gfisch9862

<p>If you were trying to view the full-size image on the phone, the problem is probably the scaling algorithm used by the phone software. Is it an iPhone or Android device?<br>

Try scaling the image down in Photoshop (less than 1000 pixels on the long side), or something equivalent, then see how it looks.<br>

By the way, very nice image!</p>

<p>Last night, I went to a photography presentation called, "Open Show", where Michael Ruiz and others showed some of their work and spoke about what they were doing. Interestingly, Michael started his presentation by stating the he is NOT a photographer, but merely used photographs to help tell his story. Basically, he had spent a lot of time crossing the US/Mexico border and noticed how many people do that everyday to get to work, or to visit family, and seemed to just disappear. Hence, his desire to take the pictures, print them on very thick paper, and painstaking erase the people using scraping and/or an electric sander.</p>

<p>Thanks, Fred. That's the kind of thinking that I'm trying to get to. I still don't get it, but seeing the other elements, like "the medium commenting on itself" seem like important concepts to appreciate.</p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

You're right, it's probably posters, books, etc.. But a few I talked with recently said the the bulk of their sales involved the resale of "vintage" work, not the work they were currently showing. Of course, there are people like Peter Lik, whose galleries just sell his work.</p>

<p>Very true! There is no disputing taste!</p>

<p>But what I'm questioning is why the low-quality, "edgy" work seems to get the promotion and accolades, but those who are committed to striving for quality imagery and sound artistic intent (whatever that is?) are considered "old fashioned" and not worth showing. However, when you see which photographers are keeping the galleries in business, it is usually the old standbys, Adams, Weston, Bernhard, Sexton, Tice, Caponigro and the rest.</p>

<p>Many years ago, I was actively exhibiting my work in the Los Angeles area and sold a good number of prints. In 1980, I received the personal recommendation of Ansel Adams to become part of the Polaroid Corporation Permanent Collection. I thought, "What could be better than that!" A few years later, I was asked to be a part of a group show of the up-and-coming" photographers in the SoCal area. When I went to the opening, my work was the first thing one sees upon entering the gallery, but once inside, everything else was barely able to be considered photography. Mixed media... maybe, but not photography. I was so frustrated by the "artists" standing around bragging, that I didn't sign the register, or even to tell them my work was there. I just left, and quit doing serious photography. It is only recently that I decided to try to get back to it, but it still seems that the crappy, edgy work still gets the exposure. At this point, I've matured enough to not make hasty decisions and am trying to really understand the value of some of this contemporary work.</p>

<p>Fred,<br>

While I don't want to focus on a particular artist, here is a link:<br>

http://michaelruizart.com/work.html<br>

To be fair, he also does more sculptural work that has merit and his photographic work isn't disturbing. However, I have spoken with people who consider him a great photographer. What am I missing???</p>

<p>That's very true! However, some of the galleries are supposed to be selling the work displayed, but who is in the market for that type of work? Sometimes it seems totally backwards.</p>

<p>Recently, I have seen a number of exhibits of "new" photographers whose work is VERY DIFFERENT that most of the work I see here. Many call themselves "postmodern", but their work appears to be of very low quality and frequently has disturbing imagery and/or messages. Their image are frequently banal, or just plain ugly.<br /> <br /> I'm wondering, why those people are having shows in important galleries/museums, but it appears that most of the people I talk with don't like the images, but for some reason, they also look down on those of us doing work that features beauty and peace.<br>

<br /> Any thoughts????</p>

<p>I'm a bit confused reading this chain. If you are making images of slides, you should definitely be utilizing ALL of the D810s dynamic range (14-bit) by saving them in any 16-bit format. Depending of the image content, a 16-bit TIFF using LZW compression (lossless) may provide a smaller file size, but generally, I just use NEF. You can then change WB at anytime afterwards. Make sure that your processing software e.g. Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. is set in 16-bit mode to do all you processing with the higher bit depth, then output your normal 8-bit image when you're done.<br>

If you have set your exposure correctly, you shouldn't need to use HDR on a slide, which has considerably less range than that of a high-contrast outdoor scene, which is when HDR is necessary.</p>

<p>Oh, one more thing. With the short focal length lenses, diffraction starts to become an issue at around f16. Unlike the longer lenses, the physical size of the aperture is smaller at any given f-stop with the 90mm. I had a number of images ruined by thinking I could stop it down to f45 like I did with my longer lenses.</p>

<p>The one question I have for you is: How many images are you planning on scanning? If you plan on scanning many images from the same roll, consider a flat bed scanner like the Epson V800, or the newer V850, so you can get many images at once. I do both sheet film and roll film on a V850 and I'm very happy with the results.<br>

If you only going to use the images for web use, one of the less expensive models should be fine. I make large, high-quality prints, so the more expensive scanner suites my needs better.<br>

If, on the other hand, you only have one, or two, images on each roll, consider a dedicated 35mm scanner.</p>

