edhebert

Robert-

 

Thanks for the detailed reply! Very helpful. I had seen some of these posts in my PN search, but hadn't yet seen the page about the dirty scanner issues. Interesting.

 

Anyway, to explain a bit about my workflow. I've calibrated the scanner using a 35mm IT8 target, and for the most part, slides scan accurately. This problem occurs scanning difficult slides in 16 bit using either VueScan or the DImage twain driver. The problem doesn't occur in all slides, just high contrast ones like the image I've included here. This was scanned 16 bit using the DImage Twain. The original chrome contains significant detail in both the tree bark and the sky. You'll note the CCD bloom in the tree trunk areas that border the bright sky. Again, this is an unretouched scan, and I'm able to bring back quite a bit of detail in post. Still, the scan doesn't come close to representing the original in this case.

 

Maybe the issue relates to dust/dirt in the scanner. Although the design of this unit is pretty robust and well enclosed. Any techniques for cleaning a 5400?<div></div>

John, thanks for your perfunctory conclusion about Velvia's "professionalism". How this aids the discussion, however, is a mystery to me. Funny, on the box, it doesn't say "less professional film". If I asked about the color accuracy of Velvia, you'd be spot on. If I had shot the image in Acros and developed in PMK, I'd have tons of latitude and wouldn't have this problem. But, then again, I wouldn't have achieved the hypersaturated, contrasted colorful result I had intended by pushing Velvia one stop to record this long exposure image to the point of reciprocity failure. I understand the subtleties of different emulsions, and exploit them to achieve the results I'm chasing. That said, the end result on my Velvia chrome is almost as I had intended. As my original question indicated, the problem lies in tranferring this image to my computer via a Minolta 5400. I was hoping someone that'd been down this road might offer some ideas. And I got some great suggestions from the forum, so thanks all.

Actually, I think my problem might be more related to pushing a slightly underexposed chrome to the dmax limit of the scanner than any problem with the scanner itself. After my initial post, I tried rescanning the chrome twice, exposing once for sky and once for shadows. The more conventional exposure scan exposure showed no ghosting - the pushed exposure showed the ghosting. I merged the two in Photomatix, and was able to produce an acceptable image.

I'm having a problem scanning a particular Velvia slide with my Minolta Elite

5400 (series I). The slide admittedly has a high dynamic range, but there's a

huge ghosting problem between a region of bright sky and a building that's in

relative shadow. The edge of the building is completely bled over and ghosted.

The original slide shows no trace of this problem.

 

Is there a scanning technique that you'd suggest for this image, or is there a

defect in my scanner?

 

Thanks

One other option you might consider...extracting the couple to a new layer (filter/extract), and then cloning out the water altogether in the layer behind the extraction.<div></div>

Nicolas and I have continued this discussion offline, and he's been quite helpful throughout. In case anyone else is looking for these types of screws, I think I may have found a source for appropriately sized NHIS watch screws <a href="http://www.ofrei.com/page1009.html">here</a>. I've ordered a few, and they seem to be a match.

 

Thanks

UGH. I just checked my inventory of old cameras, and believe that I gave my old Ikonta to a friend who needed the parts a couple of years ago. BUT, at least that leads me to a source for potential replacement screws at a reasonable price.

 

Question...being a non-machinist type...if ordering from a source like Micro-tools, would I need to order a special right-hand threaded screw? I believe that the rewind screw on the Contax IIa seats opposite from a normal screw, correct?

Nicholas and Vick-

 

Thanks so much for your assistance. Nicholas, you've been especially helpful with your explanation and photos. I believe I actually may have an old inoperable Ikonta kicking about somewhere! I'll see I might be able to salvage something off of its carcass.

Hi-

 

I was wondering if anyone with a spare Contax IIa parts camera would

be willing to part with the RH thread screw used to secure the rewind

knob for a fair price. Or if anyone could direct me to a place where

I could acquire one that'd be great too. Somehow I managed to shear

off the screw head in the course of everyday use today (wasn't even

rewinding!), nearly losing the entire knob in the process. Luckily I

caught it before I lost the piece. Still, my camera's somewhat out

of commission until I can find this one little screw.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Ed Hebert

Thank you folks *very* much. I really do appreciate your kind words. While I'm an infrequent contributor to the discussion here, I do check in quite often to be inspired by the good work, polite conversation, and seemingly limitless knowledge that this forum has to share. Many people have been very helpful to me here, and if there's anything I can ever do to help one of you with anything...well, just ask.

