david_senesac

Maybe the intention of his comment was to say that you have a talent for composing aesthetic images within the relatively bewildering type of landscapes you prefer to shoot. This is a common skill of many veteran landscape photographers though that skill varies among those photographers and would vary depending on the type of landscape. Finding the aesthetic within a tangle of branches is certainly not one of the more easy places to be successful. I have shot trees for many years and particularly like roaming within aspen groves during the fall. One may look for preferred geometries and structure when wandering about looking looking, but just letting your visual system slowly absorb the scenery until something jumps out and grabs you as aesthetic is a talent. And it is difficult to develop by anything more than having spent the time through a great many experiences in which one seeks what is beautiful therein. -David

California is a huge state with a great variety of geographic and climate zones. A few well known places in Southern California did have exceptional spring wildflowers. There were also many other places that were not. The season in Northern California is still a bit early. Southeast Kern County, Antelope Valley, and especially Gorman were hit bullseye by a tropical storm in February dumping a great deal of precipitation and subsequently had spectacular blooms. I was at Gorman on Saturday, Easter eve, a perfect calm ultra clear and blue sky day, after storms had kept photographers away for much of two weeks. Flat out the most incredible day I've had in two plus decades of landscape work. Mindbogglingly colorful! A week later some species of flowers were fading quickly though other species will last longer. Yeah there ought to still be some fine material there, but the really amazing bright yellow coreopsis days all over the hillsides are over. -David

Doing your homework by reading any available guidebooks, web information, and especially studying topographic and geological maps. Many times I have visited distant places for the first time and nailed best possible images simply because I had sized up where the best images might be beforehand on a topo. That said, being able to make good sense out of topographic maps takes a lot of experience. Sometimes one can visit a location for the first time without any preparation and simply quickly size it up on sight. But other times that is not so, particularly with mountainous terrain. Not doing so can waste lots of time and effort. Also a savvy landscape photographer has to make a lot of decisions in the field as to what is the best course of action depending on the weather conditions. That takes experience. Finally one has to have an orientation to leave trails and ramble cross country exploring over propective areas of interest. Trails are rarely routed with an aesthetic interests in mind but rather the easiest way to hike from one point to another. -David

The obvious route is to take I580 to I5 to highway 58 and I15 which is 570 miles or 9 hours. As others have said, there is hardly anything along that route of any interest. By mid May all the Mohave Desert areas, which is about half that route, will be hot, dry, and more than a month past their spring wildflower periods. Probably the most interesting diversion which does not add too much mileage would be to take I80 to 4 to 88 over the Sierra to Minden, Nevada and then south on US395 to Lee Vining next to Mono Lake. Note other Sierra passes would still be closed from winter snows. That is about 300 miles and puts you at one of the classic sunrise photo locations. Then the next day drive 380 miles south down US395 along the towering snowy crests of the eastern Sierra Nevada to Lone Pine. Then take route 190 through Death Valley to route 324 to US95 to Las Vegas. Penalty just 100 miles and way more scenic. -David

I have yet to have a Chromira print made although there is one at a service nearby. I have had lots of Lightjet prints made. I am guessing the issue would have more to do with media used. My testing (see a past post I made on test images) showed a local Lightjet's machine doesn't bring out any more resolution between submitting 250ppi versus 300ppi images. If the Chromira can match that, then the real issues are probably more a limitation with the gamut of printing paper. The Lightjet prints I have been getting are on Fuji Crystal Archive. When applying the paper profile to my Adobe 1998 RGB Photoshop files from Provia 100F drum scans, the more saturated colors often take a disappointing hit. In other words, there is a much better gamut on the film than the paper allows so the top colors get compressed by the RIP. Recently I shot some immensely saturated scenes at the Antelope Valley Poppy State Reserve in California that came out on the RDP less than the live experience, but still looked striking on film. Then when the Photoshop processed scans were profiled to the paper, the bright yellows changed to a more reddish hue and the bright oranges really took a hit. There are short lived papers that will produce more vivid larger gamut results and those are used for commercial work extensively. Thus results from the Chromira would likely be media dependent also.

-David

kieth,

 

Those flowers are quite a sight. I didn't know anything about such displays, thankyou. Also brought up a closeup of the flowers which look quite like little bells.

