Jump to content

jan_brittenson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    569

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jan_brittenson

    Leica M8 Refund Issues

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <i>Well, after all, a deposit on an order IS supposed to be non-refundable, by definition.</i><p><br>

    Nonsense, look up what "deposit" really means. It is YOUR money that is in the trust of the retailer. Just like with a safety deposit, or a bank deposit, or any other kind of deposit -- it's YOUR money put in someone else's trust. It can only change hands under specific circumstances, in this case when the retailer has a camera for you. They can NOT "take" the money you have deposited with them without shipping a product! That would land them nicely in prison in this state (CA).

    Epson V750 2400DPI test scans

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    It seems to resolve about 1600 ppi from these examples. Meaning you can downsize the files 33% linearly without any loss. It's about the same as my Epson 2450. If your minimum detail level in print is 180 ppi, then you can enlarge about 8-9x. A 16x16 print should look acceptable. Cropping to 16x20 is probably pushing it a bit. Personally I prefer 240 ppi for a quality 16x20. 180 ppi (unaliased) is 2.5 lp/mm; 240 ppi is 3.3 lp/mm; 300 ppi is 4 lp/mm. For 20x30 and up 2.5 lp/mm is pretty good, for a 16x20 3.3 lp/mm, and for smaller sizes 4-5 lp/mm. For many printers (like my Epson 7600) you need a RIP to resolve 4 lp/mm, the stock drivers will only get close to that with line art not unaliased photographic content.

     

    My personal opinion is 6x6 is a little small for flatbed use if you like to make quality 16x20 sized prints. 6x7 is better (less crop, bigger original), while 4x5 can really shine.

    Panaramic photos from regular MF cameras.

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    The Mamiya 7 works quite well. I don't bother with 35mm film and the adapter, but just mix it in with regular shooting on 120/220. Then I scan the strip with that frame at a higher resolution in a 35mm strip holder. The Mamiya 7 lenses are good enough to make this more than a novelty, in fact they're not too different from 35mm lenses in performance, which is impressive given they cover so much more. One fine advantage of using 120/220 is that you're not limited to working with only the center strip, giving you an option of rise and fall.

     

    I also have a dedicated 617 camera, obviously the results from that are in a completely different league. But so is the equipment cost and bulk!

    120 Traditional B&W for scanning.

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    Jon, it's hard to tell the difference between a technically top notch 6x7 frame and 4x5 in a 24x30 digital print. But it depends on the 6x7 optics; my Mamiya 7 is hard to tell from 4x5 at that size while my Pentax 67 is clearly not in the same league -- the difference is rather obvious. (The P67 ED-IF telephotos are the only ones I've seen keep up beyond 16x20.) All 6x7 isn't made the same more than all 35mm or 4x5 is made the same.

     

    Digital looks better in large sizes, wet prints look better in small sizes. That's because a wet print has higher resolution, something you need in small sizes (which I think of as 11x14 and down) -- you can simply fit more image content and get that micro-detail texture that digital lacks. Part of the advantage digital has in large sizes is that sharpness (local contrast) is variable, you can adjust it to subtly match the image content. This is not to be confused with detail or resolution, the use of detail is very different from how one uses sharpness. Digital resolution also depends on the software used to print, with RIPs usually being able to fit more detail by being smarter about how they render, this is especially true for B&W. (For instance, fine detail that's 1/200" wide doesn't need any chromatic or tonal accuracy, it just needs to show.)

     

    As much as I like the prints I make on my Epson 7600 with ImagePrint 6, they're still somewhat inferior to a good fibre print. Still, they're nice prints regardless. I like Moab Entrada, very nice paper. I'd skip the cheapo Epson/Kodak etc papers (like Ep EM) for anything I care about, they can't hold enough ink to produce a nice scale. Save it for experimentation and things where just getting a print (like family snaps) matters more than what it looks like. Good paper isn't cheap, nor are the RIPs and printers. Use a lab to get started, but if you're serious I recommend getting your own gear; you can become much more familiar with it, and it's easier to make subtle adjustments at the time of shooting to suit the printing. You will likely never get to this level of familiarity by using a lab. You'll always be riding somebody else's bicycle...

