Typo: "do to the S2's parallel buffer system" should be "due to the S2's parallel buffer system"
What is the text under the camera in The See Through Image article?
Typographers sometimes use jumbled Latin text as filler when laying out page designs to show how the layout would look with text. This is the technique we used when showing how to place a see through image over top of text - the idea being that readers wouldn't be distracted by trying to read text buried under the image. Well we learned the hard way that many of our readers aren't publishing geeks. We apologize for any confusion this technique may have caused and were amazed that one or two of you actually attempted to correct our grammar - in Latin !
Great article on Old San Juan. I would like to point out one spelling error if I may. The word for the "creamy, flavored ices available in coconut, pina colada, and local juice flavors" is helados not heyados.
Thanks for a beautiful story.
The News From Kodak
Don't know if you're aware, but Kodak has stated they will stop production of ALL slide projectors during Summer of 2004. While I admit that digital is taking over rather rapidly, I would think the photo community would still need the ability to physical project slides. And the Kodak style slide projectors are the main units in the field.
My response was to replace a 20 year old and well used but workable Kodak Ektagraphic with an Ebay purchased like new current Ektagraphic. Now I can still get new parts and service for several years.
What's your "take" on Kodak's decision?
Stay tuned Pete. This is all still playing itself out.
The digital wars are over! Kodak has surrendered ! Film is Dead ! LONG LIVE DIGITAL !
Dave, you might be a little premature. Kodak is back pedaling - fast. After all film is still their bread and butter. Check out this month's news page.
I've had an S2 for a while. Two members or our camera club recently purchased D100s and they were ribbing me about my S2 being old technology. Recently we spent a day out shooting in the desert and we traded off cameras quite a bit. Two days later I saw your article comparing the two. You guys hit it right on the head. The D100 guys had trouble getting used to the way the S2 worked but I picked up on the D100 pretty quick. Looking at the pictures at the end of the day everybody agreed the S2 shots looked a little better because the colors were more saturated. Now both of the guys with the D100s have adjusted them so they look more like my S2.
Thanks for an honest review. The S2 may take a little more time to learn, but like anything else its second nature once you get used to it. I love my S2. It's been a great camera for me.
A fine article this month on the S-2. When in S Carolina I met a camera dealer from Denver who told me that there would be an S-3 out next spring that will be an incredible camera. I currently have a Nikon 5700, as well as a F4s, and F-100, and a myriad of Nikon lenses. We have the D-100 selling at $1200 the Finepix at $2000 a significant difference presently and as usual the new Finepix will probably be even higher in price, as well as Nikon probably bringing out a D-200 with an increase in price.
I really would like your advice as to what makes sense in light of some of the current shortcomings of the D-100. I am willing to spend the extra $'s but don't want to basically throw them away since I am not a professional but an advanced amateur who competes regularly in a very competitive photo club
Thanks in advance.
The S3 has been rumored for a while now. We may see what Fuji has in mind at PMA but we've heard nothing from sources we'd trust at this point. As for the price over a D100; all we can tell you is that a camera is only worth what you're willing to pay for it.
Your review of the Fujifilm Finepix S2 was a great read. I appreciate your honesty by telling it like it is...warts and all:) I get tired of reading reviews by others who never saw a camera they didn't like....If the S2 is so much like the Nikon D-100, how come the Fuji sells for so much more?
Must be those hex-shaped pixels in the Super CCD :)
D100 vs. Sigma SD9 and the Foveon Chip
The S2 article contained a link back to a previous review of the D100 vs. Sigma SD9, which generated a number of responses like the one below.
I don't understand how you can even compare the Foveon to the D100. The technology behind the Foveon is far advanced compared to the Nikon chip and images it produces will be sharper as a function of its superior design. As a matter of fact the Foveon chip just won a PC Magazine Technical Excellence award. Instead of trashing this camera maybe you should climb back into your cave and go back to drawing pictures on the wall with the burnt end of a stick.
[Jim McGee responds:] I didn't think I "trashed" the SD9, but the venom in some of these emails was such that I went back and reread the article.
In fact I didn't trash it. Unlike the articles and competing reviews cited in some of the emails; we did a direct comparison of the SD9's new Foveon technology shooting against both the D100 and an F100 loaded with Provia as a reference (Provia provides extremely accurate color reproduction). For the test we used the same lens (Sigma 20-40mm f2.8) for all three cameras. They were shot off the same tripod, under the same light, in the real world. That's as fair a comparison as I can imagine. While both cameras produced excellent images the SD9 was severely limited by the light sensitivity of the Foveon chip.
It's important to make a distinction here. We review cameras - not microchips. The D100 worked better as a camera. The Sigma didn't work AT ALL in low light because of the limits of the Foveon chip; and the Nikon produced the more accurate colors. That means in the real world the D100 was the better camera. The images speak for themselves. Everything else is just flapping your gums.
The Lucky Photographer
Great article. I live in NM and people always ask if added that color in.
I respond, "haven't you ever got up a before sunrise?"
I bought a GPS for backpacking. However, the best feature I found on my GPS is the sun and moon tracker. It tells you sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, and with a little work, you can figure out where they will rise or set from.
I though you may be interested in a tool like this.
[Gary responds:] - Thanks for the comment on the "Early Bird" article. You're right, until everybody else actually experiences the color of sunrise, we'll just have to walk around with a big grin on our faces. Yes, a GPS is a great photographic tool, but I'm still kind of attached to the compass I found in my box of Cracker Jacks.
I just found your magazine online. There are some wonderful pictures and I like the articles. But I only own a Canon Rebel. Can I take pictures like that with my Rebel?
