Jeff_2522

Wow, when trying to correct that spelling mistake, I get this: "Your content cannot be submitted. This is likely because your content is spam-like or contains inappropriate elements. Please change your content or try again later. If you still have problems, please contact an administrator". "Interesting" place.

This does not agree at all with my experience and I have been passionate about the whole process for over fifteen years. I see the respective characteristics, as previously mentioned, as do other experienced people I've associated with.

"... I don't know whether to laugh out loud, or feel deeply sad, when people shoot film with the sole intention of scanning it to a digital file." Why would you say something like this? The same characteristics of various films, i.e. the Kodachromes, Velvia, Ektachrome, various color negative film stocks, C41 black and white, traditional black and white, all come through in a good scan and in the digital print. They may be somewhat subtle to various degrees, but they are there. If you're saying you can achieve the same nuances in an all-digital workflow, fine, but why criticize those who utilize and may prefer another method?

Thank you, JDMvW. That's good to know about XP2. I might just try working with the Sunny-16 method as you mentioned, given the wide latitude of today's negative films.

Thanks, Jim. That sounds great about your F-1's performance after so many years. I came across some of your work with it on some other threads, and your pictures are really outstanding!

Hi Everyone, I'm hoping some of the experienced people here can guide me in making the best decisions in regards to some issues I have with a pair of Canon F-1's; they are the original early seventies version. Recently, I'd sent them for service to a very experienced repairman- a man who'd more or less specialized in Canons for many years when he was younger. I think he's done a very good job, as far as he could go and there's no dissatisfaction on my part with his work. He adjusted the price to reflect the things he couldn't do because of what he said is a lack of parts. He fixed the shutter on one and spent a lot of time on making the speeds as accurate as possible, plus looked at everything, cleaning, lubing and adjusting as needed. However, he couldn't repair the meters in either one, though he tried. So my first questions revolve around the meter issues. I've read the archives here and for the most part, opinion seems to be that these F-1's had accurate metering ability, except in very low light levels as compared with cameras produced by various brands a few years later. Currently, the functioning of both meters is very bad, to the point where they are essentially useless. I've used these cameras very little as I have others and wanted to wait until these were fully repaired before putting film through them. I really do like them as they are cosmetically very decent and they seem to be of high quality. I've put a fair amount of money into them to this point, and though I don't regret it, I would love to have the meters working well on these F-1's. Is this is a viable possibility? They did seem to function somewhat in the past, but were very sluggish, especially when pointing to a dark area after metering from a brighter one, and I'm not sure they were very accurate. I'm wondering if you've ever dealt with a similar F-1 meter problem and if so, were you able to get it fixed properly or replaced, and at a decent price from someone who may have parts? I've thought of buying a hand-held meter and going that route, but wanted to at least explore the viability of fixing the in-camera meters first, because that seems the nicer method to me. The only other issues are that on one camera, the mirror doesn't return back down when first fired at 1/15 of a second until it's partially cocked again. This performance is actually improved compared with before the service, as before, it would often stay up at various slow speeds. Still, it's not pleasant, and I especially have wondered if a very small amount of the right kind of lubricant properly applied might fix this? Also, the shutter release button on the other camera is slightly sticky and it sits just a little lower than the other in its collar (the other camera seems very smooth and pleasing in its action). Might the right kind of lubricant sparingly applied solve this too?

<p>Sorry for the late reply and thank you so much, Colin! Really, really interesting and helpful; I greatly appreciate it! </p>

<p>Thanks so much, Andrew! I'm working, but will read this over again, later. Greatly appreciate the excellent information!</p>

<p>I would love to get to the bottom of this issue… In scouring the archives I cannot find what seems to be a definitive answer and I think things are perhaps a little more clouded because apparently the “native gamma” (?) of Mac computers changed from 1.8 to 2.2 a few years ago?</p> <p>I’m scanning primarily positive E6 and C41 negative films with the Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000 (with what I think is the last software update available). I’m doing the image editing with the latest version of Photoshop (on Adobe’s subscription plan) on a late model MacBook Air. The files are intended for the best digital prints possible.</p> <p>In NikonScan’s preferences, the various color space choices are listed in a column with the top three apparently most appropriate for computers with a native gamma of 1.8 and the bottom seven for computers with a native gamma of 2.2. Nikon explains that the lower placed choices within these two groupings have the widest color gamut capacities, if I’m understanding this correctly.</p> <p>Going on this, my best guess is that if indeed my computer’s native gamut is 2.2, then perhaps the best color space choice in NikonScan is “Wide Gamut RGB (compensated)” because I recall reading some things that didn’t sound optimal about “Scanner RGB”, so I haven’t tried that one. I have experimented with three so far: the third listed choice of the 3 in the 1.8 gamma grouping, and “Adobe RGB (1998)” and “Wide Gamut RGB (compensated)” in the 2.2 gamma grouping.</p> <p>As far as editing in Photoshop, I’ve been tempted to use Pro Photo RGB, as I’ve read that this seems to be the consensus choice.</p> <p>Given all this, can anyone give me a truly definitive answer as to what is the optimal color space in NikonScan is, and what is the most ideal color space for editing these files in Photoshop? Though I've managed to produce what I think were good prints with an older computer and software, with this recent set-up, it would be so great to be sure of these things instead of guessing. Many thanks if you can help!</p> <p> </p>