PDA

View Full Version : What slide format will survive the digital age



esbtse
11-Aug-2007, 16:56
I usually use slides and I’m using 135 Nikon cameras as F3HP and F4E.
I have just stared using a 4*5" Camera but what slide format will survive? Maybe the 120?

I do not have a DSLR yet, because of the price tag for the Nikon D2X/D3X is to steep for my income. But the D2X is now affordably as a second hand. Shall I wait for the D3X to get affordably and continue using slides or can I get by using the D2X for landscapes photo?

Ron Mowrey
11-Aug-2007, 17:01
It is likely that 35mm film will survive for quite a while, but overall sales of slide films in all formats is decreasing at an alarming rate due to digital. OTOH, negative film sales are not decreasing as rapidly and in some cases are holding their own.

Ron Mowrey

Gordon Moat
11-Aug-2007, 17:08
Quite likely Kodachrome will disappear prior to any other emulsion. However, Dwaynes is currently processing around 1000 rolls per day, so it seems that Kodak is still making profits from Kodachrome. So it might be a while before other transparency (slide) films disappear.

Fuji recently updated some of their transparency films, and Kodak did a similar change not very long ago. When new films are introduced, that means several years of products still available. Compare that to a professional working lifespan of maybe 36 months for a top line D-SLR, and you could safely skip a generation . . . if you wanted to do so.

Having used a D2X, I think it is a nice system camera. However nice the results, it is definitely trumped in all but convenience by 4x5 systems. It depends upon what your priorities might be in photography.

Anyone with knowledge of a successor to the D2X will likely be barred from commenting due to a Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA). Logically, you might expect a D3H or D3HS prior to any D3X (or whatever Nikon want to call it). Historically, the prices of top of the line Nikon D-SLRs has not altered much. These are low volume compared to their other camera offerings. Expect high demand on any Nikon D2X successor, then it might take a while before prices drop. While you are waiting, enjoy shooting some (slide) transparency film.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

esbtse
11-Aug-2007, 17:22
Fuji recently updated some of their transparency films, and Kodak did a similar change not very long ago.
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
That is good news.


Having used a D2X, I think it is a nice system camera. However nice the results,
Anyone with knowledge of a successor to the D2X will likely be barred from commenting due to a Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA). Logically, you might expect a D3H or D3HS prior to any D3X (or whatever Nikon want to call it). Historically, the prices of top of the line Nikon D-SLRs has not altered much. These are low volume compared to their other camera offerings. Expect high demand on any Nikon D2X successor, then it might take a while before prices drop. While you are waiting, enjoy shooting some (slide) transparency film.
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
The problem using D2x is the small view finder. I prefear a larger one when photografing in the nature, as in swamps, forest. My goal is to switch to LF for the pure landscape pictures.

My other problem is that I need a slide scanner.

Gordon Moat
11-Aug-2007, 17:36
Yes, if you have used an F3 or F4, then almost any D-SLR viewfinder will seem small, dark, and disappointing. I think you will become seduced by the large viewing screen of a 4x5 camera; the view and approach to composition will be very different.

If you want a smaller carry camera for landscape shots, you might look into the Mamiya 7 rangefinder. The price will be less than a D2X, and the results still better.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

roteague
11-Aug-2007, 19:10
I usually use slides and I知 using 135 Nikon cameras as F3HP and F4E.
I have just stared using a 4*5" Camera but what slide format will survive? Maybe the 120?

I do not have a DSLR yet, because of the price tag for the Nikon D2X/D3X is to steep for my income. But the D2X is now affordably as a second hand. Shall I wait for the D3X to get affordably and continue using slides or can I get by using the D2X for landscapes photo?


If you are happy with your current system, then you don't need to be in any hurry to buy a DSLR. As others have pointed out, there are several new transparency films, and companies like Fuji are still actively promoting it. I have both a D200 and an F5, and rarely use the D200 - I see no reason to. I can get better results out of the F5, loaded with Velvia.

Brian Ellis
11-Aug-2007, 20:17
I have no idea how long 35mm slide film will be around but if I were betting I wouldn't bet on it being 120. Medium format has taken a huge hit from digital, probably worse than even 35mm worldwide.

