Jump to content

rainermoore

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Hi all, I'm thinking of upgrading from my old x-pro1 setup but I'm having a hard time deciding between the T2 and T3. I know the technical differences between the two, as well as the decent price difference. A T2 body can currently be had used mint for about $600, the T3 closer to the $1-1.1K range. Technical features aside (AF and video capabilities and the other topics frequently discussed and repeated online), I see that images from the T3 (and Xpro3) have a significantly different 'character' than those from older generation sensors. They appear sharper, and colors (even images edited from RAW files) seem to me to have a more 'filmic' quality. Slightly less saturated, and deeper somehow. Better gradation and what seems to be a much wider array of color. Generally I prefer this quality, tho I'm having a hard time even putting my finger on exactly what it is that I'm noticing. It's not the 2MP difference--at least I doubt it--so it must be something to do with the way the two cameras and/or sensors process the information. I'm at the point where I'm planning to wait until I have the extra $500 or so to get the T3, but with so little information addressing this exact subject (not features but this 'character'), I thought I'd ask if anyone out there has noticed the same thing, or it's simply the power of suggestion or my brain leaning me toward the newer, shinier product. Thanks!
  2. What do you mean by 'false economy'? Are you simply referring to Silverfast's reputation? The V800 and V850 seem to be the favorites of the flatbed world. As for what I'd like to do, as of right now I'm just posting to the web, tho I would like to get to a point where I can print up to my printer's max (13x19) and still get good quality. I have a good camera and super sharp optics. Good advice on the bundle. Thanks!
  3. Thanks for the response! Good point. As of right now I'm mostly posting to the web, tho I would like to eventually be able to print and show somewhere. As of now (and the foreseeable future) the largest I could print would be 13x19, but I would like to scan to a point where that would be sharp. I know with 35mm grain would be very visible, that's okay, I rather like that. to even get 2400bpi I would have to be scanning at 9600? I'm confused by peoples math online when it comes to 'true resolution' thanks again!
  4. Hey all, I've been using a Canon 900f MKII with VueScan Pro for a while now, and while I've been reasonably happy with the results I recently tried a trial version of Silverfast SE 8 and was amazed at the differences right out of the scanner. VueScan rarely hits the color even nearly correct, and I've resorted to either scanning the negatives in raw and manually turning each image into a positive then color correcting in Photoshop, or, if the color is at least in the ballpark for a roll, flattening the image out as much as possible in VueScan. Either way the amount of post just to get the image to a basically satisfactory level is crazy time consuming. VueScan also constantly clips the blacks, and I find the interface so spartan I don't feel I have much control over what I'm doing. I'm well aware of the cost of Silverfast vs Vuescan, as well as the company's reputation as not so consumer friendly (charging for upgrades and registering for new scanners) but I'm still thinking about making the switch. The time spent getting a decent looking image from which I can more easily pick my best frames and do any detail editing is a fraction of the time. Maybe it couldn't hurt to have both? VueScan definitely has a lot of strengths, and I've gotten lots of nice images out of it, its just not consistent especially with color accuracy and range. As for my scanner, I'm reasonably happy with the resolution of many of my scans, but reading online there's a lot of debate over the actual resolution of these scanners. I think now that I'm doing mostly color 35mm film instead of black and white, Epson would have been the better brand choice. Is there a scanner below the V800 price range that would be worth upgrading to? Or is the general consensus that Flatbeds are no longer the way to go? I am constantly on Instagram and various online publications and see other 35mm images with sharpness and color ranges much better and deeper than I've ever achieved. Would pricier consumer-grade scanner really make that much of a difference? Or is it possible my Lightroom/Photoshop skills are that below par? I've learned a lot over the past couple of years, but I feel I've hit a roadblock in terms of learning curve. I'm basically self and youtube taught, but if there's a good learning solution, or a needed equipment upgrade, I'm all for any ideas anyone has. Thanks so much! -Contax G1 -Canon 900f MKII -VueScan, Lightroom, & PS -Scan at 4800
  5. So as a reference for anyone else who has this problem: I posted this on multiple sites, and had two people on another forum suggested adamantly that it was probably actually a problem with my fixer. I just grabbed one strip of the afflicted negatives, put them in a tank and fixed them for about 10 min just to see what happened. viola, it appears to be fixed (no pun intended). The 'comet trails' are gone! I'll have to scan them to be totally sure but it looks like it's solved. I deliberately used negatives from about a month ago, just to see if it would still work. No idea yet exactly what I was doing wrong before, maybe more agitation during fixing, but as of now it seems to have been solved. So, if anyone else is having this issue let this be a reference of a possible cure, because I couldn't find much of anything else out there.
  6. Hi all, I've recently begun attempting to home develop my black and white 35mm negatives. I have had pretty consistent streaks of---what looks to me like--overdevelopment. I've attached a particularly bad example, plus the negative strip (sorry that one's not of great quality). So far I've processed 7 rolls, and all have had varying degrees of this problem. -They were all done with Kodak D76 (at varying dilutions) and Kodafix at various process times, including push processing on two. I have re-mixed my developer twice and fixer once. No change. -I have used tap water, tho no one else in my town has had this problem, nor can tell me what it might be. -I have tried four different tanks (both Patterson and SS) and used inversion and stand processing. When agitating I do 30 seconds to begin, and have tried both 5 sec every 30, as well as 10 sec every 60. When I agitate I twist and invert at what I would call a 'steady' pace. While two rolls seemed a little better, there weren't any corresponding details between the two (one was stand and one agitated, different dilutions, and different batches). -There is no problem with my camera as I've had rolls from it professionally processed with zero issues. -I have done my loading in two different bags, in dark rooms, and while my 'chemical station' is my kitchen sink, I have done all developing at night with minimal to no light. I do not believe this to be a light leak of any kind. From what I can gather on forums, this is either Bromide Drag or a problem with my Fixer (this post is the only which suggests a fixer problem but it looks so much like what I'm having problems with: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/107-film-processing-scanning-darkroom/189097-example-exhausted-fixer.html) I don't actually understand why people online keep saying Bromide Drag because whatever is going through the sprocket holes seems to be overdeveloping the film in those comet-trail-like areas, and Bromide is a byproduct of the chemical process which inhibits development and is actually what causes developer to lose potency over uses. The only success I've had is with 120 film, so it's obviously a lot to do with the sprocket holes in the 35mm. Also, I have a temp control set up with a Sous Vide machine, so even though I know it's not a big deal for B+W but temperature has been exactly 68. Either way there isn't much online which seems very clear. Some people say too vigorous agitation and some say not enough. Some say to stop top loading the chemicals and instead dunk, but the Patterson loads from the bottom and made no difference. Any help would be greatly appreciated, this is driving me crazy! I've wasted too much film in a short time (including two rolls of Neopan). Waiting on some TMax developer in the mail before I can try anything else. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...