 

Grant,

 

Yes the middle ground is what we photographers need to foster. There are parks with such heavy public traffic that in order to protect flowers and plants, people must be restricted to viewing from trails with signs and information supporting such. There is only so much trampling abuse and plant can withstain. In a number of National Parks for instance, there are sometimes such restrictions in more popular areas. The balance of course is to allow other areas with light public traffic in which access is relatively freely open. Even then, there needs to be some guidelines from those in charge of the parks to enlighten those who tend to be unthinking, careless, and inconsiderate. And we all know those abound in all facets of our cultures. -David

Last weekend I was shooting the dirt roads in the Antelope Valley

Poppy

Reserve in Southern California. It would certainly have to rate as

one

of the top wildflower wonders of the world with large dense swaths of

several species of wildflowers over several square miles of small

hills.

The wildflower season is a short spring time event of a few weeks.

The reserve has a main public area with paved walking trails with

signs

discouraging people from leaving trails and thus trampling flowers.

Most

people abide be such. There is also a larger area of the reserve,

not

advertised but well known to locals, pro photographers, and growing

numbers of others with dirt roads which is uncontrolled without any

signs

at which people are left to do what they wish. I have photographed

in

this latter area a few times over the years and have observed the

following

behavior among some ordinary visitors. As an imaginary example:

 

An SUV will drive along one of these dirt roads with occupants

looking for

the most spectacular patches of wildflowers. At such a patch,

grandma, the

wife, and kids get out and proceed to walk into the most spectacular

patch

so Dad can get some group shots. The little kids run back and forth

and

fall down here in there innocently as kids would do. Five minutes

later

they jump back into the SUV and drive along to the next such

treasure. Of

course many of those spots are exactly what a serious photographer

will

wish to shoot so this is all quite disturbing when during a weekend

there

are numerous such vehicles driving about doing the same inconsiderate

thing.

 

Of course seeing others do this just reinforces that behavior.

Although

this is a specific example and location, I have as I'm sure others

have seen

similar behavior at other parks. As a photographer one often has to

move into such flower patches to get a decent shot but there is

usually a

way to do so stepping carefully minimizing trampling and footprints.

My own small action against this is to tactfully go up to such people

and

calmly explain the impact of what they are doing and suggest another

way

to still get some pictures. -David

Years ago I shot all my 35mm landscapes with Kodachrome64. After Velvia came out a friend I often shoot with started using Velvia which we would compare similar shots to after field work. As someone who was interested in as much color fidelity as was easily attainable, Velvia fell far short. Despite the fact that it was noticebly the sharpest film and quickly became the preferred slide film of most landscape photographers including most in the media, I resisted using it. Later when I switched to 6x7, KR64 was no longer available for larger film sizes so I started using EPN100 which has even better fidelity but less resolution. When Provia 100F came out I immediately switched so now have both color fidelity and excellent resolution. Provia is terrific as long as it is not overexposed. As a long time Photoshop user, I can always change an reasonably accurate image to something unnatural but if one starts with an unnatural image one must rely on memory to try and bring back something close to reality. And that memory quickly fades.

 

As to the essence of your question "super crystalline quality". If a new color film appeared with twice the resolution with good fidelity, I would immediately switch. One can always reduce the information content in an image digitally but not the reverse. For landscapes, big prints with more detail more often look more impressive than small ones. David

I just shot on the dirt roads at the reserve Friday and Saturday. There is an

accessable CDEC remote weather station there which anyone can access via

the web. Winds at noon were averaging 20mph my two days and then again Sunday,

but I noticed today Monday there was only a slight breeze shown. Yeah the

flowers are peaking right now and when they are fresh from the buds can take

quite a lot of wind quite well as that valley is normally so. But once the

flowers have passed a certain point, desicating winds will prematurely strip

off the petals. Was shooting 6x7 with a heavily weighted tripod and an

umbrella to shield the wind. Waited for the usual momentary lulls in the

wind to press the cable shutter release. Worst wait was about 30 minutes

and had to wait about 15 minutes often for many shots. No doubt some of my

shots will be wasted by vibrations but I am expecting most will be just fine.

