mendel_leisk

<p>Just curious: will Epson printers use them, if out-of-date? My (dead and not mourned) HP B9180 will read the date on old cartridges, refuse to use them.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Just seat-of-pants: I'd say mode 2 is stabilizing in vertical direction only, and would be best for horizontal panning shots, regardless of shutter speed. But I'm not familiar with your lens, this is just from my experience with 70-200 F2.8 IS (first version).</p>

<p>Are you looking for an color negative film with similar characteristics to Kodachrome? Or a similar slide film?</p>

<p>Work in what way? For projection? For a scanner with slide holder?</p> <p>If the object is to project them as a positive image, something I tried:</p> <p>Contact print them onto lithography film, then develop in conventional darkroom print developer. With proper exposure this can yield a positive, continuous tone image. A little more contrasty, due to the nature of litho film I guess, but not bad. Then into slide mounts.</p> <p>I also projection printed some onto litho film, to make positive, transparent enlargements. You can put them in windows, for example.</p>

<p>Harry, I've used ACDsee purely mainly as a viewer, since the '90's. I settled on version 5.0 (released in 2002), since it was stable, did what I wanted. Trying newer releases I noticed odd and frustrating changes to the interface, backward steps from my perspective.</p> <p>Besides simple viewing, I'll occasionally use it for batch resizing, file renaming and rotation. I know Photoshop has advantages for some of this, but it's slow/clunky. I also like ACDSee's contact sheet function, prefer it to Photoshop.</p> <p>Still, for working with raw files, I use Adobe Camera Raw with via Adobe Bridge.</p>

<p>I picked up a Pentax K1000 dirt-cheap at a thrift store a few years back, got a few rolls of Tri-X, chemistry and a canister (and I'd given away a really nice one). I persevered, well sort of: I've shot and processed 4 rolls now, have yet to scan the fourth.</p> <p>Come to think of it, even my Canon 5DIII is gathering dust, all I'm using of late is my IPhone, my heart's not in it I guess.</p>

<blockquote> <p ><a name="00dEWB"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=172915">Lex Jenkins</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 12, 2015; 09:26 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>... It's because of you that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IybUFPimw_I" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">I'm like this</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Now I'm awake. ;)</p>

<p>What was the film format? 35mm?</p>

<p>The one thing I can think of is duplicate images; I believe there's software that can sort those out, present them to you. Other than that I wouldn't be interested, don't think it's practical.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Sure, faster lenses are better</p> </blockquote> <p>How did you jump to that conclusion? The 4 version is sharper, I believe. It's also about half the (not insignificant) weight, and more compact.</p> <p>When I bought (first gen) 70-200 f2.8, the f4.0 version was not available with Image Stabilization, something I really wanted. Right now, I'd be very interesting in the f4.0 with IS.</p>

<p>I once had the honour of being in a meeting where our department manager had managed to make a mirror-image photocopy, and only one copy. So, it was passed around the table, and each person reading it had to resort to holding it up to the light, read through the paper.</p>

<p>Can't seem to edit an image with this site's setup. Anyway:</p><div></div>

<p>I like ACDsee, for contact sheets. Make 'em with a black background.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Well I hope someone answers. I'm only getting a glimmer of what your question means, a complete duffer. But I have the camera, would love to learn something. My suspicion is you can only get this feature in full automatic mode, which is sad.</p>

<p>It's always a good tactic to save the old Vuescan install files. I believe they are all named the same, and act up if your rename them, say with verision number. What I would do is create folders with the version name, store one file per folder. That way, if something goes awry with a new release, you can go back, 'till Ed sorts it out.</p>

<p>After my experiences with a B9180, I wouldn't touch another HP product:</p> <p>1. Refuses to use a cartridge (with ink) beyond a preset date.<br /> 2. Constantly losing network connectivity.<br /> 3. Horrible support.</p> <p>The thing is basically a boat anchor at present. Gotta run it down to the recyclers... The company actually stated, a few years back, that they were stepping away from individual customer base, concentrating on corporate customers.</p>

<p>Per Pete, have you looked at the negatives? Underexposure would typically result in a <em>black</em> print, not grey?</p>

<p>That's a not uncommon story: buy new, then manage to resurrect the old. I had the film transport problem, also did the somewhat comical action of pulling the holder completely in. I can't recall exactly how, but I did get it working again. Though of late it's not seeing much use, just scanning an occasional roll of Tri-X. For that task, not needing ICE, I run it with Vuescan.</p> <p>I took mine apart at least twice. It's only modestly difficult. The second time was due to dirt I was seeing around scan edges. I FINALLY discovered the problem was completely divorced from the scanner: it was the camera's film transport window that was dusty, the dust was actually showing on the negatives, laugh-out-loud.</p>

<p>I had no problems with my 5400 Mark I, scanning KC with ICE and Grain Dissolver, the latter being forced on with Minolta software. I believe I tried running the scanner with Vuescan's Infrared Cleaning and the Grain Dissolver off, and then saw some artifacts. Didn't pursue it further. Again, if your Mark II is able to scan KC with ICE and you're not seeing artifacts, go with that. Check it out. The Mark II is faster, is it not?</p> <p>The Grain Dissolver was a great innovation, quite effective mechanical solution to flotsam that populates film. By no means perfect, but great for giving you a leg up up, turning utter tedium cleaning exercise into an easier chore.</p> <p>Also, how's your depth of focus with Mark II? Better than Mark I? Shallow depth of focus was my big frustration with Mark I, really the downside of that scanner for me. If they'd double the depth of focus the scanner would be perfection, in my eyes. I don't mind the 6+ minutes per scan, not onerous. But depth of focus was sometimes a real struggle.</p>

<p>Just to commiserate:</p> <p>I have a HP PhotoSchmart Pro B9180 "brick", sitting on a table behind me. Unplugged it in disgust about 6 months back. If I try to run it it makes painful mechanical sounds, "cycles" endlessly, returns error messages.</p> <p>In the past, even when it was running, it was forever losing touch with my computer, would require day-long efforts to reacquaint it. Now it's not merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead, lol.</p> <p> Not impressed with HP.</p>

<p>The artifacts I saw when scanning Kodachrome were a strange doubling of high contrast edges. A sharp, near white edge against black background would become multiple, wavering edges.</p> <p>I have only the original version, found it good with Kodachrome. I believe it's diffuse light is instrumental in it's good results, and the Grain Dissolver (mandatory with ICE, at least with the Minolta software) helped more.</p> <p>You've got the luxury of having both scanners. If those high contrast trouble spots look fine with the mark II version, you should be fine.</p>

<p>Ok I see: exposure compensation, pretty much automatic with slr metering being through the filter. And yeah, blue skies with a red filter are still gonna look decidedly dark/dramatic.</p>

<div></div>