rob_landry

<p>Thanks for clarifying Ian</p>

<p>It most certainly is a bummer.</p>

<p>Ian, do you happen to know if starters are a requirement for the 10L sized chems? Some of the guys over at APUG are thinking that you can get away without using them but it doesn't seem to be the case.</p>

<p>Don't know if this has been posted before but just as a heads up to those who process E6 at home using the single-use kit, it's been discontinued. It's still listed on Kodak's site (big surprise) but shows as discontinued/out of stock on B&H, Adorama, Calumet etc.<br>

To find out for certain, I emailed Kodak directly and they confirmed that they're done. Here's the email I received from them:</p>

<p>Dear Rob,<br /> <br /> Yes, the Kodak Professional Ektachrome E-6 5 Liter Kit was discontinued and is no longer available from us. You might check with the various dealers to see if they have any remaining inventory. Alternatively, we do continue to offer the E-6 chemicals in sizes to make 10-liters, but not in kits. I have taken the liberty of attaching a document that will show you how to mix smaller sizes from these chemicals.<br /> <br /> Please let us know if you have future questions on these or other of our Kodak Professional products.<br /> <br /> Sincerely,<br /> <br /> Peter<br /> Kodak Professional<br /> Technical Support</p>

<p>I believe Ian is correct, some F6's had battery level issues. There was a firmware upgrade offered by Nikon to correct the issue. Here's a page on Nikon Japan's website, you'll need to translate it though. Seems to be offered for serial numbers 0018754 and earlier<br /> <br /> http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/support/whatsnew/2005/f6_firmup.htm</p>

When the film is rewound, the R1 lever remains in the out position until the camera back is opened so I wonder if this could be the cause of the problem.

The biggest problem with neg film is the scanning. Neg film is perfect for optical prints and is what it was designed for but scanning neg film just isn't ideal. A scanner is an RGB device and the orange mask is tricky to filter out properly; this normally results in an increase in apparent grain. On the other hand, a transparency is perfectly suited and designed to have white light shone through it directly and the RGB sensor has very little trouble interpreting this information. With a properly profiled (quite easy to accomplish) scanner, it's simple to obtain an accurate match to a transparency the first time round. You cannot profile a scanner for neg film.

 

Of course with a transparency, you have the original in hand that you can directly refer to if you need to make any corrections to match the scan to the original. Also, scans from transparencies have much less grain aliasing than scans from negs (orange mask issue). This in turn means that you can use greater amounts of USM to recover the sharpness loss from the scanning process.

 

So optical printing, if you can find someone to do it, is the domain of neg film but if you're scanning, a properly exposed transparency is the better option.

Okay, I'm still struggling along with an older Epson 1280 but am now

considering an upgrade. Before I do, I was wondering how current inkjets are

with shadow gradations and tonal transitions. My 1280 prints great with most

types of images except those with lots of shadows and where they transition

from midtone to shadow. BTW, my monitor is hardware calibrated and my profiles

are custom made. I know I'm not alone noticing this, Scott Eaton has remarked

on this before.

 

So, have inkjets gotten better in this regard over the past couple of years?

How do they fare in this area compared to a process like a Lightjet or Frontier?

 

Also, I enjoy printing on semi-gloss and glossy and I keep hearing that the K3

inks are better than previous pigment printers. I also noticed that Epson has

released a new dye based printer, the 1400, with increased longevity. Of course

with only one black ink, I can't help but think that shadow transitions may not

be much better than the 1280 it replaces. Any thoughts you guys have would be

great.

Thanks everyone for the help, really appreciated. I realize the 1280 is a little old now but I'm not buying any more inkjets, I'm more than pleased with Frontier and Lightjet prints I've had made from various labs. I just thought I could perhaps make this printer a little more useful than it's been over the past few years. I'll try a custom profile, most likely from Cathy's but if nothing can be gained, it goes to fleabay and I'll keep on using my lab for prints.

