something you
really need to know.

Of course you could trust the professionals to have got it right.

Like Microsoft. <falls to floor hysterical with laughter>
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's amazing how quickly digital suddenly became accepted by
most of us, the industry certainly is being shook up :-)

This is a very good point Mark. A year or two ago many people were
insisting that digital wasn't as good as and/or would never replace film
and now we're arguing about jpegs from digital cameras being good enough
for professional reproduction! Good greif! I never thought I'd see the
day that publishers would even accept jpegs, let alone prefer them to
RAW files!

Crazy world we live in!

During my Uni-years to become an art-teacher, 20 years ago, some basic
computer knowledge was part of our education. The teacher told us you could
be very creative with a computer. Of course we didn't agree. Pencil, ink,
paint, paper, etc., that's what you needed to be creative. We were very
*oldfashioned* in those days. I wish I'd believed him, I would be more
streetwise with the computer nowadays. :-(

Theo

ste said:

"Mark South" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

| The copy is identical to the original only if it's made when the original
is
| undegraded.
|
| If you wait a few years the cosmic rays will degrade the image on your CD
by
| randomly changing a few bits and any copy you make will have those bits
| different from the way the original USED to be.

Quoted message said:

Hey Paul, I'd never thought of that one before, how do you get past a
problem like this? Is this just a rare possibility, or something which
needs to be planned for?

It needs to be planned for. The subject was very extensively
researched and excellent solutions devised many decades ago. The
necessary planning *ought* to be incorporated in the automatic error
correction and detection facilities built in to every record format on
every storage medium. Including plain old computer memory, because
that is very susceptible to having bits knocked off by plain old
background radiation, never mind cosmic rays.

Every computer science student today *ought* to be taught all about
this.

But even final year CS students still come whining along on homework
hand-in days saying "The dog ate my floppy" :-(

One of the big problems is that the totally absurd unreliability and
insecurity of Micros**t software so dominates people's perception of
computer and file unreliability these days that these very important
problems of digital data corruption and recovery are totally
overshadowed and ignored by most people.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders

URL: said:

Mike Clark said:

Quoted message said:

Look at text file storage for example. How much text could you fit
on a floppy disk? Now how much text could you fit on a 250 gig hard
drive? Far more than you could fill in a lifetime's work.

Quoted message said:

You've obviously not come across Microsoft Word then ;-)

I know all about Microsoft and their unnecessary bloat marketing
strategies!

Quoted message said:

As my hard disk space has increased in size so has the size of the
bl**dy text files that people keep sending me in word format!

They're not text files. :-)

Exactly! But there's no reason why they shouldn't be for many of the
files I receive.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // || ,_ o Mike Clark, "An antibody engineer who also
<\__,\\ // __o || / /\, likes the mountains"
"> || _`\<,_ // \\ \> | Cambridge Climbing and Caving Club
` || (_)/ (_) // \\ \_ <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/cccc/>

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<URL:[email hidden]> wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

No, I wasn't referring to the lifetime of the media it's stored on, I
meant the image itself. Every digital copy is identical to the
original, whereas analogue copies aren't. Technological considerations
aside, a digital image taken today could be perfectly preserved for the
next 1000 years, or 10,000 years, or a million years or whatever.

Every copy isn't necessarily identical. There may be degradation of the
data. Do you check the integrity of the data each time you replicate it?
One of the problems of backing up digital data is that if you don't have
a way to check the integrity at each step you can simply end up
replicating garbage. For example what if a virus got onto your machine
that randomly changed bits in image files it found on your disk. How
long could it persist before you noticed? If it only changed files
occasionally and a few at a time you might steadily accumulate backups
all of which were backups of corrupted data.

I've also come across backups that would only verify properly in the one
drive that was used to make them. When that drive died and was replaced
the backups stopped being readable.

Quoted message said:

Every digital copy is identical to the original, whereas analogue
copies aren't. Technological considerations aside, a digital image
taken today could be perfectly preserved for the next 1000 years, or
10,000 years, or a million years or whatever.

That also raises another problem. If it is possible to store data that
long then gradually over time you accumulate more and more data all of
which needs storing. This causes two problems. Firstly the amount of
storage space required, secondly having a way to search through all the
data to find only the information you are after.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are new problems with storing digital. We don't have enough
experience yet to know how serious they are.

True.

Quoted message said:

But there isn't any
format that has the stable 300 year life of an archival quality B&W
print or the 100 year life of a carefully made Cibachrome/Ilfochrome
print.

True, but what happens to those when they fade? I think we need to
detach our ideas about longevity from the media to the digital data
itself, that can potentially last forever, but the new issue is regular
transfers of digital data from one media to another.

But if you try to preserve all the digital data in the world forever it
becomes an ever increasing problem. If you don't try to preserve it all
then you have to have a mechanism to decide what to keep and what to
lose.

Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders

URL: said:

Mike Clark said:

For a while I toyed with the idea of editing the digital images into a
smaller collection deserving of printing. However in view of the
amount of time involved in the end I opted to get the entire
collection printed and we will sort them out at the same time as the
prints from the 35mm collection.

To be honest I'm never been much of a fan of prints or photo albums.
Small prints do little for me and they take up a lot of space. I much
prefer viewing on computer. A digital slide show is ideal, especially
with the newer larger LCD models becoming available. A 23" widescreen
monitor at a resolution of 1920x1200 would be very impressive medium on
which to view photos.

Well at present I have the album with a selection of the prints. These
might be selected for not just artistic reasons but also because they
are a record of an event, eg a record of an ascent of a mountain, or a
ski-tour, or a walk or rock climb. I also have the images on computer so
that I can run through them there as well as edit them into web pages
and electronic shows.

Quoted message said:

As for prints, I prefer only to print my very best shots, at least A4
in size.

Yes a selected few are blown up, mounted and framed.

In addition we have a large collection of 35mm slides which we project.
I'm still waiting for digital projectors to rival the quality of my
Leica projector and at a reasonable price.

Mike Clark, <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In message <[email hidden]>, Mike Clark
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In addition we have a large collection of 35mm slides which we project.
I'm still waiting for digital projectors to rival the quality of my
Leica projector and at a reasonable price.

I'm waiting too. I gave a slide show and talk at the weekend. Nothing
beats a slide projected onto a big screen.

Thought I'd just add:

A couple of months ago my father asked me to scan some slides he shot
when my family lived in East Africa. The usual wildlife shots, all
very nice, including one shot of a giraffe that won an international
competition.

The point is, these photos were taken in 1965. Almost 40 years ago.

And they were in *pristine* condition. Colour looked good, and to my
eye they showed no signs of having faded or anything - nice and
bright, with saturated colours. I asked my father to comment on the
colour of unaltered scans (by that I mean that the scans matched the
colour of the slide) and he said they looked like they always did.

I don't say this to prove that film is better than digital or
anything, I just thought it was worth mentioning.

Michael S

P.S. Apparently the slides had been stored in a cardboard box in the
attic for the last 15+ years!