I stopped using my Nikon F4 about 14 years ago, when I realized how crappy prints bigger than 8x10 were, even using the best Nikon lenses. That caused a switch to a Pentax 67 system, then to 4x5 in combination with the Pentax about 12 years ago. I started using a Nikon D100 in there somewhere. I used it with the Nikon lenses I still had around from my F4 days and it was marginally better than 35mm - I made some pretty nice 11x14 prints with the D100 - but not as good as the Pentax or 4x5. Then I switched to Canon (5D) with Canon L lenses and that caused me to sell my Pentax system. The 5D with Canon L lenses produces results in prints up to about 13x17 that to me are at least as good as the Pentax and are very close to 4x5.

So if I were you I'd forget about your 35mm system, sell it while there's still some semblance of a market for 35mm (if there is, I haven't looked). Then buy the best digital camera you can afford. Just my opinion of course.

4x5 is a whole different deal, not just because of the quality of the photographs but because using it is so different from using a 35mm/digital/medium format system.

Bill_1856
11-Aug-2007, 21:04
I shot almost nothing but 35mm slides for nearly 40 years. I can't think of any good reason to ever do it again.

esbtse
12-Aug-2007, 12:13
Yes, if you have used an F3 or F4, then almost any D-SLR viewfinder will seem small, dark, and disappointing. I think you will become seduced by the large viewing screen of a 4x5 camera; the view and approach to composition will be very different.

If you want a smaller carry camera for landscape shots, you might look into the Mamiya 7 rangefinder. The price will be less than a D2X, and the results still better.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Hi,
I知 stuck using the Nikon system because the large pile of equipment I own. Its to costly to change the system. I知 putting my money in the LF-field currently but I like to be able to use my old 135 system so maby I need to get a DSLR. But I going to check the Mamia 7. I hope the D3X have a larger view than the D2X.

esbtse
12-Aug-2007, 12:14
I shot almost nothing but 35mm slides for nearly 40 years. I can't think of any good reason to ever do it again.
Do you use any other system than LF?

esbtse
12-Aug-2007, 12:16
If you are happy with your current system, then you don't need to be in any hurry to buy a DSLR. As others have pointed out, there are several new transparency films, and companies like Fuji are still actively promoting it. I have both a D200 and an F5, and rarely use the D200 - I see no reason to. I can get better results out of the F5, loaded with Velvia.

Thats good to hear. What slide scanner do you use?

esbtse
12-Aug-2007, 12:45
I have no idea how long 35mm slide film will be around but if I were betting I wouldn't bet on it being 120. Medium format has taken a huge hit from digital, probably worse than even 35mm worldwide.

I stopped using my Nikon F4 about 14 years ago, when I realized how crappy prints bigger than 8x10 were, even using the best Nikon lenses. That caused a switch to a Pentax 67 system, then to 4x5 in combination with the Pentax about 12 years ago. I started using a Nikon D100 in there somewhere. I used it with the Nikon lenses I still had around from my F4 days and it was marginally better than 35mm - I made some pretty nice 11x14 prints with the D100 - but not as good as the Pentax or 4x5. Then I switched to Canon (5D) with Canon L lenses and that caused me to sell my Pentax system. The 5D with Canon L lenses produces results in prints up to about 13x17 that to me are at least as good as the Pentax and are very close to 4x5.

So if I were you I'd forget about your 35mm system, sell it while there's still some semblance of a market for 35mm (if there is, I haven't looked). Then buy the best digital camera you can afford. Just my opinion of course.

4x5 is a whole different deal, not just because of the quality of the photographs but because using it is so different from using a 35mm/digital/medium format system.

I知 just starting to move to advanced amateur in my photographing but I must start to increase the time I spend photographing to get further improvement and 135 system is cheaper to use for training. I already see the need for a LF Field camera and it on my list.
So im reading a lot of photo books but I need to take photographs and to display my photographs (when I have a few good ones) for the publics.

roteague
12-Aug-2007, 13:19
Thats good to hear. What slide scanner do you use?

Actually, I don't use just one scanner. At home I have a Minolta 5400II Elite. However, some slides (depending upon the subject matter) I have scanned on a Imacon or a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner. The one thing I particulary like about the Minolta is the the multi-sampling it allows (up to 16x), which really helps bring out detail in the shadows.