For any of you that have experience making printer profiles, I need some

advice. I'm looking to have a couple of profiles made and have found quite a

few individuals online offering this service. I'm primarily having trouble with

tonal transitions in the darker colors and getting accurate shadow and mid-tone

grays with the canned Epson profiles. I'm using an Epson 1280.

 

I noticed that some services are using the 918 patch targets and Cathy's which

is using the 1728 patch target. Is there any benefit in going with more

patches? Logically, I'd think so but when I downloaded the 2 patch types, it

seems like the 918 patch target would be better suited to tonal transitions and

the darker, saturated colors that I'm having a hard time with. The 1728 target

seems to have lots of bright saturated colors. Any idea on which profiling

service would be best for this type of problem?

What was your favorite wide-angle lens when you shot film? Or did you start shooting when digital was born?

 

In the case of the latter, then your interest in the 14-24mm is likely a jee-whiz reaction. It's surely a great lens, but I'm not sure it's an ideal landscape or architecture lens, kinda like the D3 isn't an ideal landscape or architecture camera. But since you have your eyes set on a D3, a lens of more moderate focal length may be in order. The 17-35mm is the natural choice if you must have a zoom and since it will still take filters and is not overly huge, it can be a workable landscape lens. As others have mentioned, the use of a polarizer is limited with wide-angle lenses. If you're not careful, you'll get un-naturally dark skies in one part of your image. For myself, it's not the lack of polarizer that would bother me with the 14-24, but the inability to use my ND Grads (I hate digital blending).

 

Personally, for shooting landscapes (if I was forced to shoot digitally), I'd probably opt for the D300 and a 12-24 or similar lens; much cheaper, much lighter & smaller (a BIG advantage) and still has a 12MP sensor. Not much need for ISO 12800 and a big, bulky body when shooting landscapes.

Vignetting? You mean light fall-off right? That's not really a big deal for me, I actually quite enjoy a little light fall-off in the corners on 35mm for people shots. Besides light fall-off is pretty trivial to correct in post, n'est-ce pas? The 17-35 - I dunno about light fall-off; never tested mine cause I don't use it for people and don't shoot it wide open. I use it mostly for landscapes when shooting small format stuff.

 

I guess if you're a PJ, the new 14-24 might be just the ticket, but as a general wideangle zoom, (for me personally) it's too big & conspicuous, expensive, has a limited and somewhat strange FL range, lacks VR (yea I know it's not needed in this range but while I'm bashing it why not) and doesn't have an aperture ring. It also doesn't allow for filters and has a ridiculous giant "N" stamped on the side. Anything I missed?

 

Seriously tho, I know there's a lot of interest around this lens but it seems to be the same interest that's generated by many esoteric lenses. The 14-24's got the wow factor but landscapes this wide tend to look a little tooooo wide most of the time and people shot at such a FL are well, strange. As they say "whatever floats yer boat".

 

Anyway, glad to hear the D3 won't be a total dog with "real world" lenses.

Bjorn wrote:<p>

 

<i>The *only* recommended wide-angle lens for the D3 is the new 14-24/2.8 AFS Nikkor. It has a marvellous performance. Forget about using old lenses if they are wide-angles below 24-28mm.</i><p>

 

Oh c'mon. Seriously, I appreciate your expertise, but this sounds like the same 'ol small-format shooter hair-splitting to me. So you're saying that if I buy a $5000 D3, a 17-35 AFS can't be used? My 20mm 2.8 a no-go? Call me a cynic, but I can't imagine that either of those 2 lenses aren't capable of delivering top quality results.<P>

 

Well if the above is true, then I guess that eliminates any use of my ND Grads or any other filters (and yes, I realize some of it can be done in Photoslop but no thanks). Sheesh. What are we talkin' here, pixel-peeping at 100% on screen or real-world "OMG, prints with my 17-35 suck" kinda thing?<p>

 

Makes me glad I started shooting LF years ago, this small format digital stuff is way too expensive for the results you get. At least with 35mm film, you could get away with a cheap body, a good lens and some great film. Now we have $5000 bodies that can only deliver good results by throwing away all our "old" lenses?