Despite the incredible conditions now, we saw just one other photographer

with pro gear in those two days which was surprising. -David

Got the repair quote this morning, $250 which includes fixing the shutter which indeed was detached from a spring and a cover with a broken screw. Put in for rush service (extra $40) so will get it back by next Thursday, yippee! -David

Sent it to Englewood 2 day air this morning with 5 day rush service (extra $40). Should get a call by the end of the week for the repair estimate. I'll ask if they will be providing any details of what went wrong and pass it along here.

 

As a landscape photographer, if it was going to break it might as well have been Saturday where I was only 30 miles from home versus being in the middle of some trip amidst awesome scenery. -David

Could not post the below message about my broken shutter here in the

Pentax 67 forum for strange reasons but it did input below in forum:

photo.net Problems and Feedback:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004hnC

Here is the warning message:

Problem with Your Input

to {Hyperlink "/"}

to www.photo.net

We had a problem processing your entry:

·

Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.

Thank you.

 

 

Here is my message:

 

My Pentax 67II bought in 98 broke its shutter yesterday. I'm not sure what has happened since I am not familiar with focal plane shutter mechanisms. I am hoping someone with more knowledge of these mechanisms can lend some insight as to what may have gone wrong. The shutter and the wind up lever had been working perfectly up to this time. In fact this has been a terrific camera.

 

Yesterday with a 110 roll of RDP in the camera, after shooting frame 8 (of 11), when I rotated the wind up lever, mid way through, it felt as though the film had slipped as an odd sound occurred. Subsequently I rotated the lever and it felt as though the film was not engaged. Then I removed the lens and saw that the cloth shutter was no longer covering the film plane but rather just the right two-thirds and the left edge of the shutter was not exactly vertical. I removed the film manually. From the open back, I could push the shutter to the right end of the frame opening but when released of course it simply springs back to the above two thirds location. Suspect the right side of the shutter as viewed from the back has broken off of some other mechanism like a spring.

 

I have the Pentax authorized repair shop info so will call one of them on the West Coast Monday, but it would be nice to have some idea what has happened before I talk to someone. ...David

Was not able to post a simple text question in the Pentax forum

for unknown reasons so am trying do so here as a test.

Simple math: the higher the dpi a scan the more critical focus is required to extract information.

 

Obviously the weak link in ccd scanners is media on the film plane. Manufacturers have been putting most of their engineering efforts into increased dpi and dmax/dmin because those are the hot marketing parameters played up by the media. The flatness of film is difficult to evaluate by consumers. Nonetheless, manufacturers can certainly check such by scanning special glass slides covered edge to edge with sets of fine lines. Generally manufacturers will not be forthcoming with problematic specifications such as this just as they had to be dragged kicking and screaming in order to start specifying Dmin to Dmax a few years ago.

 

With difficulty, I have resisted buying into this first generation of ~4000dpi ccd film scanners mainly due to this very issue. Instead of buying a pricy Imacon, I have continued to get my better material drum scanned which I can count on. Drum scanning prices have lowered during the last couple years, no doubt in part due to these same scanners. Currently I am getting 200mb icg drum scans of mf for less than $50 and 100mb scans of 35mm for less than $40 which makes consideration for an Imacon purchase questionable. -David

Sure. I emailed the 269kb .psd image to you in an attachment.

peter nelson posted a response to thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004OVA

 

suggesting creation of a printer test image in Photoshop he has

been using. I also made a whole set of test images a few years

ago and below are directions for easily creating one to test

resolution. I most recently did this to prove the local

Lightjet 5000 did not provide much more resolution when pixels

per inch of real information were above about 250. I've seen

several threads on this forum, which simply printing some of

these test images could have resolved what otherwise was

considerable opinions based upon the subjective.

 

My below process is just one of many ways in Photoshop to reach

the same type of test image. A veteran Photoshop user ought

to be able to create it rather easily by their own methods.

The directions are slightly terse to keep the post short.

Also the forum posting window combines multiple lines to save

space so I preceded lines with [ so someone could paste this

all into a word processor and exchange <Returns> for [ to

make this much more readable.

 

If one of you whom owns an Epson 2200/7600 prints one of these

images, please post some details of the results, as I like many

on the forum are interested in buying one of those Ultrachrome

ink machines. If prodded I will go into some detail as to what

I discovered with the Lightjet 5000. Note the test is more

accurately upon the combination of printer, paper, inks, and is

affected also by one's RIP so please give those details also.