However, it isn't just the scanning, the software used to process the image is also very important. For example, I use software like Kodak GEM to manage the grain the image shows. I used to use Photoshop CS2 for preparing images for the web, but have since started using Adobe Lightroom 1.1 (which is even better).

gregstidham
12-Aug-2007, 13:28
My favorite combination are my Leica rangefinders and my Leitz enlarger. The two together make wonderful sharp prints. My wife and I display prints 16x20 from the Leica and we have sold several over the years.

I have not tested, but I would think my Leica negs and an Imacon 949 type scanner would produce much better tonal values than what I get from my D2x. And I would get to use my Leica in the field which is much more enjoyable than the D2x for me.

As far as film format goes. 120mm will die sooner than 35mm or 4x5 in my opinion. I know of very few photographers using 120 in the professional world. Market demand I suppose. If I owned a 120 format camera system,(does my Holga count? :) ) I would seriously think of selling it first before my Leica or Technika systems.

MJSfoto1956
12-Aug-2007, 15:36
I usually use slides and I知 using 135 Nikon cameras as F3HP and F4E.
I have just stared using a 4*5" Camera but what slide format will survive?

I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that 35mm reversal film will likely disappear soon. Reason: costs and lack of clear benefit to the average Joe (and Hollywood's inevitable move to digital). Color negative will be around for quite some time due to to both an established infrastructure as well as one clear benefit not offered by any DSLR: 10-12 stops of dynamic range. Pretty much all DSLRs match the 6-stops dynamic range of color reversal film -- but they are not likely to be able to increase DR for many years to come due to the essential limits of ROI and electronic circuit design.

So, in my book, the only sure bet would be with color negative film. Color reversal is an "iffy" bet long-term IMHO. You are free to disagree of course!

roteague
12-Aug-2007, 15:42
I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that 35mm reversal film will likely disappear soon.

Perhaps, but Fuji just posted, over a series of months, a list of labs still doing E6. Additionally, we here sometimes are just too US focused. There are places like the UK, where film, slide film as well, are alive and well. Personally, I think color negative will disappear before color slide film.

MJSfoto1956
12-Aug-2007, 16:05
Perhaps, but Fuji just posted, over a series of months, a list of labs still doing E6. Additionally, we here sometimes are just too US focused. There are places like the UK, where film, slide film as well, are alive and well. Personally, I think color negative will disappear before color slide film.

Personally, I think the recent announcements by Fuji are designed to hit Kodak where they are weak: advanced amateurs and artists. Classic Japanese to take the long-view. Likely Kodak will fold and leave the entire color slide market to Fuji -- given the bias the Kodak board has shown towards short-term profits and aversion to any long-term investments.

Trouble is, Hollywood and Bollywood are in effect subsidizing 35mm film production. If we assume that a certain percentage loss to digital over each of the next dozen years, then the subsidy will eventually dry up, forcing prices to surge. Will advanced amateurs and artists be willing to foot the cost? Personally, I doubt it. As of 2007, the essential difference between a 10mp digital camera and 35mm slide film are already too close to call. (However, color neg wins with dynamic range -- which is why Hollywood will stick with it for creating masters -- but not necessarily for contact printing to color reversal film - for many years to come).

By ten years time, the cost of a mint Nikon F3 system (lenses included) will be below that of an entry-level digital camera. Why would economics favor film in such a case? The average global citizen simply won't care.

roteague
12-Aug-2007, 16:33
Personally, I think the recent announcements by Fuji are designed to hit Kodak where they are weak: advanced amateurs and artists. Classic Japanese to take the long-view. Likely Kodak will fold and leave the entire color slide market to Fuji -- given the bias the Kodak board has shown towards short-term profits and aversion to any long-term investments.

I'll agree with you here. Fuji is much more interested in the long term; one of the reasons I've stopped using Kodak over the years. Fuji continues to show its commitment to film; new films, film only contests, etc. However, when I speak of longevity of film, any film, it can no longer be measured in decades. Sadly, in my opinion, digital is still not to the point where I am ready to give up transparency film. That leaves me at a quandry when it eventually does; I guess I'l shoot B&W if it does.


As of 2007, the essential difference between a 10mp digital camera and 35mm slide film are already too close to call.