The 24-70 has no aperture ring and no VR, and while it's optical quality may be slightly ahead of the 28-70, is it worth the extra bucks? How many would actually see the difference in IQ over the 28-70? If you're shooting handheld, you certainly won't.

 

Personally, 24mm vs 28mm at the short end okay I guess, but can't say it's real exciting. I find below 28mm, distortion is getting kinda strange for people photos and if shooting landscapes, I'd rather have a 24mm prime over a heavy 2.8 zoom anyday. Again, IMO, a 28-85mm or 28-105mm zoom with VR would be worth an upgrade, but 24-70mm sans VR? No deal.

Don't freeze the concentrates, but you can freeze the working solutions just fine. No problems with precipitation when thawed because the working solutions are mostly water at this point. I've posted on this many times here. Dan Schwartz has also had success freezing.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but you can freeze the working solutions (not the concentrates). Frozen at -22 C, I've had chems that have been good for over 3 years.

 

I mix my entire kit the first time I need to process, divide the chems up into smaller 500ml bottles and throw them in the deep freeze. No need to constantly keep moving the remaining concentrates to smaller and smaller bottles (no need to worry about oxidation) and best of all, mixing the chems is a one time deal. The worst part of processing film is having to mix the chemicals before each session.

 

If you want more info, see my posting history here.

<i>To take this thread in a slightly different direction: These new lenses are doubtless going to be superb optics. But can anyone explain the logic of equipping them with such outlandishly long (tall) tripod feet? The tripod mount looks like it was designed to amplify vibrations and be awkward to mount on a tripod or store in a camera backpack.</i></p>

 

<p>I don't think there's any logic, it's just a poor design. I own a 600 Nikkor and can attest to its underdesigned tripod foot. The main issue is the rotating collar itself; it's narrow and since it's designed to rotate, there's a fair bit of flex at that point (which is very far forward). So then you have this long length of lens with camera body attached hanging way out in mid air with no support at all. This all adds up to plenty of vibration. If I release the shutter with a cable release, I can clearly see the camera move up and down. I don't use a cable release with the 600, I use good long lens technique and it helps tremendously.</p>

 

<p>So I guess VR would help even on a tripod but I'm wondering why they just couldn't design a better tripod mount. Perhaps if they had a mount that had a fore and aft attachment point so that the length of lens wasn't hanging out in mid air like that. I believe Kirk made such a mount for the AI-P 500mm.</p>

Hey, nothing wrong with shooting both digital and film. When I'm shooting for myself, I still shoot it on film. Yesterday, I went out to test some Astia and Sensia (which I've only used occasionally) for color and contrast compared to my usual Velvia and Provia. Just for the heck of it, I decided to shoot the same thing with my DSLR since I had it in the bag.

 

Back at home, while the 4 rolls were happily sloshing around the Jobo, I brought up the digital pics on the screen to have a look around. Not bad. Well, when I pulled the Velvia, Astia, Sensia and Provia out of the film dryer and laid them on the lightbox, there was no comparison. The film shots were just more natural and pleasing and under a 10X loupe, contained more fine detail. I spent the better part of an hour going back and forth between the lightbox and monitor examining different areas of the images and in all cases preferred the film. The digital looked sharp on screen but it's all edge sharpness; fine detail (especially foliage and grass) was just mushy. I tried all manner of USM, but all I managed to accomplish was get more edge sharpness. I was able to tweak the digital to pretty well match the Sensia/Astia and Provia but no manner of massaging was gonna make it look like Velvia.

 

Of course, I'm still gonna shoot digital, but film is certainly not going anywhere with me (not that I ever thought it was). I can understand those that want to get away from the act of buying film and sending it to the lab, but luckily I bought a Jobo quite a few years ago when I got into LF so I have full control over my film workflow for start to finish. My 4x5 E6 cost is right around $0.40 per sheet and my turnaround is as fast as I feel like. Those that enjoy transparency films may wish to consider this as an option; it's really not that difficult.

 

Anyway, in 20 years if there's no more film, my little cherrywood and brass Tachihara will look quite lovely sitting up on a shelf in my office while my many digitals will be very slowly decomposing in a landfill somewhere.

