marco_ristuccia

Not 100% sure, but if the sensor is the same of the CFV-50c digital back, then from the tech specs you can read it is 14 bit. They simply put 14 bit data into a 16 bit file container and say it is 16 bit. They declared the same for the CFV-50c digital back. It's marketing. :)

<p>Unfortunately the CFV-50c CMOS sensor has a cropping factor of 1.3 in respect to a Hassy 645.<br /> I already have a 40mm but often I feel it is not wide enough when used with this digital back.<br /> I agree with you that putting a glass between the lens and the camera could be very risky in terms of IQ. But according to reviews Metabones' speed booster ultra adapters (to name one, there are other similar solutions from other companies) maintain a very high image IQ (comparable to the original one), and even sponsor a 1-stop light gain which could be very useful with MF lenses that are not so fast.<br /> So theoretically it could be possible to achieve a 60x45 to 44x33 (CFV-50c) conversion, and even a 60x60 to 33x33 conversion to have a full square format with the original lens's FOV.<br /> Regarding the sensor size, indeed that was my idea. Producing full 6x4.5 or 6x6 sensors is very difficult and expensive. Then why not seeing the problem the other way around? Why not "simply" adapting lenses' coverage to the sensor?</p>

<p>Hi all,<br /> recently I happened upon some lens adapters called "speed booster" made by Metabones.<br /> Those special adapters use a special lens group that optically compress (adapt) the full format into the APS-C one.<br /> The result is that we can use a full-frame lens mounted on a mirrorless camera without loosing its full angle of view. They also sponsor a 1 stop light gain and better MTF.<br /> Just thinking that creating such an adapter for Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses when used with a CFV back could be much more affordable than producing a full-frame MF sensor. This way we could use the full FOV of the Hasselblad lenses with, let's say, a CFV-50c.<br /> What do you think? Would a Kickstarter project for producing this kind of adapter have success? For, let's say, a price target of $1000,00 - $1500,00?<br /> Best,<br /> Marco</p>

<p>Andrew, Roger,<br> thank you for your kind feedback.<br> I'll stick with the Epson inks.<br> Kind Regards.</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>I would like to share with you my personal findings regarding the performance of the MIS K4 Inks, which I tried on my Epson Stylus Photo R2880 in place of the original Ultrachrome K3 Vivid Magenta inkset.</p> <p>What I've read from InkSupply is that the MIS K4 inks, besides being archival like the Epson ones, should guarantee an "Improved dot gain, color density, and gamut over Epson inks.". So I wanted to try them together with the refill kit with the hope to spare some money for my future prints.</p> <p>After installing the MIS inkset into the R2880 I've profiled it on Canson Infinity Baryta Photographie paper with my Colormunki-Photo spectrophotometer.</p> <p>Then I did some test prints in order to compare them with the same copies made with the Epson K3 inks. It was immediately clear, even by a fast eye inspection, that something was wrong. On the MIS print colors were dull, expecially the more saturated reds and greens. The general impression was of less brilliance and saturation.</p> <p>As a consequence of those results, I've visually compared my custom MIS profile with the one I've created for the Epson inks (for the same above mentioned paper).</p> <p>I attach here the results of this comparison (made through the ColorSync utility on my Mac PC). The grey profile is the Epson K3 one, the coloured profile is the MIS K4.</p> <p>My impressions are fully confirmed by this visual comparison, the MIS custom profile is way narrower than the Epson one. Only on the blue/green area it seems that MIS is a little bit better than Epson.</p> <p>I've contacted the InkSupply's support on September 5th, they told me that this paper was not tested yet and that they will try it and let me know. They also asked my two custom profiles (MIS and Epson) in order to have something to work on. Until now I've got no final feedback regarding my findings.</p> <p>Long story short, I'm coming back to Epson inks and will never try anything else again.</p> <p>Hope this could help some of you no to waste the money that I've thrown away.</p> <p>Regards.</p> <p><img src="http://www.marcoristuccia.com/tmp/MIS_K4_vs_Epson_K3vm.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Coloured profile: MIS K4 Inks - Greyed profile: Epson Ultrachrome K3 VM Inks - Paper: Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique</p>

Hi Jeff, as far as I remember, there is an option in the Silver FX settings page which lets you chose whether to put the filtered image on a new layer or just apply the filter to the current layer. Once saved, the option will keep your choice for all future uses. Regards.