 

What is created are groups of one, two, and four, pixel wide

alternating lines of primary and secondary colors at both vertical

and horizontal orientations. Beyond what is below one could

expand this and change the contrast of the colors. Additional

test components like incremental gray scales and color hues can

also be easily constructed into a more general test image.

 

After an image is printed it may be inspected by say an 8x loupe

although a more useful evaluation would be with a 20x or 30x

microscope.

 

============================================================

In Photoshop:

 

[File...New (Pop up window opens.)

[(enter text in fields)

[Name pr_test400_1 (if saved pr_test400_1.psd)

[Resolution 400 pixels/inch

[Width 200 pixels

[Height 100 pixels

[Mode RGB Color

[transparent

[ok (Pop up window closes; window with pr_test400_1 opens.)

 

[Window...Show...Tools

[Window...Show Info (if not already shown; ruler units pixels)

[Window...Show Layers

[Edit...Preferences...Guides & Grid

[Color Black

[style Lines

[Gridline every 8 pixels

[subdivisions 8

[General

[interpolation Nearest Neighbor

[ok

 

[View...Show...Grid

[View...Snap to...Grid

[(Toolbox select default colors black foreground white background.)

[(Click box below hand tool to reset to default color.)

 

[<Ctrl>+ (Key until zoom shows 1600% which is maximum.)

[(Position window to view upper right corner.)

[(On Toolbox select rectangular marquee tool, ie m.)

[(This small transparent image displays 8x8 grid squares with)

[( 1 pixel subdivisions.)

 

[(Select one of the 8x8 grid squares near the top of the image.)

[Edit...Fill (Fill pop window appears.)

[use Background Color

[ok (8x8 square fills white.)

 

[(In this 8x8 square select top 1 pixel row 7 pixels across.)

[( ie 1x7, on top row of one of the 8x8 grid squares.)

[Edit...Fill (Fill pop window appears.)

[use Foreground Color

[ok (1x7 rectangle fills black at top of 8x8 grid square.)

[Edit...Copy (or <Ctrl>c)

[Edit...Paste (or <Ctrl>v)

[<Ctrl>v

[<Ctrl>v

[<Ctrl>v

[(Creates 4 each 1x7 black rectangles all in different layers.)

[(Toolbox select Move Tool, ie v )

[(On Layers pallette select layer 2.)

[(Move layer 2 rectangle to row 3 of 8x8 leaving column 8 white.)

[(On Layers pallette select layer 3.)

[(Move layer 3 rectangle to row 5 of 8x8 rectangle.)

[(On Layers pallette select layer 4.)

[(Move layer 4 rectangle to row 7 of 8x8 rectangle.)

[(Layers box select Merge Visible which will leave name Layer 3.)

[select...Deselect (or <Ctrl>d )

[File...Save (or <Ctrl>s )

[(Image is 8x8 square of alternating black and white 1 pixel)

[( lines with column 8 white.)

 

[(Mouse select this full 8x8 square.)

[<Ctrl>c)

[<Ctrl>v (Paste a total of 8 times, by repeating.)

[v (move tool)

[(On Layers pallette select layer 4.)

[(Move layer 4 8x8 immediately below the layer 3 8x8.)

[(Note no intervening transparent spaces.)

[(Repeat above till all 7 each 8x8 squares in a vertical column.)

[(Layers box select Merge Visible which will leave name Layer 9.)

 

[<Ctrl>- (repeat till 800%)

[(On toolbox select Magic Wand Tool, ie w.)

[(Deselect Anti-aliased, field at top of Photoshop window. )

[(Select black rows in second from top 8x8 grid square.)

[(Use <Shift> to add to multiple selections.)

[(Double click on the Tool Box Color, below Hand Tool, )

[( to pop up the Color Picker window.)

[(In the HSB fields enter:)

[H 0 (red=0 degrees)

[s 100%

[b 80%

[ok

 

[Edit...Fill (Fill pop window appears.)

[use Foreground Color

[ok (Changes lines in second 8x8 to red.)

[<Ctrl>d

 

[(Double click on the Tool Box Color, to pop up Color Picker.)

[H 60 (yellow=60 degrees)

[ok

[(Wand select all black rows in the third from top 8x8 square.)

