philip_dygeus2

Here's a film photographer's and Mac user's perspective. I scan my 35mm and 120 film using Vuescan for my CS9000 and FlexColor for my X1, but I don't do any editing in those apps which are only set up to give me the flattest possible scan. Colour negative scans are inverted using ColorPerfect in Photoshop. Then I do most of my image editing (regardless of emulsion type) in Adobe Camera Raw which I have found over the years to be truly excellent for colour correcting. I use Photoshop for dust spotting, resizing and printing, and occasionally for other image corrections. I've described my workflow here (though it doesn't include the Flextight workflow, but it doesn't differ much). I also refuse to join Adobe's subscription culture. I'm using CS6 which I bought a number of years ago and run on my 12 year old 8-core Mac Pro. Until recently it ran El Capitan which was the latest supported system but I have now upgraded it to High Sierra. Apart from possible hardware faults down the line (and so far I've only suffered bad RAM sticks and a broken GPU) I don't expect there to be any problems continuing with this setup. The computer is solid as a rock and by now upgraded with all sorts of stuff inside to run well enough for my needs. Depending on one's needs it is perfectly possible to run both old software and new OS:es on older Macs. My 7-year old MacBook Pro is running Mojave (but can run both Catalina and upcoming Big Sur) and CS6. I also agree that I don't miss any new features in Photoshop. I have everything I need and then some in CS6. Seeing how Adobe tries to tout new and improved features reminds me of the truly ridiculous upgrade hysteria that so many digital photographers have to suffer. The tiniest little changes instills doubt and fear of missing out. I'm so happy I am not part of either. Cheers Philip

Thank you Alan. The card I bought unfortunately didn't have that but PhotoRec was really quite effective and I recommend it.

Thank you for the suggestion. I did everything you describe in the first paragraph but will try the other things tomorrow. I didn't think of renaming the files, good idea.

Thank you Mike. I can zoom in on many but not all and then the image is sharp as normal. But some low-res images remain low-res and can't be zoomed, which is odd because I only copied the big JPG files which I verified on my computer are full-size images.

The convoluted title tries to describe the following. My daughter's Nikon W100 had a corrupt SD card from which I manage to recover images using PhotoRec. I bought a new SD card and formatted it in the camera. Then I transferred the recovered photos back to the SD card. Weirdly, on the camera's screen the images are very low resolution and pixelated, whereas on my computer they are full resolution and look normal. Any idea what causes the low resolution? Thanks in advance Philip

Hello I am looking to add a 24" monitor with built-in calibration. Would anyone know if there is anything to be gained in having the CG247X over the CG2420? These monitors use the exact same panel but what I don't know is if the hardware calibration features of the 247X justify the approx. 200 Euro premium. Thanks in advance Philip

It's a bit of an unusual surname, 28 persons according to the Swedish agency that deals with these things. 364 persons are called Hasselblad, however. Philip

Happy New Year everyone. I guess this falls into the 'tell me I am right to spend the money this way' category. I'm considering a second body to my 203FE (which recently decided to rid itself of an internal light seal, oh well). In an ideal world I'd buy a second 203FE but they are more than I wish to spend right now since I need to service the 203FE. I have the option to buy a 201F from 1995 which was used in a photo studio and is a bit scruffy looking but has been looked at by a Hasselblad tech. It's 600 Euro. The alternative is a 2003FCW from 1989 which is cosmetically in very nice and comes from a private collection. The price is 400 Euro. As for lenses, I have the 80 CFE that came with my 203FE, an old 50 C, a 40 CFE and a 350 Tele-Tessar FE. My instinct tells me that the 201F is the better buy because even if it's a bit scruffy it's been serviced and is a newer model. Is my logic correct? Thanks a lot in advance Philip

Thank you all for the further replies (and my apologies for the delay in responding). I have begun the project to we shall see how it turns out. In a few locations I have taken two shots with a view to trying focus stacking. Glen, I'm shooting the project on Ektar. And Ed, you bring up something I've been thinking of which is that I really need higher magnification than what the built-in finder's magnifier offers. I currently use one of those "chimney" finders as a loupe for my lightbox so I'll try that one. cheers philip

Thanks for the reply Paul. I've been told it's a light seal related to where the mirror hits the top of the camera, as I understood it.

Yes it is similar to that. I thought it could be a piece of the light seals but I checked both my mags and the seals are intact. br Philip

Hi Ken Thanks for the reply, but no unfortunately not. I have an A12 and an E12 only and they don't look like that. Cheers Philip

A film I recently developed had a 1-centimetre wide black band stretching slightly diagonally across the bottom 1/4 of each frame. When I removed the film magazine on my 203FE I noticed that the 'thing' depicted in the two images was attached inside the camera. It was situated behind the rear shutter towards the top (meaning that it would be visible from the back only when the shutter was tripped) and each short side of the thing was in the vertical grooves to the right and left behind the rear shutter. It's 56mm long and shiny plastic on one side and dull matte black and slightly coarse on the other side. On that coarse side a 2-3mm wide slightly raised straight ridge runs along the length of the thing. That side of the thing also looks as if it has been torn off from something. The coarse side is not entirely unlike the dark dull material inside the camera but I don't see anywhere where a piece of it would be missing. For some reason it looks familiar to me but I don't know why. Does anyone have an idea what it might be? Thanks a lot in advance Philip

Hi Conrad, thanks for the reply. Yes I will scan the negs. Focus stacking sounds interesting. I'm wondering how I would determine how many frames I would need and at which focus distances? Yes, I think my worries about diffraction are baseless actually. I should be able to shoot at f16 without meaningful degradation. cheers Philip

Hi Joe and thank you for the reply. It's nice for a bit of perspective. I had a feeling I was over-thinking this so I much appreciate your comments :) I'll just set focus somewhere appropriately depending on the scene and pick an f stop that gives me long enough DoF. Who ever said this needed to be complicated? Um, that was I (sheepish smile). Thanks again Philip