I think I've probabl uploaded 7 or 8 of the series from that night, there are actually something like 17 in all and I hope to add a few more when my film scanner arrives. One of these days I'll finish up my webpage gallery to the point where I think I'd like visitors to see it and then I'll post the address. Haven't had time the past couple of months to finish it. -=>Donald

I saw this when it was first posted a couple of weeks ago. While interesting, I have some problems with the story as a whole. Whenever dealing with any story, you have to take into account the source and the outlet for the story. 2600 isn't exactly the most un-biased outlet for information that there is (especially when it comes to anything that has to do with the gov't).

That aside, the thing that bothers me most is that to my knowledge, no witnesses to this event have come forward to corroborate Maginnis' story or even say they saw him there. In an age where you can't get a traffic ticket without someone pointing a camera in your direction just in case something might happen, an incident involving the Denver police and Secret Service happens outside what is probably the single largest hotel and resort in Denver, in the middle of downton, and no one seems to have noticed. No other news outlet in the country seems to have even heard of Maginnis. There is no paper trail at the Denver PD. And because, as he says, 'he got his phone call, he tried to call the Denver Post and the police hung the phone up on him' there is no one who can say "Yeah..he called me from jail..." Maybe it's just me, but in that situation I call family or friends and let them know what the heck is going on...but that may just be me.

The last thing that bugs me, and I admit this is a statement with nothing to back it up but my own thoughts ... who in 2002 says things like "dirty pinko faggot"? Just sounds incredibly anachronistic, like something from the 70's or 80's.

Could the whole thing be true? Of course it can. Do I believe it's true, not as it stands. Need a little more than this guy's word. There is one piece of evidence that could help ... the lawyer needs to request the phone logs from the Denver PD for the time that Maginnis says he was in jail as well as the log from the Denver Post. Having the record show a call placed from the holding cells to the Denver Post at that time would immediately move this into the area of a story that needs to be seriously investigated.

-=>Donald

Cyn, you anarchist you!!! hehe...a few weeks ago I had a confrontation with a store security guard while I was standing out on the sidewalk taking pictures. Jist was I told him he needed to leave me alone and went about my business. In that case, I was in the right because I was standing on a public sidewalk. As long as I didn't step onto their property, they couldn't tell me what to do. Especially considering I was in no way impeding entrance to their store (in fact, I was 30 feet from their door shooting up the sidewalk). -=>Donald

Attached Link: Dry Ice Directory

-=>Donald

I sent a reply earlier today, but I had to answer the phone and the webpage timed out. So, when I hit the post button it just didn't save. Anyway, here goes again:

Decided to go with an older model so I could have enough money left to get a decent flash and possibly a 75-300mm lens this month. After searching around, I settled on the Minolta Dimage Scan Speed. From the reviews and everything I've seen, really does good quality scans. Good specs too:

2820 dpi (makes a 4032x2688 image from 35mm)
12bits/pixel (means you can input into PS at 16bits/channel for some sweet detail and tonal gradation)
3.6 DMax (slide film has a theoretical DMax of 3.6-3.8 I think)
All together resolution is equivalent to ~10.84 megapixels.

Picked it up factory refurbished off of E-bay. I don't want to "recommend" the guy I bought it from since I haven't gotten mine yet, but if the ad is to be believed, it is "new" refurbed from Minolta in the box with a 6 month warranty. These guys also have over 15000 feedback with under 200 negative (like a 75:1 ratio). So, not a recommendation but since they are going for a starting bid of $109 (buy it now at $119) with $22 shipping it might be worth the risk. When I get mine, I'll post to condition and whatnot (have tracking number on it now - scheduled to get here Tuesday).

That reminds me of a question that's been bugging me since I started researching film scanners. Take the hot new Canon EOS 1DS, the 11.1megapixel pro DSLR. It has an image array of 11.4megapixels and produces a max image that's 4064x2704 (just slightly larger than the image from the Scan Speed); which really comes out to 10.99megapixels. Anyway, what I keep wondering is how does a camera with an image array of 11.4mp create an image that's 11mp when it takes 3 of the array elements (1 each for R, G and B) to create 1 pixel? Is the reported array size of 11.4mp already taking this into account and the actual array has 34.2million elements?

Most film scanners don't have this problem (they don't split 1 pixel across 3 elements).