     

    I like to shoot T-Max 100 and Delta400. Processed 9min or 6min respectively a 68F in stock XTOL. But XTOL at stock doesn't produce very sharp images so although TMX will easily resolve a tremendous amount of image with the Mamiya 7, you need a very sensitive scanner to pick it up. For a flatbed I think I'd want a sharper film with a sharper developer, like Delta100 developed in almost anything other than XTOL (DD-X might be a good first try; it's expensive but easy to use and works well with D100. But even Rodinal is fine.). There's no point resolving a huge amount of image if it's too low contrast for your scanner to see it! Since I do have a scanner that will pick up the soft detail I prefer to start from TMX+XTOL (the Mamiya 7 optics can be a bit on the hard side), then increasing local contrast (sharpness) as needed to suit the print.

     

    A good trick if you use an Imacon like me is to scan in RGB (with white and blackpoints set up with levels) and then turning the channel with the best definition into a grayscale image.

     

    Perhaps from my rant here it's clear that things aren't as cut and dried and some of the zealots and labs out there would like to make you believe. With digital printing you're still dealing with a world of tradeoffs, a long-term learning curve, a different medium with different strengths and weaknesses, all of which require a shift in sensibilities. A lot of the discussion one way or the other fails to recognize that a piano and a violin are two different instruments; a violin doesn't suck compared to a pianio because a piano player is used to being able to hit multiple strings at the same time. They each have aesthetic qualities worth pursuing.

    Why are my film scans rejected by stock agencies?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <i>By the way, I found the answer by myself. I downsampled some files to 6MP and they were all accepted. So my first guess was right.</i><p>

    You should be able to get a 10-15MP acceptable file from a scan. Maybe it's not worth your effort, but larger files are slightly more marketable, and will give you a slightly bigger payoff.

    <p>

    Kelly: not everything can be shot in 4x5. However, almost everything can be shot in 6x7 (Mamiya 7, Pentax 67, RB, etc). 4x5 chromes are also a fairly significant expense for stock submissions, especially if most of your images never make money. 120 (6x7+) is far more sensible at the entry level; the files are big enough to potentially make you a bit of income, but cheap enough to produce that you can eat the cost for those that don't. Once you're tuned in to what sells, by all means start considering 4x5, especially if you're confident it's a seller you're working on.

    <p>

    For product work I can't see anything other than 4x5 and a scanning back though. No per-image expense, great files, just keep cranking em out and submitting.

    Why are my film scans rejected by stock agencies?

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    Get a loupe, like a 22x peak, and a light table. Then take a close look at your film to see what's actually there. This will tell you whether the problem is it's not getting onto the film in the first place (technique or equipment problem); whether the film can't hold it (e.g. overcome by grain); or whether the scanner can't pull it.

     

    Most likely, it's the scanning step. But it's pointless to look for problems here without making sure the original is top notch to begin with. But lets assume it's the scanning. Are your trannies mounted? What kind of a holder are you using, and are you sure it's keeping the film flat? Are you using ICE -- if so consider dedicating an area to be dust clean, all flat open surfaces that you can wipe down before you start working, also wipe down and clean the scanner and all holders etc, then clean the film and turn that ICE stuff off. The last thing before inserting the holder into the scanner is to give it a good blast of canned air on both sides. For the few spots you will have anyway, learn to use the photoshop clone tool to remove them. It's quick and easy. When what you see in the loupe matches what you get from the scanner you're doing well.

     

    Finally, consider lenses. Film requires higher contrast optics than digital due to the MTF rolloff at high spatial frequencies. The optics need to resolve better than the film at any given contrast, and few brands stray solidly into the 100+lp/mm territory RVP50 can get to, at least not without stopping down to tripod speeds. (And at that point you might as well shoot 120.) A film like that will only show the limits of the optics, and with a fair amount of grain to boot since there are no edges sufficiently sharp to control the clump formation. (Why am I thinking RVP50 here? Maybe you mentioned it in a later comment, I can only see the first entry above.)

