rainer_viertlb_ck

does it mean that a windows sytem calibrated with 2.2 gamma looks identical to a mac system calibrated with 1.8 gamma?

i really dont understand which gamma is more "correct" on a pc sytem.

i can calibrate my monitor with optvision with differnt

gammas...should i use 1.8 or 2.2? i know that macs normally use 1.8

and pcs 2.2.....what happens if i calibrate my pc monitor with 1.8....?

what is more neutral for giving out my data to other companies...? i

just had problems with scanns which became to lightened...why? rellay

as more i read about this stuff as less i understand it. should i use

in seilverfats the same gamm than in the monitor?

help!

someone who should know it told me today that for some technical

reason the color and the gravation curves in a mac are much more

representive than in a pc if the data is sent to be printed in offset.

is this generally true? i cannt believe it...................but who

knows---

the viewing angle for 9x12cm is haluzinating......i use a rodenstock 35mm which has 1mm less circle than the SA38xl, i used it sometimes for architecture in very difficult room situations with 9x12cmm, cutting the format later. its difficult to justate the camera well, cause the image is very dark in the corners, but the result you cannot reach with any other optic...even the 47mm is a tele in comparation........but i made the experience, better if you have later a good scan of the pic,- cause together with a 2stop centerfilter the colorcast in the center is not acceptable if i cannt compensate this in photoshop.......and the light fall is more than the two stops you can compensate with a center as the IIIc

no, everyone has. it differs a little(!) bit on the type of film and there are different center film construction, but it seems to be an optical law. i phoned technicans from schneider and from rodenstock cause month ago i had a serios problem where a client of me who didnt wanted to believe that this color shift was not my fault. schneider gave me a paper where they describe that this effect has to happen so...............and if you shoot architecture with grey buildings it can look really ugly. you will notice it at least with the 38/35mm in every pic if you use a cf ( and this optics you really cant use without ), but the 47mm shows it clear visible too. . anyway the 35mm remains to be a very impressive focal lenght and the 47mm often is just nessesary in my job. with medium format adapters till 6x7 the effect is much less visible, cause the effect becomes more heavy at the limit of the image circle. <br> also this happens if you shoot 5x7" or 8x12" if you use very wide angles as the 72xl or similar wide lenses. it depends on the image angle of the optic, when i understood the thing right. bob salomon should know more than me about this effect...............

hi stefan,

i also dont use allways with 6x9 and the 47xl a center. anyway with 6x12 or 4x5" i do. depend on the picture if i do with 6x7 or 6x9.....and you shouldnt forget a phenomen which is not very nice...the center doesnt produce a focus shift, but it produce a color shift. in the center the image becomes more yellow. you can see this with the 47 and 37/35 mm optics very clear, and at least for architecture photography, what is my job, it can be very awfull.- there is no solution, it is a optical law.....are saying the technicans from schneider and from rodenstock, with whom i discussed about this. and without a centerfilter this effect disappears nearly completely.

 

great idea with the mag lite......i havent known it.

sorry that my text became so confused. copy+paste horror in addition to my english.......hope it is much or less clear what i wanted to write...

i would advice you a second hand drumscanner. if you want to buy a good ccd scanner,....buy mine. a polaroid 45ultra scanner for 4x5" and downsize formats.....very good condition because the machine is measured and focussed newly and all mirrors are dustfree. i changed to a drumscanner, but before i did i compared a lot of scanners as imacon 646 , 848, polaroid ss120, 45ultra and 3 different drum scanners. the polaroid really didnt gave a bad figure.......little bit worther than the imacons, but not significant. so my decision was to stay with the polaroid cause a change to an imacon didnt seem for me worth the money which is a lot of difference... anyway worther than drumscanners if they are used with good hands........but then arrived a very good offer for an screen 1015AI to me...and so i changed and now i will even update to a screen 1030Ai ( so you could buy the 1015AI too......) i just wanted to put the scanners in ebay here in germany, but if you give me a fair offer...no problem. i was working one year with the scanner for many publications and professional clients and everybody was content with the scans. although the machine isnt used much cause i am a photographer not a lab.

with which programm i can open this velyia .xls file from dddphotography?