I would have to disagree. I have a 10MP digital camera (Nikon D200) and I'll take the images I get out of my F5 loaded with Velvia over it any day. I see a major difference when the film is processed properly. But, you are welcome to your opinion.

Chris Strobel
12-Aug-2007, 19:16
Robert, what are the qualities you like in your 35mm slides over your D200?


I'll agree with you here. Fuji is much more interested in the long term; one of the reasons I've stopped using Kodak over the years. Fuji continues to show its commitment to film; new films, film only contests, etc. However, when I speak of longevity of film, any film, it can no longer be measured in decades. Sadly, in my opinion, digital is still not to the point where I am ready to give up transparency film. That leaves me at a quandry when it eventually does; I guess I'l shoot B&W if it does.



I would have to disagree. I have a 10MP digital camera (Nikon D200) and I'll take the images I get out of my F5 loaded with Velvia over it any day. I see a major difference when the film is processed properly. But, you are welcome to your opinion.

archivue
12-Aug-2007, 19:42
By now, no more C41 tungsten film available... it looks like print film will died before slide film !

archivue
12-Aug-2007, 19:46
i'm using a 50 euros Vuarde 40 alpinist backpack with great success... with a toyo 810M or a Sinar Norma 8x10.
i put the holders in a laptop's bag.

http://www.koodza.fr/Vuarde-40_118_32514.htm

Gene McCluney
12-Aug-2007, 20:13
I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that 35mm reversal film will likely disappear soon. Reason: costs and lack of clear benefit to the average Joe (and Hollywood's inevitable move to digital).

The information above is inaccurate. Hollywood never has, and never will use "reversal" film. They have always used negative film, and still do, even if the end result is distributed on digital media. This is one good reason why color negative film is holding its own, in regards sales, due to large consumption by film and high-end series television. It is futureproofing, as a 35mm color negative can be transferred to any one of many High Definition digital display mediums.

Gordon Moat
12-Aug-2007, 22:15
Many opinions, but anyone with much in the way of real knowledge would be playing the stock market heavily and generating more cash than most working photographers. Few companies will relieve themselves of profits. I have seen predictions of film demise several years ago, and supposedly I should not be able to buy film today . . . yet, those predictors were wrong. Eventually they might be right; though consider that I can still buy AGFA APX100 from a dead company that will not expire until 2010. I have plenty of time to switch anything that might be necessary to change, in the event all film disappears . . . though I simply have never seen any convincing arguement that it will in my lifetime. Seriously, I can still buy oil paints, from several companies, and that is about as dead as a technology can be dead, and certainly is trumped in resolution by any computer . . . yet, go figure, people still like oil paintings.

As regards dynamic range, not every image benefits from a wider dynamic range. Often a punchy or more constricted rendering of a scene can carry more appeal. Then there is the current trend towards HDR, much of which I really think looks terrible.

What I have seen lately is Kodak and Fuji competing less directly in pro films, and spreading the market more between the two companies. The only products I do worry about at all are Polaroid materials; that is now in the hands of a private company, and we really do not know much about what the future will bring; maybe Fuji can step in with more instant films, though Polaroid manipulation might become a lost art form.

Many television shows are shot on film, despite that the film gets digitized and broadcast. One reason is future proofing, because High Definition is a moving target. Read enough industry news about motion imaging, and you find that HD is nearly dead as a technology, and several players are moving towards 4k, though realizing that something beyond 4k is already in the works. Unless you are doing lots of special effects inserts, quite likely the production is using film. The cost and availability of a Cine Alta, Thompson Viper, or the soon to come Red One are real obstacles for many productions. Yes, some production is all digital capture, but quite a huge volume is still shot on film, even if there is a digital intermediate at some point. Then there is the other end of this, with two companies recently introducing $1M+ machines that do film transfers, taking a digital input and outputting film. There is an emerging market today for film transfers; so much so that companies invest and develop new technology.

Then there is the profit factor. If some company can generate profits from film production and sales, then film will be available. Maybe that means less choices in the future, but it will not mean no choices.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Brian Ellis
12-Aug-2007, 23:16
Perhaps, but Fuji just posted, over a series of months, a list of labs still doing E6. Additionally, we here sometimes are just too US focused. There are places like the UK, where film, slide film as well, are alive and well. Personally, I think color negative will disappear before color slide film.

