leonardo 144

Andrea,

There must be something wrong with your computer or your configuration,

because I just did load such an image in Photoshop Elements and Picture Window Pro and converted it to 24 (8) bits.

My computer: Athlon XP 2000+ with 1 (ONE) Gig memory! Memory allocation:70%.

Photoshop scratchdisk on the same (10 gig) partition as the operating system. The Windows XP Home pagefile (=Windows system "scratch disk") is also on that same 10 gig partition. I let Windows set the size of that pagefile.

So all in all, a much less impressive system than your computer manages to do the trick.

Hope this helps

Noise Ninja 2 works great with Linux under WINE (I use MEPIS and Kanotix).You also have to install msttcorefonts, winesetup, wine-utils,

libwine etc.,easy as they are both Debian based. Just install these with

Synaptic or Kpackage. I only tried the trialversion of Noise Ninja2. Strangely, saving the filtered image as a TIFF seems to leave NO WATERMARK.

Stabilix has been resurrected. Now it's called Stabitech.

Webside at www.Stabitech.nl. I just received a new Bosscreen for

my Linhof Color.

Dave,

I think the golden color of the lens is just the color of the lens coating. Before the advent of multicoating, a lot of lenses had a coating with a golden reflection. Before me lies a 1973 photo magazine

with a lot of advertisements showing lenses with golden reflections.

Also, my 1971 Nikon 50mmF1,4 has a "golden" coating (from day 1).

From memory I know that a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm lens had at that time had a golden color.

So I think it's perfectly normal.

Like a previous poster I think you only have to worry when looking through it to white paper, see a non-white.

Greetings, Leen van de Klippe

Z wrote: "Scott? Let's not forget that you're the biggest wankertroll on this site"

Moderator, I really think "Z" crossed a line here, I think it's time to kick him out.

Blaudaemphung is lower transmission for blue.

It could mean that the image rendition is slightly warmer than other lenses. Anyway, FOTOMAGAZIN apparantly does not see it as a serious flaw, on the contrary, they were very enthousiastic about the Mamiya 7 lenses.

They all got the qualification "SUPER"!

For this forum I shot 3 (very boring) pictures for comparing distortion of 3 lenses:

55mm (slight "moustache" distortion), 75mm AL (visible barrel distortion), 90mm (very light barrel distortion).

In practice I am not bothered by the distortion, but I don't shoot much architecture.

Hope this helps.

P.S., click on my name, it's in my "portfolio" (I don't know another way to upload the photos)

The german FOTOMAGAZIN of september 1997 reports a "BLAUDAEMPHUNG" with all tested mamiya 7 lenses (43, 65, 80, 150mm).

Not so with the tested Zeiss/Schneider lenses and to a lesser extent with Mamiya RZ lenses (tested december 1997). Schade fuer dich!

The Hasselblad lens series before the CFI-series are known to be quite sensitive for flare, especially the 120mm macro and the 150mm.

That is the reason that one often used to see the pros with compendiums (a kind of variable lens hood) on the lenses. This was also advised by Hasselblad.Look for more information at the Hasselblad webside in Sweden, the have an article about it.

Dutch "FOTO" magazine consistently over years gets these results with

the Zeiss Planar 80mmF 2.8:

F5.6: ce: 115 lp/mm, corner: 90 lp/mm

F8: ce: 130 lp/mm corner: 100lp/mm

F11: ce: 120 lp/mm corner: 90 lp/mm

F16: ce: 110 lp/mm corner: 80 lp/mm

They test at a distance of 50 or 100x focal length, with Agfa Copex

film

Hope this helps

Your 135mm is specifically made for this purpose, and as it is very flat field, flat documents are sharp from center to corner.

Use F11-F16 for best results. It is also advisable to use a tripod and MLU.To reduce shuttershake you can use a flash or alternatively

tungsten lighting with tungsten film.With extreme macro I use tungsten lighting in a darkened room, put the shutter on B and use the darkroom timer to switch the tungsten light on and off for exposure.When accurate color is needed I would also make one or more exposures with a Macbeth color checker card included.Hope this helps.