Dan,

 

Kudos to you for taking charge and trying to get things back on track. We need more guys like you running the remaining labs out there. Best of luck.

Jil,

 

The Kodak 5L kit is really the best bet for home processing as it's formulated to give the proper color balance and pH without the need to run control strips and have access to a densitometer. Use the chems one shot and you won't go wrong, of course you can get a second run but you pretty much have to process the second run immediately after.

 

To maximize the efficiency of your kit over the 3 month period, you will probably be fine transferring the remaining concentrates to smaller bottles. Keeping the concentrates between 5-10 degree Celsius will also help reduce oxidation. Personally, I freeze my chemicals in my deep-freeze to prolong them with very good results. Another reason I do this is to eliminate mixing hassles as I only have to mix up the working solutions once when I first open the new kit. I mix the full 5 liters, divide into smaller 1 L bottles and then freeze. When I'm ready to process, I simply take the 6 components out of the freezer, thaw in a sink full of hot water and 15-20 mins. later, I'm ready to process. If you want more detail on this, have a look at some of my previous posts here on photo.net.

 

A tempering bath will make your life easier if you are planning on making a second run without having to wait for the second batch of chems to warm up. I modified my CPP with an extension to have another 10 bottle slots, but a large cooler and an aquarium heater and pump will do just fine.

Velvia and Reala are about as polar opposite as you can get in terms of contrast. Velvia is a film that you use in specific situations and Amlan clearly demonstrated that Velvia was not the right film for his covered bridge shot. There are slide films with much lower contrast than Velvia you know, Astia and Sensia for example have about another stop over Velvia and make much better general purpose films.

 

I too find scanning slides much easier than negs.

Thanks guys for all the info. I ordered 20 rolls of Sensia and will try to do some comparisons of my own. I seemed to like the colors and warmth of Elitechrome, but found the sharpness and grain not quite as good as other Fujichrome films I've shot over the years. Contrast was pretty good, but a tad less would be nice. Hopefully, the Sensia will take care of these issues as well as having good colors.

 

In regards to processing Fuji and Kodak chrome films at the same time, Jobo specifically states in its literature that they should be separated. Of course in a large commercial dip & dunk machine, this is not an issue, but for the extremely small amount of chemistry in a Jobo rotary tank, they indicate that they've had negative interactions. Not only that, but most Fuji films require a longer first developer time in rotary than Kodak.

<i>If it was a Fuji site, you would expect a link from Fuji's official UK web site.</i></p>

<p>

The link for Fuji UK's website is on the main page at the lower left, the large "Fujifilm Profesional" logo.</p>

<p>

<i>And it's really odd that the "Where to Buy" page doesn't list anywhere. If this was a Fuji site, you'd expect a list of retail and/or mail order locations</i></p>

<p>

Actually, if you go the the Where to Buy page, simply choose a city in the drop-down box and click search. A list of retailers in that city will be displayed. You don't need to type anything in the 'company name' field.</p>

<p>

As David said, check the Terms & Conditions link for details.

I've shot a few rolls of Elitechrome (EB) and I really like this film as a

general all-rounder, but I'm wondering how Sensia or Astia would compare.

 

The reason I'm looking at Sensia/Astia is because I process my own E6 at home in

my Jobo and mixing Kodak and Fuji emulsions in the same run is a no-no. Since my

primary films are Velvia and Provia, sticking with Fuji all around would

simplify things greatly. Anyone here shot both side-by-side?

I pulled a roll out of the freezer today just before heading out and it was about 45 minutes later before I loaded it in my camera. Film was warm, no condensation formed on the leader or metal when I opened the canister. I used to let it thaw longer, but over the years, I came to realize that it really doesn't take all that long.

Brian,

 

I was the one who posted about the K3 screen on Nikonians. I don't know if there are any other alternatives; Katz doesn't list a split screen for the F100 and I've heard some negative things about Beattie screens, not to mention they're quite expensive. Nikon sent me the K3 screen for about $45 and with a little snip-snip, it works great and none of the metering patterns are affected.