[pure-silver] Re: Thinking of moving back to film
- From: Edgar <edgardefelipedelgado@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:51:40 +0100
Hi,
for the Raw files under Gimp, please check UfRaw. It can open any raw
file from any camera from compact to digital backs. A good linux
version, a simple mint+gimp+UfRaw+VueScan and get ride of Mac Osx,
Windows, Adobe etc.
Salud!
Edgar.
On 26/06/13 23:56, "Grif" w. keith griffith wrote:
GIMP keeps improving, it'll do most of what I need. I agree on the
customer disservice culture, and even where I work we're being pushed
into the format of "customer satisfaction is not about their
expectations or needs, but about how well we level set them". Sucks,
not my style.... getting old and to tired to fight.
The manual Pentax 645 is a bit dim, but works ok. The auto exposure
is better than I can do with my Nikon Ftn and/or a spot meter...
On 06/26/2013 02:50 PM, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
At some point people will figure out that it might not be a bad idea
to improve GIMP or IRFanview or any of the others, and get them to
read raw files, and a few features Id consider must My biggest gripe
with Adobe is they won't take my call without expecting a credit
card. No I don't expect them to rebuild my hard drive or solve
system problems. I wouldn't expect them to pay for a call by
providing an 800 number, and some delays are reasonable at times.
Yet they should be willing to answer a simple question about their
product over the phone without expecting to being paid again. Common
sense customer service is rare. I stuck with Kodak a long time
because I had a problem years ago, picked up the phone and got
someone that was nice, helpful and in less than a minute after I was
connected I had my answer. That guys sold me a lot of film. I was a
Kodak customer because I chose to be, but I can not say the same
thing about Adobe. I was hopeful they would have enough push back
that they would change their mind.
Still scanning is an issue. I could get some really large files by
scanning to final size, but the information the scanner picked up was
not so clean. Maybe that is improved, but I found if I was going to
print digital it was better to capture digital. The reverse was also
true. If I wanted a true black and white, I was usually happier with
the results by using film and a wet print. In my case film actually
might be cheaper, but as one said its more complicated than that.
For medium format the prices on the Mamiya 645 are amazing values in
the manual focus. Auto focus for either the pentax 645 or Mamiya 645
is not so price inviting. Eyes are aging, and if I have manual
focus, the larger negative might be a plus, then again maybe not.
To find out I am going to take a manual focus film camera into the
field this weekend. IF my eyes can focus a manual focus lens based
on what I have vs the M 645, would there be any reason to suspect I
couldn't effectively focus the 645? I can't see one, but never
handled the system either. The 4x5 has a large area to focus, but
more ways to foul up. For me its much easier to process roll film
than sheets, but I have tons more experience with roll film as well.
Roll film backs are an option as well.
Other related posts:
