addicted2light

<p>Thank you Barrie!<br> Yes, I've considered using a piece of glass, and I've used one with the Epson, on the back of the negative, to keep it flat.<br> But in this case it should go in the optical path, and like you already suspected I'm wary of potential image degradation...so I still prefer taping the negatives down.<br> On the other hand, I'm seeing if I can manage to find (here in Europe they are scarce) a Beseler enlarger medium format film holder; from pictures I've seen they seem to be flat enough to be used with this system, but the only way to be sure will be seeing one in person.</p>

<p>First of all a macro lens has a much higher resolution, otherwise just shooting on Velvia in the film days would have capped its potential. Even normal lenses, i.e. non macro, when they are good resolve much more than this. Try shooting on Spur or Adox CHS20 (I hope I got this one right, I always mix it up with its "normal" brother), b/w films capable of recording >200 lp/mm and you'll see for yourself.</p> <p>More, you are disregarding the main factor: you can go closer (i.e. increase the magnification factor) if you want more detail, just shooting more images to combine later in one shot...This is why this method is, within limits, resolution-independant both in terms of lens used (as long as it is sharp enough) and sensor megapixels.</p>

<p>You're welcome :)</p>

<p>Hi everyone,</p> <p>like I promised when I first published the list for 35mm lenses, in the end I was able to "polish" the medium format one as well.</p> <p>You can find it here (careful, the page because of the list is almost 600Kb, please be patient):</p> <p><a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/02/12/medium-format-legacy-lenses-sizes-and-specs/">Medium format legacy lenses: sizes and specs</a></p> <p>Like the 35mm one, this is just something it grows from notes I kept as a reference for myself during the years. I revised it, but there might be some mistake, mine or of one of my sources.</p> <p>Enjoy it, and careful for sudden attacks of G.A.S.! ;)</p>

<p>Well, most of the job, albeit in a rougher form, was actually done years ago when I supposedly should have been studying for a trade law test (yeah, I was in law school, biggest mistake of my life, soon enough rectified).</p> <p>Trust me, that stuff it is so boring you will find every possible excuse to avoid cracking the books :)</p> <p>After that I just added a few rows now and then when I found something that interested me; and all that I had to do now was, like I said, clean it up a bit to render it intelligible to others as well.</p>

<p>Hi everyone, <br> I finally got around to cleaning up - and render understandable even for others and not just me - a table that I was keeping as a reference that contains a lot of informations about legacy lenses: optical schemes, variations, dimensions etc.</p> <p>It's the condensed "juice" of many old magazines and many websites, some of them disappeared long ago.</p> <p>I've just published it; please be careful, the table weights 2.7Mb so the page will take its sweet time to load! :-)</p> <p>You can find it at:</p> <p><a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/01/11/35mm-legacy-lenses-sizes-and-specs/">35mm legacy lenses: sizes and specs</a></p> <p>In a month or so I hope to have the time to complete "tiding up" another one about medium format lenses, so stay tuned.</p> <p>Hope it can be useful, happy pictures (and 2015) to all!</p> <p>Luca</p>

<p>The key, John, is ram even more than processing power. A faster cpu will end the job quicker, but without enough ram your computer will often not be able to end the task at all.</p> <p>And to have enough ram you need a 64 bit operating system, because 32 bit ones can handle up to just 3Gb of ram, way too few for today big files or for high-res scans.</p> <p>To give you a reference point: I can stitch with relatively ease 4x5 "scans" (black and white, though; I've never shot color in large format) or 6x6 color slides "scans" on a mid-2011 core i5 iMac all stock but for the addition of ram up to a total of 24Gb.</p> <p>I've got a Photoshop cs6 script taking care of all the stitching one image after the other. So I just launch the script on an entire roll or set of images and then go grab a coffee or have lunch.</p>