Color negative film is used in disposable cameras, which remain popular for vacationers and in lesser developed countries. For that reason alone I think we'll have 35mm color negative film for quite a while. Slide film I don't know about but it's hard for me to see why it would outlast color negative film. Then again I thought slide film would be gone five years ago so what do I know.

Daniel_Buck
12-Aug-2007, 23:27
Then there is the current trend towards HDR, much of which I really think looks terrible.[/URL]
I agree! I work with .hdr and .exr images every day at work in 3d. I usually cringe when I see "hdr" posts in photography forums. 'tone mapping' the hdr images down usually looks horrible with ringing and odd or saturation levels. high dynamic range images were developed to capture real-world lighting and reproduce it again in 3d, and for this purpose it works very well! (and large light spheres in real life).

I can't see how the 'ringing' effect of tone-mapped HDRs looks good to some folks. But then again everyone has their own vision I suppose :) Maybe the tone-mapping software just needs to be refined so that there is no ringing.

archivue
13-Aug-2007, 00:10
i'm using a 50 euros Vuarde 40 alpinist backpack with great success... with a toyo 810M or a Sinar Norma 8x10.
i put the holders in a laptop's bag.

http://www.koodza.fr/Vuarde-40_118_32514.htm

sorry for that posting, it belongs to an other thread !

roteague
13-Aug-2007, 20:13
Robert, what are the qualities you like in your 35mm slides over your D200?

Sharpness and color are the two primary factors. Digital sharpness and film sharpness are two different things, and digital just doesn't look right to me. Likewise, digital color looks fake. My opinion only, I respect your right to disagree.

Charles
14-Aug-2007, 03:58
The information above is inaccurate. Hollywood never has, and never will use "reversal" film. They have always used negative film, and still do, even if the end result is distributed on digital media. This is one good reason why color negative film is holding its own, in regards sales, due to large consumption by film and high-end series television. It is futureproofing, as a 35mm color negative can be transferred to any one of many High Definition digital display mediums.

Not completely accurate. Exhibition prints are on transparency film and a release with 5,000 exhibition prints in circulation is a lot of transparency film, far more than the amount of negative film used to originally make the film.

Digital acquisition is becoming more and more common and some 'films' are not done on film at any point in production, namely most of the highly successful animation films. At a recent film exhibitor's convention Trek 3 was screened on a SONY 4K digital projection system. Film could not have remotely come close to what what achieved in an all digital process for that particular application.

Film will be dead for the most part in Hollywood within ten years for economic and security reasons...my prediction...assuming Hollywood can get past it's archaic passion for 24 fps and the 'film look'.

sanking
16-Aug-2007, 15:00
I am very much involved in digital printing, but for capture I much prefer film. And I don't believe it is hard to make a case that for persons who are not on deadline, and are simply interested in optimum quality, medium format in 6X7 or 6X9 formats still equals or beats the very best digital SLR, and at much less cost, and with 4X5 and above there should be no argument at all. However, it does seem to me from the work I have seen that digital SLR clearly beats the best 35mm, and easily.

So my thinking is that 35mm slide film will be the first to go, though it may be around for a lot of years. Between medium format and 4X5, I would not bet.

Just for the record, I would not personally miss the loss of slide film at all. I use only color negative film in 120 and 220, with Fuji and Mamiya 6X7 and 6X9 rangefinder cameras, which I scan and print digitally, and sometimes convert to digital negative for printing in carbon or pt./pd.

Sandy King

Alan Davenport
16-Aug-2007, 15:11
What slide format will survive the digital age Reply to Thread

I reckon this'll be the only kind of slide that makes it through:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/478709395_dabeb2c4f9.jpg

roteague
16-Aug-2007, 15:18
However, it does seem to me from the work I have seen that digital SLR clearly beats the best 35mm, and easily.

I have not found that to be true. But, opinions are like ....

Dave Parker
16-Aug-2007, 15:37
However, it does seem to me from the work I have seen that digital SLR clearly beats the best 35mm, and easily.

Sandy King

Sorry, Sandy,

I have to agree with Robert, because I disagree with this statement...in fact, several of my commercial clients are again, asking for slides over digital files again..

Dave

sanking
16-Aug-2007, 17:00
Dave,

You and Robert are certainly entitled to your opinions, and as Robert suggests, everybody has one.