i just bought a m7 0,85 and i still have a m4-p with 0.72 finder. i wear glasses and BOTH finders are working for 35mm, allthough i have to move my eyes with the 0.85 which is not so comfortable. but now i use the 35mm at the m7 for shots where i have time to fix the image...and additionally i use a voightländer 35mm finder,- which is very brillant and clear for landscapes and outdoor things. the speed and accuracy of the focus of the 0.85 is much faster and i like it very much......so i think you can buy the 0.85 with an addditional finder......it works fine...

i had the same problem a step higher. i was working 1 year now with the polaroid 45ultra for 4x5" and the sprintscan120 for 35mm and mf. for an actual work i need very high quality and i was not willed NOT to scan in my own.....i made a lot of comparations with an imacon 646 also an 848, the polaroid 45ultra, and two drumscanners. one of them was horrible cause the company didnt know to oil the scanns correctly<, the other one was very good ( howtek 4500 ). the difference from the polaroid 45ultra to the imacon was visible,- more or less the same than the imacon to the drum scanner. i had a lot of fear to buy a drumscanner cause i thought it would be to complicate.....but in the end i did so. i found a little scrren 1015AI drumscanner for 4x5" with 2500dpi. i paid 700 dollar for it, 300 i paid for an technican how calibrated the tubes and changed the lamp, then i bought a used hand mac G3 for 150 dollars ( i normally work with windows2000 ),- plugged the things together...installed the software,- tried one day to scan in oil....and now the machine is running perfectly,....and really visible better than the imacon 848.....which just cost 17.000,-- dollar more. and i finished with the dust horror for oiling the scanns. now i will sell the polaroid 45ultra, and hold the ss120 for panoramic 6x17 and 35mm. if you want seriosly for little money good quality......do the same.

why you dont decrease the saturation in photoshop instead of increasing it ?

hi tom,

i exercised 2 days with my new ( old.... screen 1015 ) drumscanner to learn to oil without bubbles. its not so easy, but after trying some hours you get it. you become a feeling how much oil you need and how to press it out. with the plane filmholder of the ss120 its more easy than with the tube of a drumscanner......i will try to show with some pictures in my folder.... what makes the thing more easy is that you see from the downside of the holder ( through the anti-newton glass ) very well the air bubbles which remain in the fluid and you easily ( well ,- its relative....! ) can press them out. you fix the film in the two ends with tape, there are spezific tesa film for filmmounting which are more or less oil resistant. some film stripes will be not plane enough at the long edges and the oil will not press ithe film down, so air bubbles can come in. in this case try to put the film in a roundbox over night,- and/ or fix the filmstripe at all four sides with tape,- as i did with my pic in the fotos. therefore i had to cut the two little plastic nipples in the middle ( ! ) of the carrier,- i dont think they are nessesary and the tape will not pass aside the carrier if you dont cut them, but be aware: i mean in the middle of the carrier not in the end,- they are nessesary for the function of the carrier.. you can let hang the tape over the sides of the carrier,- it will be pressed up if you put the glass holder in the downpart carrier.... you use for the mounting gel a specific oil for drum scanning,- seem to work better as less fluid it is,- i receive it from ScannerDrumService in hamburg/ germany,- where you will buy in USA someone in the forum will tell you i suppose. same about cleaning fluid,- i tried different fluids,- but they should be spezific for filmcleaning. ( with pure alcohol a.e. you will destroy the film....).so better you buy the specific things for drum scanners. dont fear- they are not expensive.....

 

 

sorry my bad english,- i try my best to explain the thing well,- and- dont forget,- the thing save a lot of dust work and in the end you have sharp scanns,- but its really work too to mount the films,- so from time consumption it is not much less than the other way,- but imo its the better one.......

rainer

would a diopter lense help to see the 35mm frame better? i am really in doubt cause i like very much the 0,85, so much mor e easy and faster to focus the image,- but i use mostly the 35mm lense.......-and i dont want two bodys. would it be helpfull to buy a 35mm viewfinder from voightländer? or will it be very complicate to work with it.....?

is the 0,85 viewer better than a 0,72 with magnifier? i mean is it

brighter or better to see the image? if not i really wonder which

sense has the 0,85, except that you can amplify the imagine than till

over 1 magnification. is the magnifier really similar as good than the

original viewer?