[Edit...Fill

[use Foreground Color

[ok (Cchanges lines in third 8x8 square to yellow.)

[<Ctrl>d

 

[(Repeat for squares 4, 5, 6, 7 using 120, 180, 240, 300 deg.)

[(7 8x8 squares 1 pixel row colors within a white background.)

 

[m (marquee too)

[<Ctrl>- (Repeat to zoom out to 700%.)

[(Select all 7 each 8x8 squares.)

[<Ctrl>c

[<Ctrl>v ( Repeat paste 8 times, which now shows 8 layers.)

[v

[(On Layers pallette select layer 10.)

[(Move layer 10 8x8 to immediately right of left row of 8x8's.)

[(Repeat this on layers 11 thru 16.)

[(This creates a 7x8 group of 8x8 squares.)

 

[(On Layers pallette select layer 10.)

[w (Magic wand tool)

[(Select a white area. This ought select all white areas.)

[(On Toolbox select Eyedropper tool.)

[(Sample the red in the second from top 8x8.)

[Edit...Fill

[use Foreground Color

[ok (Red fills previous white areas of leftmost 8x8.)

[<Ctrl>d

 

[w (Magic Wand tool)

[(Select all the white areas in second column of 8x8.)

[(on Toolbox select Eyedropper tool)

[(Sample the yellow in the third from top 8x8.)

[Edit...Fill

[use Foreground Color

[ok (Yellow fills white areas in third column of 8x8.)

[(Repeat for other sets of squares using green, cyan,)

[( blue, magenta, and black. Leave column 8 as is, white.)

[(Layers box select Merge Visible. Leaves name layer 16.)

[(Image is a 56x64 rectangle.)

[<Ctrl>s (Save file)

[<Ctrl>- (Repeat to zoom out to 500%.)

[m

[(Select full rectangle of image thus far created.)

[<Ctrl>c

 

[File...New

[Resolution 400 pixels/inch

[Width 64 pixels

[Height 56 pixels

[ok

[<Ctrl>v (Paste whole image in.)

 

[image...Rotate Canvas...90 degrees CCW

[select...All (ie <Ctrl>a )

[<Ctrl>c

[(Select pr_test400_1 window.)

[v

[<Ctrl>v

[v

[(Move pasted group 8 pixels to right of first group.)

[(Layers box select Merge Visible.)

[<Ctrl>s

[(Select other Un-titled window and close it without saving.)

 

[image...Image Size

[Check Resample Image

[Check Constrain Proportions

[Width 2400

[Height 1000

[ok (Note Nearest Neighbor still selected.)

[File...Save As

[File Name print_test400_2

[(For print_test400_2.psd ie 2 pixel line widths.)

[(This creates a twice as large image as print_test400_1.)

 

[image...Image Size

[Check Resample Image

[Check Constrain Proportions

[Width 4800

[Height 2000

[ok

[File...Save As

[File Name print_test400_4

[(For print_test400_2.psd ie 4 pixel line widths.)

[(This creates a 4 times as large image as print_test400_1.)

[image...Canvas Size

[Anchor to top left corner

[Width 600

[Height 600

[ok

 

[File...Open

[print_test400_2

[<Ctrl>a

[<Ctrl>c

[(Select window for print_test400_4.)

[<Ctrl>v

 

[File...Open

[print_test400_1

[<Ctrl>a

[<Ctrl>c

[(Select window for print_test400_4.)

[<Ctrl>v

 

[(On Layers pallette select layer 19.)

[v

[(Move the two 2 line rectangles below the left 4 line rectangle.)

[(On Layers pallette select layer 18.)

[v

[(Move the two 1 line rectangles below the right 4 line rectangle.)

[(Layers box select Merge Visible. Leaves name layer 19.)

[image...Show...Grid (Turns grid off)

[(One might label image with 6 point black text:

[(1, 2, 4 for line widths and 400 ppi 600x600 )

 

[<Ctrl>s (Saves print_test400_4.psd)

 

==============================================================

 

The image is now complete. The other two files, print_test400_1

and print_test400_2 may be deleted. 400 pixel per inch is used

because all printers will be within that range. However one line

widths at 300 ppi with corresponding 2 and 4 line widths at 150 ppi

and 75 ppi might also be built.

