It's more expensive now to buy the hardware and software, but at least there is no film cost. Once you have a basic working setup, you are set for a while. You can make tens of thousands of photos for the price of the first one, plus your time.

I have used Windows and Mac OS or OS X since their inception. The reason I use Macs is OS X. It must be experienced side by side with Windows to appreciate the difference, and to understand why it is so much more appealing.

I use Macs because the tool does not get in the way of the task. I use Windows only when necessary, now, because it almost always gets in the way.

Fine if you need it, or have a "home base" or office. By there is precious little that can't be done with externals these days, which is why the Mac Pro is a tiny sealed box.

GREAT LINK! I'd forgotten about the lacquer used on old Kodachromes, but that is absolutely correct. DO be careful if you use formaldehyde! It is dangerous stuff and should be handled in a well ventilated area while using protective gloves.

The advice about not using water-based cleaners is sound. PEC 12, mentioned here as well, and the Edwal cleaner I mentioned, are both safe film cleaners.

Working with slides is a PITA. I was a multi-image producer in the 1980s, and don't miss cleaning four glass surfaces and two film surfaces for every slide in a 960-slide show before taking it on the road!

See the theme, here? A good, powerful laptop might cost 50% to 150% more than a desktop with the same features, but you can do your work anywhere.

Multiple monitors? No problem.

Plenty of RAM? Check.

Fast graphics? Available.

Hard drive storage options galore? Si, Señor.

Multiple operating systems to accommodate all your current and future software needs? At least two different ways to do that — Virtually and Natively — can be had on a Mac (but not on a Windows box if you need Mac OS X).

The key is how you connect your PC laptop or Mac notebook. With a Lightning connector, USB3, WiFi 802.11N ac, and the appropriate adapters, you can add monitors, hard drives, NAS, whatever you want. A good computer store consultant can steer you to solutions that work for you.

I used a high end Mac notebook for years (PowerBook G3, then G4, then MacBook Pro with 2.6 GHz Core 2 Duo). Each was fine in its day. As I traveled a lot to do training or to create content, it was my only computer!

The 'Pro was my video editing suite, photo editing suite, Windows PC (using Parallels Desktop), everything! I plugged it into a calibrated 26" NEC monitor on my office desk. Great solution!

Correct. If you present the smooth film base to the scanner's ICE sensor, it won't remove dust or scratches from the emulsion side, but it will scan accurately, without removing random parts of the image.

It occurs to me that people tend to spend inordinate amounts of time agonizing over purchases such as this. Here are a few reality checks:

In the long run, we're all dead. If you die with a brand name on your shirt, or no logo on your shirt, does it matter? You're still dead! Oh, it might matter to some sick puppy at your wake, but that's on them!

On the other hand, if you necessarily might beat the crap out of your equipment because of how you work, or your working environment, definitely get the Nikon, because it's built to be very rugged.

The difference between these two lenses is probably not going to affect the appearance of your photographs enough to matter. Remember that most imaging is shared on the Internet these days. Unless you print very large prints (30x20 or larger), It is unlikely you will see a life-changing difference in performance, even when comparing test images, made side by side, of the same subject, using these two lenses.
One or the other of them will be sharper at certain apertures and zoom settings, or on one body format or the other (DX or FX).

Truthfully, any lens can be "on" spec or "off" spec just enough that it is unsharp on a particular body, relative to that body, and create an unfavorable result. I've actually switched lenses from body to body and created GOOD matches by doing so. If focus micro-adjustment is available on your lens/body combination, it helps.

Finally, your own personal skill in camera handling and execution of scene capture will probably matter more than the differences in quality of these two very fine lenses.

This is observational wisdom from someone who worked in a lab and saw professional images from every conceivable camera, lens, and type of photographer out there.

Remember: Real people don't buy, sell, or look at photos of test charts. They're useful guides, but price, ergonomics, and real-world experience with the gear matter at least as much.

Yeah, it's often worth the extra cost for the opportunity to interact.

If you want to pay a B&H or Adorama low price, AND get across-the-counter interaction, drive to NYC and visit B&H or Adorama. Or deal with any company that accepts returns. (15% restocking fees are not uncommon.)

Thanks!

Epson should have the latest drivers on their web site. The V series scanners are great.

I have found that dirty Ektachrome can be duplicated with a scanner that has Digital ICE, plus ROC, GEM, and SHO. These technologies work to remove dust, dirt, and scratches, restore original color, reduce "grain", and improve sharpness.

If you scan Kodachrome on the same scanner, scan it backwards and mirror the image in software. That *might* work. Kodachrome has a "3D" emulsion that fools Digital Ice, which looks for surface imperfections that are not supposed to be there, and removes them.

Most important is to scan them before and after cleaning. Before is in case of damage.

Edwal Anti-Stat Film Cleaner and a good microfiber cleaning cloth are your friends. Use with protective gloves, a gentle touch, and good ventilation.

At the margins, I've found information, training, and experience to be far more valuable assets than the brand on a lens. Spend what seems reasonable on a new Tamron or a used Nikkor and enjoy using it! I don't think you'll be disappointed either way, unless you just have to have the Nikon logo on your gear.

Embedding the original image preserves it in all its glory, so if Adobe improves their software, you can squeeze more out of the original image with the new version of the software.

I would not embed, but would archive my original RAW images on DVD, for two reasons.

First, the camera manufacturers typically write the best software for extracting the maximum quality from their own images! That software usually SUCKS to use, so most of us prefer Adobe's approach to workflow. But occasionally, opening a Canon image in DPP or a Nikon Image in Capture NX2 will be worth it for some arcane reason. That usual reason is to make huge prints from marginal images, or the very best prints from the very best images that happen to have challenging brightness range characteristics, or need special sharpening or localized attention to detail.

Second, archiving RAW images offline is more efficient. Don't "major on the minor" by keeping 100% of your images online when you only need the few percent you are working with, within a given time frame. And don't embed RAW in DNG unless it's a five-star keeper you know you will re-visit again and again... Embedding just takes up drive space with a copy.

Several companies make cropping guide screens that fit into various cameras' viewfinders. Viewfindermasks.com is one.

These masks or cropping guides allow in-viewfinder composition, so you get what you want on the paper format you use. I used them extensively when I worked in the school portrait industry, where "machine printing" is the norm.

8x10 has a .8 aspect ratio. 4x6 has a .667 aspect ratio. You can print a 6.667 inch by 10 inch image on 8x10 paper, but many people don't like the paper waste. I like it for titling, myself, so I'll often compose in Photoshop and print to 8x10 with a title under the original image.