velvia.....and if you pull it 1/3 and shot it with asa 50 it shows nearly every shadow with details,- if you measure it at its limit. white walls without structure 3- 3,5 stops above 0, if you need some structure remainig 2,5 stops above. normally i shoot velvia with 32 asa too,- but to pull the cromes in extreme situations a little bit allways helps....

let me know how your experiences will be....

there exist film cleaner ad example from sds service. with this its easy to clean the film and the holder.

mark,

i posted in my gallery three shots of the holder.....they will explain you i hope.

bout comparation...i havent done this with the same shot, but as allways the ccd of the polaroid is not so correct than the pmt of the drumscanner......and in the shadows the polaroid is little bit worther,- but i think after comparing a lot of scanners in the last weeks this is normal between all ccd scanners. the polaroid makes very little difference to an imacon 646/ 848 so i think it is a very good ccd scanner- except the problem with the flatness and sharpness, which should be normally enough not to buy it,- but the nikons and canons arent better,- just imacon found a way to hold the film more intelligent,- anyway therefore now you cant oil the imacon scans...and this is of course the best way to scan with every scanner. less grain,- better colors, smoother picture impression.

i made very bad experience scanning larger than 6x7cm formats on the

ss120 cause they never became sharp if the film isnt completely plane,

which happens often as you know with mf film.....so i ordered the new

glass holder from polaroid.....( for 100$ ) to realise that it becomes

an absolute horror to scan with it- for the dust!!! . i never used

the holder anymore. now i bought a little drumscanner for my 4x5"

fotos and i learned to use to oil them. i was yesterday closed to sell

the ss120 ( what i dont like cause it is a practical and good scanner

for 35mm and mf ), but finally i tried to modify the glass holder: i

putted out the glass which is on the underside ( it broke cause its

very thin...) and i tried to mount the chrome with oil on the

newtonglass on the upside of the carrier. this is easy cause you can

remove the up-carrier and than the carrier is plane, so its easy to

wipe away the gel which is coming out aside the chrome. the result is

the work more than worth: the scanns become completely sharp, without

dust, so you save much more time than you spent for oiling, and they

are two classes more brilliant and transparent for the

oiling-scan-technique.

cause they are fixed to the carrier with the oil now its very simple

to stitch in photoshop two 6x9cm scanns to one 6x17cm scan, before i

had to use a programm to stitch them, cause they have never been 100%

symmetric... maybe someone can use this experience......

greatings from munich/ germany

i would be happy if someone could explain me the way how to mount

transparencies correct in oil. i allways reach some little bubbles

inside.....maybe there is a more intelligent way that i use.....cause

i am new to the land of drumscanning. although the results seem to be

great and i have to learn it!!!!

i just bought a little screen 1015ai drum scanner for scanning my

4x5" transparencies. before i made some comparations between my old

polaroid 45ultra , imacon 646 and 848, a howtek 4500 and another drum

scanner, made in a scan factory ( this have been the worthest scans ).

cause i am new to drum scanning the results of my oiling are not

good,- but if i scan without oiling the scans are very good, how they

come out of the 1015. there are no newton rings....( and i dont

understand why they are not visible....maybe for the little drum which

has the 1015? ) and the scanns look sharp and with very good color

resolution. visible better than the 848 imacon scans.....( comparing

the howtek i havent scanned the same image till now - the howtek

scanns have been oiled ). why should i mount in oil if it is so

difficult? are the results really better and in which aspect are

they......i would like to hear your opinion about oil mounting or

not.....cause if i dont use oil the scanner is so practical to

use.........

greatings from germany

i have a good offer for a little drum scanner screen 1015. has anyone

experience with this machine? how good is it? is it very unpractical

for 4x5"? and...would be great to find a more modern software than the

screen software for the mac....

are this old 40is and 50is cameras for 6x9cm good for bw photography

today? they are so cheap to buy...and very little. should be good

cameras for bw not? has anyone experience with some of this cams?

with 16bit or not....just edit a scan in some aspects with 8bit and see then the histogram.....and make the same in 16bit and convert it after editing...and you can easily see how much effect has the 16bit editing...cause the histogramm will stay coharent and clean without interupts,- this you can reach hardly in 8bit mode editing.....