-=>Donald

Hmmm...just a gut reaction to it, I think it may be too "clean". I think it needs a little grittyness and shadowplay for the kind of mood I think this type of photo requires. That make sense? I also think the candlelight is a little too hot (whiteness wise). It looks like it's probably a full 255-255-255 white. Since I do a lot of available light photography (99%) I tend to try to stay way from a full "255-white" when I can, especially when I am playing with shadows or dark background. It seems to overpower the rest of the image. What kind of shot were you going for? For a more ominous look, I'd try raising the statues up a bit so that they are more bottom lit by the candles. -=>Donald

Zardoz - Is it just me or does the Nikon F4 look like something Darth Vader would use? :) -=>Donald

Tas - Hey..I don't really care that you get to hang with beautiful models, especially those with stunning eyes and flowing hair ... nope, don't care at all. Take your old pictures ... doesn't bother me ......... not one single bit. Ummmmm .... you wouldn't happen to need someone to carry around your camera bag or reflectors or something, would you? I don't eat much..really. :) Hehehe...I'll get there one day. Actually thinking of taking a portrait/glamour workshop this winter. Seriously, I do have a question. I've thought about getting a digital camera just for something you mentioned. Practicing my technique and composition. As it stands, even when I have a bag full of film I tend to budget my shots because of the film/developing costs. There are times when I would like to go crazy and pop off a couple dozen shots using different angles and whatnot, but can't bring myself to "waste" that many frames. Wondered what everyone thought of using a digital for those times (thinking 3+ megapixel)? Or do you think sticking with film is a better idea, since part of the technique is understanding your film and how it will capture what you see. Realisticly, unless I went to a high-end digital SLR; I'm not going to get the quality I can get with Provia or Velvia, the incredible speed/low-light capability of an Ilford Delta 3200 or the beautiful rich blacks and white-whites of a Fuji Neopan Acros (and in some respects, even the highend DSLRs can't achieve these yet). -=>Donald

Michelle - Well, I like it and think it works much better without color. For some reason, I find this a very soothing and peaceful image. I suppose because it reminds me of winters past, standing outside late at night shoveling snow in Baltimore. The crispness in the air and the absolute silence and stillness that's only broken by the soft tinkling of ice crystals as they fall from the tree branches. I loved that and miss it a lot sometimes (not the whole shoveling part). Makes me smile thinking about it. Thanks for reminding me of that. :) -=>Donald

BSteph - There's nothing wrong with it. It's a scan of a black and white negative done on a flatbed scanner. Was experimenting (ok...I was bored while waiting an hour for my film to be developed) to see how well the neg would scan using a piece of cardboard, a piece of printer paper and a desk lamp to make a scanning jig. Of course, it's not as clear as if I'd done this in a dedicated film scanner; but it is close to the print made from the negative (though not as crisp and tonality is a bit off). -=>Donald

This is weird. This is the 2nd time I've responded here and my message didn't show up (replied last night when I got home around 2am). Star - If memory serves me correctly, it was around 20-25 seconds at f/8-f/11. Cyn - Stop picking on me or I'm gonna tell Mom! :) Ducks indeed. :P -=>Donald

Slynky - Hehehe..thank you. Now you see why I have to get a film scanner to pull that image out. I want to see if i can save it. :) It's alive!!! Alive!!! -=>Donald

Misha - I agree. There has to be a middle ground. The problem, I fear, is that there will be so few of us left on the consumer level that it won't be worth the development costs. The consumers they have in their sites, your average John or Jane Doe is a casual photographer who is either perfectly happy with their sub-standard prints from the local grocery store drop box or they have gone digital and don't need photo scanners. Then you have the pros who are willing to shell out $1000-8000 for their own scanners. Us higher end amateurs are left to pick what we can from consumer level and low pro level. Don't really see that changing all that much. I think Microtek has what looks like a great scanner (I read a review of the 8700 Pro a couple months ago). My only problem is, there is no way in "H-E-Double Hockey sticks" I'm shelling out $900 to $1500 for a flatbed scanner (Scanmaker 8700 Pro or Artixscan 1800f, respectively). Heck, before I do that I'll throw another $100-$300 on the prices and get a Canon D30 or Canon D60 Digital SLR. -=>Donald