BTW, the maximal resolution you will get is limited by your Epson 3200: it is limited to 25-35 lp/mm (dependent on direction of the scan).The 135mm easily achieves 60 lp/mm.

Hi Anthony, I think it is 85mm.I found an article from the seventies.

A test of the P67 in Dutch "FOTO" had some technical drawings indicating a flange distance of 85mm.See the added drawing.Hope this helps.<img>

Hi Anthony, I think it is 85mm.I found an article from the seventies.

A test of the P67 in Dutch "FOTO" had some technical drawings indicating a flange distance of 85mm.See the added drawing.Hope this helps.

Tony,

I have the P67 100 and 135mm macro.I cannot give you a comparison with the 120mm P645 lens. Autofocus with the 120mm AF is very fast(I played with one at the shop)and without hunting (you said however it was not important to you).

For macro applications I think 120mm is more convenient because of greater subject distance (comfort-zone/lighting).

Optically, the 100mm macro is better than the 135mm.It has extaordinary high contrast, especially visible with B&W.Very crisp detail.Nicer bokeh than 135mm.Center resolution wide open 80 lp/mm with high contrast.I would not be surprised if it was an APO lens like the 90mm apo symmar for the Rollei 6000 series.It certainly is an floating elements(FLE) lens, although not as such documented in the Pentax literature!One can clearly see, when focusing closer, that the front elements travel faster than the elements closer to the camera.

Contrast remains excellent at F32.

Finding the precise point of focus is easy because of the very high wide-open center contrast/resolution(in fact the easiest of all the P67 lenses I own).

It is, however, not without disadvantages:

**At F4 and F5.6, edge/corner resolution is not impressive, especially in sagittal direction (as a contrast: the P67 90mm has an edge resolution of 70 lp/mm at F4, admittedly with lower contrast).

However, low-resolution corner/edge contrast is very good, so it is not "soft".

At F11 and beyond resolution and contrast is excellent over the entire frame and at all distances.

** Unfortunately, the 100mm is quite susceptible to ghost images when

bright lights are in the image. So the evening shots with street lights in the frame are not a good application for this lens,it seems.

**Bokeh at greater distances(>a few metres) while nicer than the 135mm, is quite hard edged. The 90mm is nicer in this area.

** The focusing ring does not stay at the same place while focusing closer, it moves outward at half the speed of the lens, unlike the other lenses. Also, a short turn produces quite a large change in focus distance. I don't always like that when a subject is at greater distance, it sometimes causes me to overshoot the focus point.

Hope this helps,

FAST PRIMES

If you want a long normal lens on your P645 you can always put a P67

90, 100, 105mm via a Pentax adapter on your camera.

Or alternatively use a P645 AF zoom lens. From experience I know that

the autofocus works extremely well (in fact better than with the normal lens) because of the high contrast of the lens.The greater mass compensates for the smaller F-stop.

Another possibility seems to be to use a ZORK adapter to mount a Zeiss lens, however, I did not find it at its webside.

Personally, I do not like using a long normal lens, I much prefer a short normal lens (i.e.90mm with 6x7/Zeiss 80mm on 6x6).But of course, YMMV.

This is also the question I wanted to ask.

I think the readyness for a digital back means that the digital back

has to "know" via an electrical signal when to take a picture.

To my knowledge the only way to obtain an electrical signal at the moment of exposure is from the good old X-sync. contact. This applies to the 500 series. As the X contact is then occupied, one needs an Y-connector for also connecting the flash.

The motorized 553 already has an existing electrical contact in the form of an electrical switch that fires the (mechanical) shutter release via (electrical) solonoid switch.So, there is another switch

to derive an electrical signal from for the digital back.

The 503 winder also has a (electrical)solonoid swith that fires the

mechanical shutter release via an attenuator that can be seen on the outside of the camera while pressing the shutter release.

Pretty primitive, but it works.

I am not fully sure, but I think it works something like this.

hope this helps.

Hi all,studying the data sheets of Kodak T-MAX films I noticed that

the spectral sensitivity curves take a nose-dive after 600nm with

densities as low as D 1+ base fog (so approx.1.2)!(This compared with

spectral sensitivity at 0.3+base fog.)