<p>I used to use the 90mm Super-Angulon and is was fine with limited shift/tilt (and a bag bellows!). However, anything extreme would show obvious vignetting in the corners, so it had to be used very carefully.</p>

<p>I do a lot of large format B&W scanning, but I use an Epson v850 scanner. However, the basic concepts are probably the same. Depending on how much processing you do after scanning, just use the 16 bit mode, not the 16->8. Save the conversion to 8-bit when you're finally ready to export the file. Do ALL of your post-processing in the 16-bit realm to avoid posterization and other issues. Yes, it take more space, and it's slower, but the results are worth it. Some of my original scans, from 4x5 negatives, are 350+ MB.<br>

Setting the film type is critical, but I always uncheck the CCR box for B&W, but do use it for color.<br>

Almost all of my original negatives fit within the normal range (as seen in the histogram), but I find that using the multi-exposure mode seems to smooth things out nicely, so I just leave it on by default. Again, it takes twice as long to scan, so you have to decide if it's worth it for you.</p>

<p>First question: Exactly what Fuji film are you using, e.g. type and color balance (daylight/tungsten)? Second question: What do you mean by "not right". Is it too green, too blue, or something else??<br>

The Interfit F5 has a color temperature of 5600K, roughly the same as daylight. However, some fluorescent bulbs produce strong spikes in the green part of the spectrum, even though they average out as normal daylight.<br>

The wide angle lens without a filter thread could be a problem since there is not an easy way to mount a filter, or a gel filter holder to the lens. You could consider getting gel filters and just holding them in front of the lens.</p>

I'm currently using an Epson 4990 scanner for B&W negatives (35mm to 8x10) and I'm having excellent results. The Epson software does a great job. Scans that I've printed using an Epson R2400 printer are as good, and sometimes better, than my original Silver Gelatin prints.

 

The attached image is a scan from an under exposed and under developed negative. The full scan was done at 2400 dpi from a 4x5 negative.

Wow, there sure are a lot of varying responses to this one!

 

I have been using my 4990 for several months now and have gotten great results from transparencies and negatives ranging from 35mm to 8x10.

 

You should determine the size of the print you would like, say 8x10 (inches) and multiply each dimension by 300 (dots per inch) to get the size (in pixels) of your final scan. In this case 2400x3000. Now, just pick a scan resolution that give you at least 2400x3000 pixels, 2400 dpi would work in this example giving final dimensions of about 2351x3526.

 

Using the standard Epson software seems to work just fine using the "Professional" tab selection.

 

I have to agree with some of the previous comments. This is a very good scanner. If people are having problems, it's likely caused by the operator, not the scanner. I did a comparison test with several different images from transparencies made with a Hasselblad. I had a high-end lab make scans at several resolutions and compared them against those I made with the 4990. While there were some very slight differences with color fringing and noise in the dark values at the highest resolutions, the 4990 held its own with the high-end scans. This was quite a surprise!

 

Since I generally shoot large format, I am VERY picky about resolutions and fine detail. So far, the 4990 hasn't let me down.

 

Greg Fisch

You will find that Kodak filters work with the Ilford papers, but the grade values won't match those provided by the Ilford filters. Using the Ilford papers with their filters gives very good contrast control, but the speeds tend to reduce as the contrast is increased. I use a diffused cold-light head so the speed difference may be do the different spectral output of the flourescent grid as opposed to that provided by a tungsten source (which is recommended by Ilford).

 

<p>

 

I always make a test print (or at least a test strip) when changing filters. Depending on where you place the filter (above or below the lens) you should also re-check the focus.

 

<p>

 

You might also want to consider using BOTH Dektol and Selectol-Soft developers together to obtain contrasts between grades. Dektol gives full contrast, Selectol-Soft gives about 1 to 1.5 grades less. Mixing them in various proportions can give you values in between.

 

<p>

 

I find that the graded papers tone better in Selenium, sometimes a split-tone effect occurs with the VC paper. But since I generally make my fine prints (which are always toned) on graded paper, I don't have that much experience toning the current batch of VC papers. The Ilford Fibre Paper looks really nice without toning!

Over the last 20 years, I have had extremely good results using Kodak Plus-x 4x5 (rated at 100) developed with Kodak HC-110 developer, Tri-X (rated at 250) with the same developer gives very good shadow detail, but with more grain. I am currently working with T-max 100, again with HC-110 since Kodak does not recommend the T-max developer for sheet film. I'm still not sure if I like it better than Plus-X.

 

<p>

 

For color work, Fuji's Astia is rather amazing for skin tones and overall quality. For general color work, Ektachrome 64 is my stand-by, mainly because its predictable and readily available.

 

<p>

 

I print the B/W on either Ilford Galerie, or Oriental Seagull (now hard to find) for prints up to 16x20. I always tones the prints in Selenium.

 

<p>

 

For color prints from transparencies, Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) looks greats and also has the benefit of having good long-term color stability. This is important if you are interested in selling your work through galleries.

 

<p>

 

Good luck

Greg (Downey, CA USA)