posting photos?

It's ectually pretty simple.

It goes like this:

When you post a topic or reply on a topic, you'll
see "post attachment" under "options".
It's on the left,under the instant smilies!

click on the empty box,and after you posted your message you 'll be asked to load your picture from your harddisk.

Good luck with it.
I love pictures of other people's Naim-system.
(I also bought me a digi-camera,but the quality let me down,a bit.)

Greetings from Holland,
Alco.

enjoy

ken

the detail... phew!

thanks for all the other tips. its interesing the way you used naim currency for the prices...

i am in no hurry, so will wait to see what emerges from the sony and minolta stables...

many thanks and enjoy

ken

frustrating eh !
Well, i guess the picture is too big.
You might have to make it smaller,save it, and try again.
(though it is weird that the big picture Vuk posted,was no problem)

Good luck!

greetings,
Alco.

I know that digital cameras are good for transferring photos from camera to computer.

I own a leica M6 which takes good 35mm snaps and am reluctant to spend more money on a digital camera.

How does the quality compare, if say, I scanned the photo into the computer. Would it be as good as the quality of Vuks digital pic.

Regards

Mick

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Mike is a little out of his depth here

---

I realize that I'm not a "real" photographer like yourself, Vuk. Regardless, I am savvy enough to understand the concept of multiple generations being detrimental, etc.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Johno

quote:

---

by scanning the negatives/slides on something like a Nikon Coolscan 8000, he can probably surpass it

---

Of course this is the best method, when using negatives or slides as the ultimate source. Addtionally, scanning a well produced print should also provide results that surpass the digital camera, for the simple fact that the resolution is higher. Perhaps the color will change a bit in the process, but once it's in the digital domain these things can be tweaked easily.

For convenience's sake a digital camera saves you the step of scanning, albiet with the quality limited by the camera. At a given price point, you can still get better results using a non-digital camera and scanning the negatives or prints. This reality will probably shift at some point in the future, but that's still a ways off.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Keep them coming and I'll send you some of the wife.

Regards

Mick

Regarding digital versus non-digital, my most recent message said that non-digital will win "at a given price point". I realize that the high-end digital cameras are producing great results now, but they cost much more the the equivalent quality from non-digital formats. It's the pricing that will change in the future (along with further improvements in quality, of course).

I admit that I'm not fully versed in the current field of photography, digital or otherwise. However, I'm not a complete neophyte either.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

OK, how about this as one example

---

This is very interesting, and it seems to indicate that the shift is starting to happen in the high-end cameras. What about cheaper models? I know that my $400Cdn Kodak digital model is crap compared to a $400 non-digital.

As I already admitted, I'm not an expert, yet the information I was giving Mick wasn't entirely without foundation. It's been over two decades since I was a photography nut (I had my own B&W darkroom, along with several cameras). The market is always changing, as are methods and techniques. I try to keep somewhat abreast of new developments, but this can be difficult. I share whatever knowledge I do have, and I accept that I'm probably a little behind the curve.

In contrast, photography is currently your favourite hobby, and you seem overly eager to flaunt your newfound knowledge.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on WEDNESDAY 04 July 2001 at 18:39.]

When I sold cameras 25 years ago, the difference between a pic taken by a Leica RF with a Leica lens was better than the run of the mill 35mm camera at any size from, say, contact print up, assuming fine-grain film or Kodachrome was used (of course, no contact print from K-chrome).

I trust the problem with digital photo is not in the lenses, but in the recording medium.... I expect it will take some going to equal the quality of a Leica M-series lens/good film in a digital format.

Vuk, I'm not sure that a trade of photography to replace participating in this forum is a good one, but to each his own. :-) I can see it now...a comparison matrix between various models. Ah, well, I guess it's the emotional response that counts most.

Regards.

Phil

Anyway I'm a keen amateur photographer and haven't yet gone digital (although I do have a flatbed and film scanners) - I'm quite flat earth in some respects as my main system is based round a manual medium format Bronica, although I do have a professional quality Pentax system that sees rather more use...

If Pentax bring out a digital body which allows me to use my existing lenses then I'll be at the front of the queue, but until then it's flat earth for me. I like experimenting with different film types anyway.

On a rather more hi-fi note it was the recent sale of a Contax G1 and lenses which funded the latest round of Naim upgraditis for me!

I'll take a piccie of my system at some point and load it up but I expect the lack of Mana and the 50+ CD's currently sitting on top of my turntable might get me a few comments!

Cheers
Steve

This is slightly off subject but if for instance you look up Vuks profile, you will see a square with a red cross in it entitled Vuks picture. There are loads of these things around.

How do you get the picture......I am getting nowhere.

Regards

Mick

Have you seen the new Siliconfilm E-film gizmo for the F90x?

Whaddya reckon?

I use the same camera myself and have been waiting to Go Digital for some time so to speak.

P.

All my base are belonging to me?

Generally speaking these days lenses are so good that it is the resolving power of the film (or digital equivalent) that limits absolute quality.

If a digital camera can produce a 10X8 as good as a 35mm then that will as much as most people want. Bigger than that and 35mm probably still has the egde.

A medium format camera will, of course, outperform both.

cheers

Nigel

What can I say

YUM YUM YUM

Regards

Mick

In the mean time, I'm having a whole lot of (free) fun.

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

cheers

Nigel

The digital versus analogue argument is very interesting. Digital processes are improving all of the time, but it will be some time yet before digital does away with film. Whilst a digital setup may conceivably rival or ultimately better film, there is a lot to be said for the recordable densities (DMax) of digital versus film. Film is still much further ahead here.

I use a Canon EOS L-based system, which is capable of the kind of shots that make your jaw drop open in disbelief. The lens is what makes the difference here - and digital cameras have to mature to the extent that the manufacturers start to release decent lenses with their mainstream products. Vuk's expensive digital toy is one of the better digital cameras available, and shows what can be done, but from an aesthetic point of view (fine art printing, etc.), the digital medium is far behind.

Mick's Leica M6 is probably in some ways the best camera in 35mm - discreet, quiet, optically exceptional (*WAY* beyond your average compact digibox) and involving in a desirable and flexible way. I wish to get one - Mick, would you like to sell yours to me?

I have a Mamiya 7 rangefinder, sort of like the bigger brother of the Leica - optically in the same league if not slightly better, but with the advantage of a 6x7cm negative - and here's where the advantages begin to be noticable - that's 4.5x the area of 35mm film, and therefore the tonal graduation, detail and clarity is so much better. However, bigger film area means bigger camera - the M7 is about as good a quality image-recording device as can be comfortably carried around without frequent stops and the like.

Digital doesn't yet provide that kind of quality. Maybe it never will - it's debatable whether the industries which require the high quality would adopt digital recording technology - certainly, my girlfriend works for a government organisation in the archiving section, using big budget cameras and they cannot for any price find digital gear of sufficient quality for their archiving and reproduction purposes. However, they do use digital in the printing process - Lightjets, that sort of thing - so there is room for both.

However, it is consumers who push technology along, and Joe Public doesn't need the kind of quality which we are talking about - let's face it, if he did, APS would have been stillborn - a hatefully small negative and ludicrous marketing forced a poorer quality process into the mainstream and everyone gets conned. A bit like CD, actually...

ANyway, I'm on my high horse, so I'll let someone else speak..

John

quote:

---

Actually, I find that it is quite the opposite: the digital darkroom allows for far more creativity (with far greater ease) than traditional methods.

---

Regards

Stephen