Does this indicate that these films are "clipping" or "saturated"

for these wavelenghts (orange/red) earlier than for other colours?A

kind of "shoulder" for over 600nm?

I would not be surprised if that were the case, because warmer

colours seem to block more in my experience with T-max films.

The most astonishing is the fact that good old Tri-X and Plus-X

display none of this behaviour: spectral sensitivity seems largely

independent of density!No "clipping" of the longer wavelengths.

Would it be better to use a minus-red filter in a situation with

many bright reddish areas in the photo?

Kodak at least praises Tri-X for its brilliant highlights while the

T-max films are known to have problems in that area.

Any thoughts?

Turgut,there is also another reason why this comparison is not so useful: you are comparing a standard 35mm lens (one of the best in the whole line) with a medium format retrofocus ultra wideangle.

Ultra wide-angles are never as good as standard lenses.

That said, I think the Pentax 45mm is not as good as many on Photonet want us to believe. The specimen I tested also had a certain "glow" in the highlights and a "smearing" of lighter areas over darker areas (ie. trees against sky), especially at the edges.

Resolution in the center was tested in a Dutch Photo magazine as 90 Line pairs/mm (that in itself says nothing about contrast)

35mm standard lenses generally have a resolution over 120 line pairs/mm.(my 70's Nikkor 50mmF2 AI has 140+ lp/mm even with TMX)

If you want the highest resolution in in medium format, start saving

because the best is Zeiss.No other MF manufacturer makes lenses with

such high resolution.Unfortunately, Zeiss does not make 6x7 lenses...

Whow!What a reaction.

Kelly, I did not intend to correct or insult you, in fact I agree to what you and others wrote.

My only intention was to show the different results I got between the Epson and an analog enlargement.

I think the confusion is about the "divide by 2" and "line-pairs/mm."

The only reason I said to divide the numbers (as shown on my (Dutch) test card) by 2, is because I photographed it at half the intended distance.I did not intent to make a connection to the difference between line pairs/mm and lines/mm or in any way criticise you.It's just my writing habit.If that was confusing from my posting, I'm sorry.

I also do not imply to say that the Epson is worthless because it has less resolution than my analog (B&W) enlarger, it's has numrerous

other advantages and resolution is reaonable for 6x7.My disappointment lays in the fact that the advertised 3200 dpi number

(as you and others also have shown) absolutely does not deliver.

Cheers,

John, I think your resolution numbers are correct. I get approx. the

same numbers. Disappointing when compered with what I get with my old-fashioned analog enlarger.

This evening I scanned an old APX 25 test negative with my Epson 3200

and after that I went into my B&W darkroom and made an enlargement of the same test negative.This enlargement I scanned with the Epson.

The numbers represent the double resolving power, so for the actual resolving power (in line-pairs per mm) one has to DIVIDE THE NUMBERS

BY TWO!

The first image is the analog enlargement(50mm Rodagon),the second the scan from the Epson at 3200 dpi<div></div>

Andrew, just take a look at the following sites:

- www. Luminous-landscape.com: Equipment reviews: Pentax 67 II

- Pentax 67 SLR forum (Photonet): Field test 300mmF4:William Castleman

-Summery of (award winning) photographer Leping Zha (Photonet): ""The P67 is

a somewhat handycapped system as it can not fire at 1/8 and 1/15 sec. "" and at the Pentax 67 SLR forum he says that the biggest Gitzo

is necesary for the best results.

Another tip: type in the search engine of Photonet the following words:Pentax 67 vibration.You will see many angry arguments denying and confirming the vibration problem.For what it's worth: I still see a problem with my P67(1)in the sub 1/60 range, even with a standard lens, despite the biggest Gitzo CF, biggest Gitzo Low Profile Head, biggest Manfrotto (Bogen in US) metal tripod (161 MK2),biggest Manfrotto Ball Head, rice/sandbag on top of camera,

bungee cords, handholding the camera on tripod, Manfrotto L- bracket

with anti-twist device....Bad technique I guess, should also have bought the RRS plate and Arca Ball head....