 

-David Senesac

 

Scot,

 

Per your comment condemning Kodak ProPhotoCD scans, a lot depends on where/who/how did the scan. Some of my ProPhotoCD scans are surprisingly sharp with accurate brightness and hue and others earlier during the product looked like the operator was not paying attention. I had a lot of good scans made by a business that worked closely with Kodak and had an excellent reputation with photographers. Sure not quite as sharp as newer machines or able to pull out as much from darker areas but way better than anything I've seen out of my 2450. Recently I had an 5000 dpi ICG drum scan of a particularly sharp 35mm Kodachrome64 I plan to blow up above 20x30 and the drum didn't really get that much more resolution than the old ProPhotoCD though the pixel data is of course noticeably more dynamic. -david

Just a couple years ago a 100mb drum scan was usually about $100. So prices have been coming down. One problem service bureaus had was that their main scanning business the previous decade was from the deeper pockets of commercial work and not fine art or consumer inputs. They have thus been resistant to reduce prices since businesses were more interested in service and quality and not low price sensitive. The problem was aggravated mid 90s when Kodak began providing PhotoCD's at a price well below what they could drop prices for so a two tier pricing structure evolved. In the recent years, consumer film scanners, dot matrix printers, digital cameras have contributed to an overall explosion of digital photography from consumer through commercial work so service bureaus needed to adjust their market plans in order to leverage the broader scope of the low end market. Currently it is still too expensive to get a 5000+ dpi drum scan from 6x6+ MF/LF but there will be a day in the not too distant future that too will change. -David

I shot landscapes with 35mm for many years then a few years back got the 67 AEII with 45,55-100,135, and the 2X. My orientation with landscapes has always been more wide than tele so being weak at the tele end did not crimp my style much. Use the 55-100 zoom 80% of the time. Although I had the 2X, I haven't bothered using it much since it makes the beast even huger. I plan to buy the 90-180 zoom over the winter so when spring comes I'll replace the converter with the zoom. As I get older mr pack just keeps getting heavier. -dave

The subject of what is an adequate scanning resolution has been a

common past thread on this and other forums. Some years ago there

was some controversy whether the better consumer scanners of the day,

which were at that time about 3000 pixels per inch, were adequate for

recovering all possible information. Within time, it was shown that

for 35mm color slides, high end drum scans at 5000 ppi were at about

the limit of recoverable information. Those often included

references to film and lens resolution MTF or lines per millimeter

aka LPM based data. Today we have 4000+ ppi prosumer scanners and

this discussion still is lively with the merits of different models

embroiled in controversies. The following is more of an empirical

observation on the below actual measurements I performed rather than

a question and thus I am interested in scanning resolution comments

on the following from others.

 

For some expert opinions, these recent discussion on Monaghan's site

related sharpness issues are enlightening:

 

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/critical.html

 

Recently I had a particularly sharp older 35mm Kodachrome 64 image

taken with my Zuiko 50mm macro ICG drum scanned at 5000 ppi. This

was an image I had also Kodak 4050 Pro PhotoCD scanned a few years

ago. The image was of stones on a beach from about 18 inches

distance with considerable small dimension detail. I was surprised

to find the 4050 scan had nearly the same resolution as the ICG

although the vibrant pixel color data from the ICG was apparently

much better because no amount of my Photoshop manipulation of the

4050 image would make it come anywhere near the drum scan.

 

I have $20 Micronta 30X and 100X magnifiers one can buy at Radio

Shack. Using an ordinary General steel rule graduated in 1/100 inch

(10mil) gradiations, the full frame of these magnifiers are easily

measured as 0.133 inch and 0.043 inches respectively. I used these

to evaluate the resolution of fine lines on stones on the above image

as well as the original KR64slide.

