Oh yeah, where would friendly discussions be without our good friends...barley and hops..... I see your point on slacking in the name of photoshop.

It's interesting that you mention Art Wolfe......Not too long ago he found himself in the middle of this very controversy.... A shot of a herd of Elephants he supposedly made in camera was actually NOT. This image...that you've probably seen was of about 20? or so Elephants taken from the air...it recieved all kind of accolades from nature photographers etc,etc. Then it was found out that the shot Art actually took was of about 3....yes 3 stinkin Elephants...he then cloned them using photoshop to fill out the image and make it seem more dramatic....A totally FALSE representation from someone who USED to be a respected photograper in my eyes.

....Oh, yeah R.I.P. Galen Rowell and his wife .....I met him in the summer of '99 in Missoula, MT. One of the nicest people I've ever met. Was more than willing to give some tips and insight into his very inspiring work....Not bad work for an ex-auto mechanic.....He will be missed.

hmmmm....March contest = PET PHOTOS!!!! hazah! -80 proof

I can see where you are coming from on this one...however, I still have to disagree.
"my gripe is with the people who look at Photoshop as part of the photographic routine"

that statement is like saying that you have a gripe with people who view the darkroom as part of the photographic routine. Photoshop is replacing all of the toxic chemicals and time consuming processing involved with the traditional darkroom. Granted it can, and frequently is overused, but In todays world of the digital imaging systems, it is a necessity(sp?).

Look at it this way....Take Ansel Adams, IMO one of the BEST photographic technicians ever. If you were to make a "straight" print of one of his zone exposed negatives it would look absolutely horrible...But with proper darkroom manipulation ie. dodging,burning,etc. he created some of the most amazing technically perfect images.....again just my opinion...right slynky ; )

I'm sure the same can be said about other photogs as well....
Take Minor White...where would he be without photomanipulation..or Jerry Ulesman?

All I can say is don't deny yourself the tools at your disposal, but learning how to use them to the best possible extent is vital.

Garbage in.....Garbage out.

-time for more beer

8x10 prints.....11X14 or sometimes 16x20 matte/border/cardboard/white thing....ALWAYS white. 11x14 prints.....16x20 matte 16x20 prints....don't remember, since it's been so long since I've enjoyed the use of a dark room. Always white mattes and bottom weighted (slightly more space at the bottom than the top) I prefer plain black frames...wooden or metal.....UV coated glass....acid free mattes. I prefer white because it tends to add just a bit more contrast to prints..+....I think the print should be able to stand on its own and not rely on some fancy colored mattes and frames to try and help it be somehow interesting......If I want to look at frames, I'll go to a frame shop.

Do a little research on a technique called "Smart Sharpening".....uses masks to sharpen just the edges between higher contrast areas, leaving the larger areas that don't really need it alone. Global Unsharp Masking....sharpens EVERYTHING...even grain. I don't know what your particular technique is though either.... maybe it's just the film. Oh yeah, another thing about Smart Sharpening...You can adjust the masks and blur the non-sharpened areas...So it really could be called Smart Shrpening/Blurring.

Ansel Adams would have LOVED digital. A master technician, who would have used what ever tool he had at his disposal to create his pre-visualised image... You can do just about anything in the darkroom that you can do in Photoshop, it's just a serious pain in the azz.

The best kind is the unexposed kind. I'll find a use for it. b&w = t-max 100 or maybe even Ilford fp4 color slide = nothing but Velvia color print = Tungsten balanced film has a built in haze filter for landscape work. (secret large format geek stuff) or whatever else is available

Just what I thought...the X3 IS a CMOS chip. Sounds cool, but I think I'll wait a few "generations" when they get better and cheaper.....besides I am still wating for my CCD based camera to show up....

The funny thing is in the small image comparisons......The film sample is not really a true representation of the film. It is actually a representation of the CCD of the scanner used to get the image digital. no way to really compare this except IN PERSON. Still very interesting though...and it is WAY better than CCD or CMOS. thanks for the link.

I think he got stuck in traffic on the way to my house.

Attached Link: http://www.dpreview.com/

Just try to shoot wide angle with a digital......unless you have the new contax digital SLR.....good luck....dang CCD/CMOS..... -still waiting

Right now I'm in L.A. I'll be in Columbus TX in about 2 weeks.....

I have never used this scanner before, but I believe the software interface should allow you to adjust "exposure brightness" contrast etc. Try adjusting some settings and see what happens.