Re: filmscanners: Acer or Nikon?

[trs80@btinternet.com]

At 17:07 23/02/2001 -0500, Lyn wrote:
>Ah, yes, but the 3meg digital offers the advantage of being able to show
>"proofs" and fix problems on-site before you waste several rolls of
>film--although it's slightly a time-consuming process and wouldn't be
>appropriate for sports-shooting, or a rock concert either, for that matter.

All of this is true and a year ago I went over to a Nikon 950 selling my 
beloved FM2 as digital is 'the future'. Yes digital is fast, cheap and you 
can see what you have taken as soon as you have taken it, and so on and on, 
and my pictures were suddenly terrible. From having a pretty good eye (even 
if I do say so myself) suddenly all I was taking was snaps. Which is why 
for Christmas I bought myself a brand new FM2 and three prime lenses and 
why I want a film scanner in the first place!

>OTOH, I don't think one would actually recommend Tri-X as a film for
>"serious" B/W photography. It's nice to be able to push to 1200 or even
>2400asa (at your peril!!), and it produces some remarkably nice grain, but
>it's a bit specialized, would you agree? Depends on what you're shooting and
>shooting for, I suppose.

There are a lot of  very serious professional B/W photographers out there 
who would utterly disagree with that statement. Personally I LOVE Tri-X 
it's gritty grainy and ultra sharp (and oddly I prize sharpness above all 
else). One of the things I disliked about digital was it's lack of grain 
and no messing about with P/S filters can put it back.

All the best

Graham