 

With the 30x magnifier, I noted the scans had exacted about all there

was on the slide. Some well defined narrow black lines of varying

width were atop a red stone. At 5000 ppi the height of the 24x36mm

slide frame has a bit less than 5000 pixels. Also 25.4mm equals one

inch, and 1/25.4mm = 0.0393 inches or 39.3 mils per a millimeter. On

a USAF chart a given line set LPM calculation is based on both a

black line and the intervening white space or twice the width of

individual black lines. Thus the maximum resolution possible on a

5000 ppi scan loosely defined is (5000/2)/25.4 or about 100 LPM. (ie

alternating black and white lines 2500 times) Using features

measured with the steel rule, showed well defined prominent black

lines on the red stone, ten of which could fill the space of the

10mil rule gradiations. This corresponds to one mil lines. That

was about 5 pixels line widths which I readily saw when zoomed in

with Photoshop. That would thus be 5000/(24*2*5)= 21 LPM. Nearby

were other lines less than 2 pixels wide. At 2 pixel widths, or 52

LPM, lines lose luminance due to blurring but are still quite

noticeable features. Thus it was obvious to me that at least this

much scanning resolution was required to extract all information on

my KR64 slide. A scan at 2500 ppi would have had a difficult time

recovering blurred lines of only one pixel. Likewise I would

expect that similar scanning resolution will also necessary when drum

scanning my similar resolution film Provia 100F 6x7s. -David

Yes advise looking at some of the past threads. After reading some of those in the past, I was determined to eliminate shutter shake vibration. I also decided to try and make usable the 5.5 pound Benbo Trekker I love to work with in the remote field which has a wimpy Novoflex MiniMagicball head. I also tend to shoot mainly with the large 55-100mm Pentax zoom so my usual camera plus lens is extra heavy. Have been shooting my landscapes with my tripod vertex weighted by the 10 pounds or so weight of my daypack plus a second loose bag of several pounds which I droop over the top of the pentaprism. For medium format the Trekker is often not tall enough because with a wide angle shot, and limited MF depth of field even when stopped way down, one needs to shoot up high enough in order to keep the camera level without tilting it up to remove too close foreground areas. What that often causes me to do is use the infamous Benbo extension arm (aka tuning fork) to get higher. That produced noticeably soft images until I created with a thin light weight though rigid wood stick, my fourth tripod leg.

 

After setting up the tripod and framing a shot, I will diagonally prop the stick between the ground and areas in the front of the camera body which directly counters the vibration axis of my setup. I'm usually getting sharp images now so it must be working.

 

The stick trick could be used on anyone's tripod setup along with weighting to help quiet vibrations. One needs to expirement obviously. Note when outside in the field one is also often dealing with more or less of a breeze. So shutter shake is just part of the outside issue and my stick helps both. Since a single length of stick is a nuisance, I made one which breaks down into two sections. And note I plan to buy a Gitzo 134x for next season so near road work will be simpler. -David

"...is it that at this point i should close the carea back?"

Yep.

 

"...is ready for shooting? "

The frame counter will show 1 in the LCD window and you won't be able to advance with the winder further. -dave

We all agree that recreating close to natural light conditions isn't possible. No matter what media is used, the displayed image will have limitations particularly with color gamut, luminance, and resolution. The range of the human eye is certainly tremendous. On the other hand it might also be agreed among photographers that when an image is well within those parameters of media, that a reasonable good representation of the subject can be recreated. And I think most of us would also agree that we can easily distinguish between an image that was produced with good fidelity and one that was not. The more so the easier. Those who embrace artistic freedom to manipulate images, as we agree, should not generally be inhibited in such a choice by criticism that it is so. Particularly when it is not specifically promoted as natural. However it is also valid that there is some inate value in more accurate photographic reproduction that will obviously have a ring of more value to many viewers.

 

Let us say an audience viewed two photographs of an scenic landscape, the first obviously more saturated than the second and in this hypothetical case lets say it looks more appealing than a second print which was reasonably accurate. They were then asked to judge which print they preferred. Of course many would choose the first print. Particularly so for those who are not too experienced with the outdoor world. But one can also expect that if the audience were then told that the second print was much more naturally reaslistic than the first, that there would be some who would then switch their preference because of that inate value. -dave

Gene,

 

Reviews I've read place this flatbed just a bit higher than the mass of consumer scanners out there. After all the street price is only about $400. My own slides under a loupe are way sharper than the raw 2450 scans capture. The Kodak ProPhoto CD 4050 scanned images made on much of my better material several years ago looks way sharper. And an ICG drum scan of one slide I currently have in for processing at a local lab, I expect to be way sharper than it's same 4050 scans. Which is necessary for its coming Lightjet printing. But for printing 8x10s or web use it is just fine which is all I expected. However again if someone knows how to boost the capture resolution I'm all ears. -David