<p>As usual the higher the macro ratio, the more vital the absence of vibrations (mirror lock up…) and *perfect* focus (minute variation can make huge differences, so if you move the camera even a bit to tape the hood in place instead of screwing it on before and leaving it alone you can knock the focus off).</p> <p>Btw, if you want to heighten the macro ratio but can't find a suitable spaced hood try using one or more filters stacked, just with the glass part removed. Two or three filters are cheaper than a metal hood and work like a charm.</p> <p>But honestly, on 35mm in comparison with a Dimage 5400 I think you will maybe see the difference with so few shots that it isn't wort the effort (I'm assuming here you use 35mm for handheld shots, high Iso and such; if you shoot landscapes on a tripod on it it will be different). In any case, 35mm is a pain in the *** to scan with this technique (from a quality / effort perspective) unless you reserve this treatment just for the very best images.</p> <p>The kinky results, btw, I think depend by Photoshop having heating something heavy at dinner and having nightmares :)</p> <p>It happens now and then to me as well, and the funny part is that often if I process again the same set of images after just closing and reopening Ps I can get two completely different results! Anyway this is a general problem with stitching and it happens all the time with "normal" panoramic photography as well.</p> <p>It helps having something detailed in the black part (the frame) of the frame. This is why I suggested the white paper-backed tape. Its height it is a bit taller than a normal transparent tape (still negligible though), but its texture gives the stitching program something to work with even with images with quite a bit of less detailed space like sea or big patches of sky. For the same reason, shoot the sections without leaving the borders of the "master" image at the extreme borders of the section-images (I hope this makes sense) because there is where Ps or any other stitching program will try to deform the stitched image the most and where the distortion of the lens you use for the job will usually be more visible.</p> <p>P.s. thanks for the info on the Reflecta. I thought it had a nice Af like the Minolta 5400; what a bust...</p>

<p>Hi Adrian,</p> <p>I never had any problem with dirt or lint, with the exception of the notoriously terrible (in this regard) Rollei ATP, that is a real dust-magnet. And I live with a dog that is practically a lint factory :)</p> <p>You could try 2 strategies for this:</p> <p>1) change place; as banal as it sounds there are rooms or just places that collect more dust than others because of air currents, electromagnetic attractions, materials of which is made the furniture around etc.</p> <p>2) wash down the floor before; this is an old darkroom trick. It will rise the humidity in the room, forcing the dust to settle down instead of floating around (and sticking onto your negatives)</p> <p>To avoid the distortion in Photoshop you should use one of the last two methods of stitching in the list: collage or reposition. All the other ones will introduce some amount of distortion, that while often negligible (depends also on the subject and the way you shoot the sections) I understand it is a big deal if you shoot architecture.</p> <p>And remember to overlap quite a bit the various sections, at least a 20% if not a 33% (otherwise just shoot more sections). It is a bit counterintuitive, but the more juxtaposed the images are the easier and faster the process will be. If you are on Windows, you could try as well to use the (free) Image Composite Editor (ICE). I'm on Mac so I cannot comment, but from feedback I've received from readers of my blog it looks like an even better alternative, especially when you have images with less details for the software to work with (skies, seascapes and such).</p> <p>Last, I don't know if you did this, but please remember to both use the mirror lock up and the Live view to focus accurately, and even more vital please tape the film down! Use the white "painter" tape, the one used to mask areas you don't want to paint; it is cheap and doesn't leave residues. Don't rely only on the macro rig to keep your films parallel.</p> <p>A Coolscan 9000 yes, would be a really nice alternative, but:</p> <p>1) the ICE will not work on black and white films; given they are 95% of what I shoot…I'm out of luck :(</p> <p>2) it is unsupported; if it brakes it will become a really expensive paperweight. In this regard probably it would be better and cheaper the new Reflecta medium format scanner; the reviews are pretty good, even if not at the level of the Nikon (but again, it costs a fraction of the price). I seem to recall it will reach 3600ppi (as measured by the testers, not as just declared by the manufacturer)</p> <p>Hope this can help :)</p> <p>P.s.: if you really want to crush the scanner results try shooting at a bigger macro ratio (like 2:1)…it will take more time, but you will be amazed by the amount of detail you can pull off from a good (low iso, good lens, tripod and mirror lock up/rangefinder) negative</p>

<p>Hi Adrian, <br> a Youtube video would be a good idea, as soon as I'll have a bit of time I'll do it.</p> <p>But it is really simple: I just move the camera between exposures, lifting it (so not to leave scratches on the negatives) and repositioning it a few centimeters down the "line" I'm scanning. Precision is nice but not paramount, because the software will take care of this.</p> <p>The film is taped on the surface of the light table, so it stays put. And lifting the camera avoids almost every possibility of scratching the film.</p> <p>I'm a nitpick, so the first times I used to refocus between each shot: turned out it is a complete waste of time (as long as the gear you use doesn't have loose parts, like a creaking focus ring).</p> <p>I don't refocus, not even between different frames; I only do this with different film strips, and this mostly because of the possibility of positioning the following strip on a different place on the glass that could be a bit less flat.</p> <p>Happy pictures.</p>