However, my opinion, which is based on my own experience and the result of numerous comparisons made by others, many published, is that digital SLR of 12 mp and more clearly beats the very best 35mm in most, if not all, of the areas that define image quality. I don't say that because I prefer digital capture, which I clearly do not, but because for me it is simply a fact certain.

Sandy King

roteague
16-Aug-2007, 17:39
However, my opinion, which is based on my own experience and the result of numerous comparisons made by others, many published, is that digital SLR of 12 mp and more clearly beats the very best 35mm in most, if not all, of the areas that define image quality. I don't say that because I prefer digital capture, which I clearly do not, but because for me it is simply a fact certain.

Yes, I too have read most of the comparisons, and most are simply anecdotal at best. None I have read has any scientific basis, and are only valid for the setup being tested.

Bill_1856
16-Aug-2007, 18:33
Do you use any other system than LF?
Only Minox, 110, 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 9x12, 4x5, and 5x7. Haven't shot a color tranny in any of them in this century, and hope to never do it again.
PS,Except for Kodachrome, I've always done my own color darkroom, including
Dye Transfer --- can you say the same?

Dave Parker
16-Aug-2007, 19:02
Dave,

You and Robert are certainly entitled to your opinions, and as Robert suggests, everybody has one.

However, my opinion, which is based on my own experience and the result of numerous comparisons made by others, many published, is that digital SLR of 12 mp and more clearly beats the very best 35mm in most, if not all, of the areas that define image quality. I don't say that because I prefer digital capture, which I clearly do not, but because for me it is simply a fact certain.

Sandy King

Sandy,

You are entitled to yours as well, I base on opinions on what puts money in the bank, and at this present time, 35mm slides are again putting the majority of the money in my bank when it comes to my customers, so that is fine, I will shoot, what the client wants and laugh all the way to the bank. And Yes, I do have digital cameras, not point and shoots, but full blown systems, and I am selling 10 slides for every frame I take with digital.

Might be a difference in market, but I go where the money is..

Dave

sanking
16-Aug-2007, 19:18
Sandy,

You are entitled to yours as well, I base on opinions on what puts money in the bank, and at this present time, 35mm slides are again putting the majority of the money in my bank when it comes to my customers, so that is fine, I will shoot, what the client wants and laugh all the way to the bank. And Yes, I do have digital cameras, not point and shoots, but full blown systems, and I am selling 10 slides for every frame I take with digital.

Might be a difference in market, but I go where the money is..

Dave

Dave,

My perspective has nothing to do with money or what clients want, but plain and simple final print quality. If your clients want 35mm slides and you can provide them, so much the better for you. However, how many slides you sell to every frame of digital is not relevant to any argument I am making.

Sandy

Dave Parker
16-Aug-2007, 19:48
Dave,

My perspective has nothing to do with money or what clients want, but plain and simple final print quality. If your clients want 35mm slides and you can provide them, so much the better for you. However, how many slides you sell to every frame of digital is not relevant to any argument I am making.

Sandy


Well to me it does, so be it, I don't shoot for pleasure, I shoot to put food on the table, and I have done several shoots using both digital as well as film side by side and the clients are picking the film..pure quality, perfection is not what always makes the best picture, we all know with digital, that we can duplicate things over and over. But I still, in my opinion don't agree that digital beats 35mm and unless things change in the future, won't..My clients are picking the print quality of film over the digital print quality...

We are at an impasse, and won't agree with each other. so that is the way it is.

This once again, has become one of those stupid "digital vs. film" threads, and is not worth the breath it takes to say it..or the time it takes to type it, You have your opinion, I have mine...and we have both expressed them.

Night Sandy, on to another day.

Dave

sanking
16-Aug-2007, 20:34
Night Sandy, on to another day.

Dave


Night Dave.

Sweet dreams!!

Wish I was there in Montana now. Heat in South Carolina is over the top.

Sandy

roteague
16-Aug-2007, 20:48
Night Dave.

Sweet dreams!!

Wish I was there in Montana now. Heat in South Carolina is over the top.

Sandy

Personally, I would love to see both you guys in Hawaii!! It is a nice and balmy 81ー, with a nice tradewind blowing (keeps the humidity down).