I suspect we are degenerating to one of the classic stupid war of principles. Maybe it would be better to stop discussing (we are too clever to repeat the same error again, right?) and synthetise our thought to the OP. I think that the general consensus here is: if your workflow does't have the strict constraint of dealing only with the RAW file, then the Nik Efex Pro suite is still worth a try, to unconventionally create the conventional (or the exact opposite). :)

<p>Tim, <br> it's the opposite.<br />By working with Silver Efex 2 I spare a lot of time. There are a lot of really well done presets, I simply choose the one that is nearest to what I want to achieve and then refine the settings to the final result.<br> It's way faster than having something in mind and starting from zero (like in Photoshop) trying to achieve what's in mind.<br> Not counting settings like the "Soft Contrast" and the "Dynamic Brightness", the film emulations and the realistic grain simulation that are really difficult to reproduce in LR/Photoshop.<br> In my personal workflow Silver Efex Pro 2 is faster and the prints look better. That's having a life! .)</p>

<p>Laziness and hard-disk space are not acceptable excuses not to reach a state of the art result (the extra "punch", like you named it), unless it could be "perfectly matched" through the use of the "plain" LR as well.<br /> Even going through Photoshop will produce a duplicated raster image. And, honestly, for most fine-art productions LR is just (and only) the first step of the workflow. A workflow that proceeds till the equally crucial choice of the perfect frame for the final print. :)</p>

Nik Silver Efex Pro is still the best tool I've ever worked with for producing state of the art BW images.

<p>Some weeks ago my Lady and me have spent a romantic week-end in this wonderful Baumhaus, in front of a frozen lake.<br /> Taken with an Hasselblad 503CW and the Zeiss Distagon CF 40mm on a Fomapan 100 B/W film.</p> <center> <p><img src="http://www.marcoristuccia.com/TO_SOCIALS/20160118_Marco_Ristuccia_KRIEBLAND_Baumhaus_Germany.jpg" alt="" /><br />KRIEBLAND - Germany</p> </center>

<p>I second Diego's suggestion of considering an Imacon.<br /> I have an 848, payed it €4000 three years ago (second hand), and it was the best choice I ever made.<br /> Before the 848 I had the Epson V700 with custom holders, I thought it was great, but in comparison to the Imacon it is a peace of crap. Very soft unless you boost the sharpness way up to create the sensation of sharpness (but many details are not there in any case).<br /> I would consider the Epson only for images going to a web page, not to paper.</p>

I had this scanner once. What you describes happened to me, it was the external power supply that was not running well. I had to buy another one.

<p>I use an Hasselblad 500 C/M and a 503 CW regularly and never had a jam. By design the only way to end up with a jam is not having both the camera and the lens cocked before attaching them together. It happened once to me when I didn't know this documented behaviour.<br /> The rule is: always cock the camera before detaching the lens. That means that the optic must be kept cocked when not attached to the camera.<br />I can assure you that by following this simple rule Hasselblad V cameras work smoothly as a charm without any jam.<br /><br />If you are already aware of this, then I suspect that the camera/lens you tried simply need a CLA.</p>

<p>Hi Diego,<br /> I know of problems with transmission belts on some Imacon scanners when they went old, but I haven't a personal experience on that problem.</p> <p>I have also read that it should be relatively simple to open the scanner's sides and check/change the belts by yourself. They are of standard sizes and should be relatively easy to find on the net.</p> <p>There is a Yahoo group called "IMACONUSERS" focused on Imacon scanners and users, I strongly suggest you to subscribe and dig the archived messages. It's an incredible source of help and learning.</p> <p>Here is the link:<br /> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/IMACONUSERS/info</p> <p>Best,<br />Marco</p>