Re: Actual photograph

I have to say I really regret buying the Nikon 950 five years ago. I was
extremely disappointed with the photo quality (especially the blue edges
on backlit objects) and lack of manual controls, to say nothing of the
quality of the plastic tripod connection that allowed it to drop onto a
concrete floor while "attached" to the tripod. However, the process and
portability were very attractive. I loved the zoom (never had had one of
these on a film camera). If it had cost about half or 1/3, I would have
been happier. It's been great for ebay photos. :)

Pam

Argon3@aol.com wrote:

> I blew some serious $ buying an Olympus E-10 hoping to get the
> flexibility of digital but the images have never been sharp or
> "snappy" enough to be taken seriously. Yes, I have jocked them around
> in Photoshop but it still seems rather pointless. Making prints from
> these files has been a long and winding road...and costly...and,
> ultimately, they still don't do it for me.
>
> Good news, though...if I spend EVEN MORE MONEY, I can get the latest
> Nikon digital slr with 12 megapixels and then feel like even more of a
> dope.
>
> Does this all remind you of that woman who paid $50,000 to get her cat
> cloned? She could have gone down to a shelter and paid $75 AND saved
> a poor little kitty from the gas chamber AND gotten a cat with a good
> personality (although different from the deceased one...like a clone
> is going to be anything more than physically identical to the "clone-ee").
>
> I can see that the digital enlarged neg thing is working out for a lot
> of people...the parameters have been tested and tightened a lot. How
> do you go, then? Digital capture to digitally produced neg to and
> "analog" alt process print? Analog (traditional film) capture to a
> scan to a digi-neg to an analog print? Oy!
>
> best
>
> argon
Received on Fri Mar 18 10:17:16 2005