 

Best,

 

Ed

Wow -I was given one of these camera just last week. I loaded it up with film yesterday, but I honestly thought I'd be in for a mpre "Diana-esque" type of result. I'm looking forward to developing my first roll. If your shot is any indication of the quality I'm going to see, then I'm in for an unexpected surprise. Good shot!

oh yeah...and the leather for the camera cost about 3x the price of the camera itself! (leather was about $30). Not a bad investment of $40...

<p>Last year I tricked out an old Konica Auto S2 with some of cameraleather's British Racing Green kid goat leather. One year later, it's held up well and still feels great. I posted a thread about this camera <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Q0Q">here</a>, complete with some pictures of the camera's leather makeover.</p>

As wonderfully crafted as it is, I find the interface on Voigtlander Prominent to be so unusable that it's almost unimaginable that they'd let that thing out of the gates of the factory without a redesign effort. They took a chance on a potentially clever new operation inferface, and I think they failed miserably. I don't own one personally, so I haven't really spent enough time with it to be qualified a proper judge. My buddy owns one, and I do enjoy ogling its precisely fitted mechanics and buttery gearing. Nokton's a magical lens too. But that goofy focusing dial on the top? nah.

ouch! It looks as though the "bokeh" is *really* odd here. In particular, the lower right part of each out-of-focus highlight looks even more pronounced than the rest of the ring (like it's "shifted" or something). The tops of the ring are barely visible.

 

Daniel, I'm no bokeh afficiando by any stretch, but those harsh rings defining the outer edge of the out-of-focus highlights are distracting from (or possibly in some opinions, "supplementing") the intended in-focus subject.

 

I've never seen anything quite like this from my Sonnar, and I shoot wide open a lot. Though mine is an f/1.5, not an f/2.0. Do you think there'd be that much of a difference in the designs?

 

Thanks for sharing it, Mike.

Jack- Thanks for the reference to epaperpress. however, since I scan film, I don't have any EXIF data for PTLens to reference for its correction. (It crashed) Are there any plugins that help correct barrel distortion for those of us still using film scans? Thanks again...

I've also worked directly with Youxin Ye, and would highly recommend him. Since I live locally, I drove to his house. He let me sit by his side as he worked on my camera, and explained things as he conducted the CLA. Great guy.

In a true "small world" scenario...I'm the guy that designed the natporter.com website! And I've never met Kevin before. I'm also a Leica/rangefinder user, and read this board with daily frequency (infrequent posts, more of a lurker).

 

I have to sat that Kevin's photographs made the design of this site much easier and enjoyable. As someone who's been to this restaurant, I agree that he's captured its essence very well, and with a true artistic eye.

 

Re: the site design... there's agreeably a darker, "cinematic" feel to the site. Its design evolved from adapting their site to some of their printed collateral, which had a similar treatment (with lines shooting over graphic images, etc). It made the client happy, which is really my job I guess!

 

Funny coincidence! Great photographs, Kevin. Thanks again.

 

Ed

 

my own photo stuff (taken with leicas and other old rangefinders) is at www.edhebert.com

<p> One source is <a href="http://bostick-sullivan.com/main/frames_page.htm">Bostick and Sullivan</a>. they may not be the cheapest, but they're very well made.</p>

<p>Gene - love your "found images" stories! even more for the captions than the images themselves. Thanks for making me smile.

</p><p>

Another interesting "found photos" site <a href="http://www.timetales.com/">here</a>. There was yet another great web project of collected lost photographs, but I can't seem to find the link. There's an interesting feeling you get when peering into a photo whose history is unknown. Makes for great storytelling, though.</p>

hi all-

 

I've got a contax IIa fitted with a sonnar 50/1.5, and the

lens/camera coupling has a small amount of rotational and

axial "play" to it. Not enough to affect optical or functional

integrity, but enough slop to annoy me in the "feel" department a

bit. When focusing or adjusting aperture, there's a slight (1 or

2°) "float" before the threads engage.

 

The helical itself seems solidly coupled to the camera. The play is

between the helical and the lens itself. It seems like there's an

ever-so-slight gap between the lens' locking tab (the tab with the

red alignment dot on it) and the camera body's corresponding tab

recess (the release spring where that tab sits when locked and

mounted). Tough to describe, but I hope you get what I mean...

 

Since this is the only lens I own for the camera, I can't test

another to see if this is normal. Is a small amount of play to be

expected on this camera? All other moving parts are so precisely

machined on this camera that this one quirk seems very atypical for

the camera.

 

If it's not normal, could anyone suggest a proper adjustment to

tighten the coupling of lens to camera body so that this slop is

mnimized?

wonderful visualizations - powerful work. Thanks for sharing these, RJ.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007gj8

read the forum almost every day, post infrequently. massachusetts.

I don't know about the others here, but I've definitely made all those goofs myself (though admittedly not all in one outing!) bonus points for difficulty there.