Film Reviews

I bought an ES-10 a couple of years ago. It's good at the job, but, when I upgraded to XP it would not work. Olympus say it does not support NT or XP for the ES-10 and has no plans to. I now have to run a dual boot system (XP and ME) just so that I can use this one piece of hardware.

Now that XP has gone to the home market to replace 95, 98, SE and ME etc, Olympus ought to write a driver and not leave it's customer's in the lurch.

I had been looking for a way to take the boxes of slides I shot in my twenties and get them into digital form where I was more likely to actually look at them. And of course I also wanted to share them with the few people on earth who are actually interested in seeing my old slides.

When I looked at dedicated slide scanners like those from Nikon, it quickly became clear that these were professional devices that produced huge images for quality reproduction. They were also on the wrong side of $1000. General purpose flatbed scanners, on the other hand, weren't good enough to create a decent screen or printing image from such a tiny source.

The Olympus ES-10, at $400, is just about right. Not only does it produce good-looking images from slides, it can also accept negative strips like the kind you get back from the processor. From these it can make full-screen positives or larger images for printing with a good-quality inkjet.

The scanner comes in two variation, parallel and SCSI. I chose the SCSI because I figured it was faster and because I already have about three devices trying to share a single parallel port. You need your own SCSI adapter, as none is supplied. Also, the SCSI cable that comes with the scanner is suitable only for a Macintosh. If you are using it with a Windows PC, as I am, you will need to get a cable to match your SCSI card.

The software supplied with the scanner can be run stand-alone, to produce .bmp files (the only kind natively supported) or as a TWAIN device so that you can scan your slides directly into any number of image editors like the Adobe Photo Deluxe 3.0 that comes bundled. The TWAIN solution works out to be more convenient, since you don't end up with .bmp files that you are not likely to use again. Using TWAIN, Photo Deluxe or your own image editor can likely output to .jpg, .gif .tif and many other formats.

The scanner is very easy to set up and use. Easier than a flatbed in many ways. The only additonal consideration is focus, since there is no rigid bed to hold the original in a flat plane.

The TWAIN software lets you make basic resolution, cropping, exposure and color balance adjustments to the preview image. Then you press the scan button and you're done.

All in all, I'm very pleased. The images are clear, and it's good to see them again after all these years.

Fuji film's Velvia 50 is that company's finest grain slide film and to many photographers and viewers of images taken with this emulsion, the film became the standards for what colorful could be.

Fuji is the arch-competitor to the grand dame of the film industry - KODAK. While a youngster compared to KODAK, Fuji has come a very long way in their product development, chemistry and the quality of the finished product since they first started competing against KODAK in the North American marketplace.

When I first started using Fuji print films approximately 17 years ago, I did not like them. I found that they had too high a preponderance of green and they would lose detail quickly. Their colors were less natural than KODAK's and less faithful to the color of the subject photographed. After shooting 8-10 rolls of Fuji 100 and 400, I returned to KODAK products.

Years later, when I acquired my first NIKON AF 35 mm SLRs and with much more experience under my belt, I decided to give FUJI another try. I had heard that the company had done much to correct the problems with their chemistry and emulsions and that overall quality of their films had improved dramatically. During this time, FUJI was severely criticized by KODAK and the U.S. government for "dumping" film into the USA below cost in a cheap play to acquire market share. Fuji denied this tactic and continued to use it as a way to win over American professional and enthusiast photographers.

After switching from manual 35 mm cameras to AF, I also started shooting a lot more slide film and I decided to try Fuji slide and print films again. While for most products I remain a KODAK loyalist (I shoot only professional quality/grade film), I will use FUJI when I think the application is right.

When using slides I like Velvia 50 for its exceptionally fine grain and very saturated colors. Many users of this slide film will shoot it at ISO 40 to increase saturation. I have not done that because this is already a slow speed film and I recommend a tripod when using it, this is an excellent slide film for shooting landscapes and other scenic views.

This slide film IS NOT suited for portraiture, either outdoors or inside with flash. Slides taken outdoors of people, especially folks who are Caucasian tend to deliver faces with very "ruddy" coloring. Indoors with flash, complexions tend to take on an eerie greenish cast. Obviously, not very true to life.

For more accurate and faithful colors, more like what was seen through the viewfinder, Kodak slide films, but especially the now extinct KODAKCHROME 25, the still available K64 and the EKTACHROME 64 family of slide films will deliver much more neutral, but true colors. Contrast will also be more accurate.

If realism is not your primary reason for using slide film and you are more interested in the WOW of super-saturated colors, then FUJI Velvia 50, shot outdoors is a good choice.

This is an easy to use basic camera. It takes "ok" photos in a simple way.

A very cool little device, this gives you an expandable flash USB stick - I guess you can use up to and including the new 512 MB cards with this device. I use with only 64 MB at the moment :-(
I have tried on Win98 and Linux, the former you will need to install a driver, but it works as standard USB mass storage, so no special driver is needed for Windows200/XP or recent Linux.
If you don't have xD cards, then look into them they are tiny and perfect for devices like this. I can't wait for an xD based personal stereo. My one gripe about this particular device is that the cap does not fit very well, leaving me to wonder how dust proof it is. I won't be keeping it in my pocket because of that, but will carry it around in my laptop bag.

My daughter has wanted a camera since she was 2 years old. I bought her this camera (the pink flower edition) just before she turned 3. She loves it. The size is great for little hands. For the most part I don't need to adjust her fingers to keep them away from the lens.

She also has a Chicco Smile Camera. That was is very easy to use, and slightly cheaper since it uses regular 35mm film. However, given a choice she'll go for the Nexia every time. I know she's drawn to the design, but I think she likes the size of it too.

If you have your own little budding photographer let them give this camera a try. I don't think you'll go wrong.

I used these slide films among others, and it really help me with my art portfolio.

Fuji film is, in general, going to have a much more color saturated look than Kodak. It all depends on what you want! If you want the most realistic color, Fuji probably isn't your best choice. However, Fuji can sometimes look more vibrant or subdued, depending also on the setting. There's nothing wrong with extra color saturation that may not be exactly realistic, if that's what you want!

If you're not really into photography, then this film will be just okay. Maybe use it for your children's cameras but not for really serious photos. The colors are okay, not superior and enlargements really are not that great. It's just not that great of a film and I highly suggest moving up to the 400 or 800 if what you're taking is really important. The colors are more vivid especially in the 800 and you really have nicer photos. This speed is just for playing, I think. But for the serious photographer, move on to something else.

this film is good. i rated it this way:

low-light: good pictures. +1 star

high-light: still good pictures. +1 star

action: not good. the pictures are blurred. +0 stars

still: very good for still. +1 star

overall: i think this is good overall, and i like the three-format. because of the three format, i add a star. +1.

adding that toghether... 4/5 stars. if you want to take action shots, i suggest the 400 speed.

This is a very good all around film; good for general photography.