     

    RVP50 also isn't a great scanning film, but that's mostly for aesthetic reasons. Scanners tend not to like the massively opaque base, highly pronounced knee and lack of linearity, and its weird dye spectrum. It looks great on the light table, but nobody will ever see that other than you. But again, it's not a real technical problem.

    Recommend a digicam wtih 28mm (35mm equiv.) wide angle

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    I just got an S80, received it today in fact, as a small pocket size camera. From a day of shooting with it, here's what I like about it:

    <p>

    <ul>

    <li>28mm lens</li>

    <li>Behaves similar to Canon DSLR (e.g. hit shutter button to get out of menus or playback)</li>

    <li>M/Av/Tv metering modes</li>

    <li>Evaluative, center weighted (partial on DSLR), spot metering</li>

    <li>Fill flash with flash exposure compensation</li>

    <li>Exposure compensation separate from flash (applies to both)</li>

    <li>Custom button (immediately set to AE Lock)</li>

    <li>Manual focus.<br>Don't laugh -- it permits the camera to be set to hyperfocal or zone focused, which with a 28-equiv lens can be quite useful even wide open (5.8mm f/2.8 has massive DOF!)</li>

    <li>Screen grid lines</li>

    <li>Fast response (MF, flash disabled -- it shoots with very little lag)</li>

    <li>Uses the same SD cards as my R9/DMR</li>

    <li>I actually like the sliding front cover, no caps to lose</li>

    <li>Has optional OEM waterproof case for diving (scuba, freediving), kayaking, boating, and beach use</li>

    <li>Nice screen</li>

    <li>Fits in the cell phone holster on my Timbuk2 messenger bag or a small handlebar bag to have it on hand at all times when getting around</li>

    <li>Images are very clean for such a small-image 8MP $430 camera.</li>

    </ul>

    <p>

    What I <b>don't</b> like about it:

    <ul>

    <li>Needs a shade, the front element is totally unshaded and prone to flare even if pointed at an overcast sky</li>

    <li>Weird, confusing terminology (e.g. Fill Flash is called Slow Synch?!)</li>

    <li>No raw; I would have liked to be able to use CaptureOne Pro just like with my DSLRs for a unified workflow</li>

    <li>Lens is a bit soft in corners at 28/2.8</li>

    <li>Chromatic aberration isn't really that much, but varies across the frame, so can't be easily fixed with PS CS2's Lens Distortion tool</li>

    <li>f/2.8 is still not a very fast lens if you're accustomed to a 35/1.4. Even worse, it's not a 35/2.8 but a 35/3.5. At ISO 50 for best results, no less.</li>

    </ul>

    <p>

    However, on the whole it's a capable little camera with a lens easily as good as or better than the Canon DSLR kit zooms (18-55 etc), capable of producing a sharp image wide open at the 28 end (sans corners). It's responsive and the controls are fairly familiar to a DSLR user. But no doubt about it -- it's a digital P&S, not a do-it-all camera, or a studio camera (no external sync). It's not a landscape monster either. But it's a fine little tool for street/people use, with fine, sharp images wide open at ISO 50.

    <center>

    <p>

    <img src="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/s80test/IMG_0026-700.jpg" border="0"><br>

    28mm f/2.8<br>

    <p>

    <img src="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/s80test/IMG_0040-700.jpg" border="0"><br>

    28mm f/2.8<br>

    <p>

    <img src="http://www.rockgarden.net/download/s80test/IMG_0008-700.jpg" border="0"><br>

    28mm f/2.8<br>

    </center>

    CV 21mm M mount lens and Bessa T

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Excellent combo, the Bessa T and a 21mm lens.

     

    The main gotcha with the CV 21 is that it's fairly soft wide open, and by the time you've stopped it down you better have daylight or 800 speed film loaded. You'll like it if you don't mind this, or feel soft images is ample reward for your time and effort. Still, it's inexpensive enough to just try it out.

     

    I switched to the ZM 21, while bigger and more expensive, in the end it's well worth it to me. It now lives on my Bessa T with the CV VF. I can wholeheartedly recommend the Bessa T, it's a wonderful little camera!

×
×
  • Create New...