Absolutely Yes !
I usually don't write letters like this but just wanted to drop a line to let you know how much I appreciate your magazine. I look forward to each issue and read every article and anything else you provide. Dr. Rue is, and has been for many years, my favorite wildlife photographer. I met him in St. Louis many years ago and have since purchased many of his books as well as several items from his catalog. I once called his 800 number with a question about an order I had placed and his son and I talked photography for 30 minutes. I could not believe it! He is a class act and I appreciate anything I can read of his. I also want to thank you for the articles on glamour. While I don't think that I'll ever be a glamour photogropher, at least not with nude models, I have learned much that will help me when shooting environmental portraits.
Thanks again for your magazine. I appreciate your service and keep up the good work.
Vern LeClaire Alton, IL
Enjoyed the duck article. Just thought I would share this photo.
Regarding Mitch Moraski's column in latest issue of Vivid Light magazine: The picture at the end of his column - the lake, shrouded in mist, trees covering the entire background: I think this is one of the VERY BEST landscape/nature shots I have ever seen. Beautiful. Congratulations to Mr. Moraski.
G'day Jim, The on-line photo mag is a great concept, well done! The import costs for printed media from the US makes US. magazines a luxury item here in Australia, so your on-line gem is great therapy for me. Cheers Tim Elliott.
I just "stumbled" across this site while looking for good information on photography. I recently retired and now intend to pursue a lifelong desire to become a professional photographer. This is by far the best and most informative site I've found.
Thanks for a world of information!
Introduction to Digital Photography
Thanks for the article on pixels and resolution. It was well done and gives me a much better understanding of this topic.
This has to be the best explanation on digital cameras and their myth I have read so far I certainly have this next on my screen so I can easy get to this page.
Thank you very much
This article was a good overview in general. However, one point was glossed over with virtually no discussion. You state that 300dpi is needed to get a 'good looking print'. Truth is you can get a good looking print with far less than 300dpi. I sell prints of my own and produce prints for other photographers frequently. Many of these are printed at 200 to 220 dpi. The customers love them and they win awards at print competitions. A decent digital camera with a respectable lens combined with good technique can even produce acceptable results as low as 150 dpi. I have seen and printed fine 8x10 prints from a 2mp camera. However, I too, recommend that new purchasers look for 3mp or more.
Just my thoughts,
300 dpi is a good, generally accepted guideline. That said, some printers will give you solid results at lower resolutions, though 150 dpi is probably pushing it.
Too bad you've now included pornography in your magazine. It used to be something I could recommend to others. Not any more!
I find the models section offensive and reading it on the job (which I'm certain your readers do) should get them fired for viewing pornography! Why don't you send this in a separate email only to those who request it?
[Jim McGee responds:] - I was a bit surprised to see this email. Joe's column on fashion & glamour photography, which includes female nudes, first appeared in our magazine back in August and has been a regular feature for five months now. I would disagree that his column is even remotely related to pornography.
Now there is no shortage of pornographic material on the Web to use for comparison. Just go to Google and type in the word "porn". 10 seconds viewing any of those sites should make the difference clear.
Nude figure studies, both male and female, were among the earliest photographs; and the human form has been the subject of art and sculpture for centuries.
That hasn't stopped the ebb and flow of public opinion however. The Greeks saw beauty in the human form, and Greek sculpture was anatomically correct.
But during the "fig-leaf campaign" of the Counter Reformation the Catholic Church employed artists to chisel the genitals off classical statuary and to paint cloths or fig leaves over genitals in paintings. Later generations would view the damage to these works of art as an atrocity.
Now I'm not comparing Joe to Michelangelo; but I would assert that his photographs are no more pornographic than Michelangelo's David.
As for sending "this in a separate email only to those who request it?"; we don't send ANY images by email. Our subscribers get a copy of the table of contents for the current issue. That allows you to choose what articles you want to read at home and what you want to read at work.
Color Infrared Photography
I'm glad to see someone hasn't forgotten about film! Please keep these kinds of solid technical articles coming.
We will be offering this process shortly. This film can also be processed to a negative.
Joe Farace's take on the Mega-pixel Race helped me relive the odd smell and breath-robbing taste that comes from exhaling cold coffee through one's nasal passages. With that reminder it's my hope to never read one of his satires while eating clam chowder...too hard to clear clams from my sinuses.
I loved the story.
Great humorous article, and I firmly believe there are those who as you say will never be satisfied.
I love your photo contest winners and would love to see more entries. Is space an issue? Or are the others really bad?
Thanks for a great publication.
Actually I'm amazed at the quality of many of our entries. It's not a space issue per se, but we had to draw a line somewhere on the number of entries to show. Some months we do show additional honorable mentions.
On More Advertising
Other than more, perhaps intrusive advertising, I think this online magazine is top notch. I get several paper magazines and I can say this online magazine is every bit an equal and excels in many ways.
I can't wait to get some photos posted to OPC.
Thanks for putting out such a quality product.
I've read your magazine for quite a while now, and I think you're doing a terrific job. You've always had valuable content, and I've appreciated that it's written with a sense of humor and a "real world" feel. With regard to the changes you've made, I believe they strongly support the direction in which you're trying to take the magazine. Advertising is inevitable; I would only ask that you don't overdo the popups. That's one thing, which can drive me away from a site. Overall, I give you an "A" for your changes and the direction you're going. You provide some real value for my photographic adventures, and that's why I keep coming back.
I don't mind more advertising - just keep the honest reviews coming. I love that you talk about the flaws as much as the good points of gear from a real world perspective.