dglickstein

Has anyone had any success finding or making a template for the FH-869S

120/220 film holder (this is the holder that comes with the Nikon 9000

scanner, the one without glass)?

I have the glass holder and it works great sometimes.

I plan on cutting a 645 box out of a thin plastic or metal plate that will sit

in the film holder. The purpose is to hold the film flat for the frame I want

to scan.

Is there a holder or template that already exists (that I can buy) or has

anyone made such a template, and if so, can you let me know your experiences?

Thanks in advance.

No rubber bands, pre or post developing. A good thought though.

dG

James,

Yes, that is correct, it feeds up/down, not left to right. Dip and dunk doesn't use rollers either. Oddly, this is only seen in a few of the frames on this roll.

dG

This is a 120 roll (medium format), there are no perforation holes.

dG

Philip,

Why do you say this is a manufacturing (Fuji) defect? Have you seen this before? Thank you.

dG

Thank you!

It was dip & dunk developing.

I showed the lab, they want to see the film: good idea.

dG

Attached is a photograph with two faint dark vertical bands down the center of

the image. I had to use Curves after scanning it to make them more visible and

I can see them on the film too (the film is much lighter so the bands are

harder to see).

Data: Fuji Velvia 400RHP (120 roll), F8, 1/50 of a sec., Hasselblad H2

These bands only appear on a few frames on this roll. Could this be something

in developing?

Your help is sincerely appreciated.

dG<div></div>

You can always send your work to Camera Arts magazine and pay them $25 to look at your photographs. They would love to see work from you every month. Good luck.

http://www.cameraarts.com/submissions.php

LTI New York

212-685-6871

www.ltiny.com

I think it is ironic that at the bottom of the web page there is a link to license Bradford's article! Follow that and you get an email address: licensinginfo@smartmoney.com

dG

I do not believe Kodak owns or operates labs any more. On the east coast, their mailers go to District Photo in Maryland and then to somewhere else I believe (perhaps someone else can help here).

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009PI8

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GzfY&tag=

Good luck.

dG

cop-y-right [kop-ee-rahyt]

the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, photo, video, etc...: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.

What does your contract specifically state about copyright? Anything?

If it says nothing, then you paid $1,500 for the photographer's time, prints, proofs, etc, (and any thing else outlined in the contract) and she retains the copyright, period. It's that simple. The copyright remains with the photographer and reproduction without permission is an infringement of the copyright.

It is very simple and clear, read http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html from the US Copyright Office (search on "wedding").

Not sure what you meant by "has nothing to do with me." You don't want additional prints of the photos? If not, why do you want the other photos? I am confused by what you were referring to.

If she grants you the copyright in the contract, that's a different story.

Mike,

This is a very unfortunate situation. She can choose to NOT provide you with any re-prints since she holds the copyright; then you and your wife are out of luck. I assume your contract doesn't state that she is required to supply you with prints. It just says proofs, right? Well, if she owns the copyright... I know Walmart and my photo store won't make reprints without written permission from the photographer.

It is common practice, or customary, for the wedding photographer to retain the copyright. If I were her I'd register the photos with the copyright office ASAP. You don't have to like it.

Some how you need to find a way to work this out with her, perhaps you can discuss your concerns and issues again and come to some middle ground. You'll have to if you want to make additional prints from her photographs of your wedding. This is tough because there is a lot of anger, but not impossible.

You did the right thing by mailing the $73, it's a first step. Good luck and I hope it gets worked out. I'm sure she's not happy either.

Mike,

I have been following this. I am not a wedding photographer. I know you are angry, but being angry and chasing this photographer will only keep you in a downward spiral.

If there are remaining photos that you have not seen, if they were any good, the photographer would have proudly included them with the initial set.

I doubt you will get any missing "great" photos. It does not sound like you will get any money back and you will not get any damages if you pursue this legally.

Sometimes we should let things go because they consume us. Don't let your new marriage be consumed with this.

Everything in life is a lesson; if you learn from this that it's up to the buyer to beware, great. Next time this won't happen.

If you continue to be angry and go after this photographer, then in the end you (hopefully) will have learned that you should have let it go early on and that you wasted a lot of precious time being angry and chasing revenge.

Good luck.

PS: If you promised to pay for the extra prints, if it were me, I would be a mensch and send full payment to her because it's the right thing to do. Perhaps you can find solace in doing the right thing, I know I would.

Michael,

You will get much better responses over at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/

Good luck!

Heading to Maine late September / early October. I will be shooting around

Acadia and nearby coastal areas and I am looking for recomendations of

locations for landscape scenics. Thank you in advance.

dG

Not many here use the H1 or H2. Try this forum, it will be more helpful:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/

There are more there that use the H1 or H2. Good luck.

Chris,

You have nothing to worry about. While I mainly shoot an H2 now, I have many L lenses and I used to take them everywhere, even mountain biking (which I don't do any more for different reasons).

They are durable and just keep them padded and get a good and comfortable backpack.

I once fell on my 70-200 f2.8 L (non-IS) lens while on a rocky slope and nothing happened. Also dropped the 28-70 f2.8 in the desert from about 4 feet--again, no problems. I don't recommend doing these things, just stating my experiences.

Take them with you and use them, don't worry! Good luck.

dG

Would have been very funny if they put him with an H1 camera and an Imacon digital back!

dG

I moved to MF because:

1. I wanted larger image size, to be able to print larger wo/resampling or software alteration.

2. I wanted a future migration to digital where I could just replace the film back with a digital back

3. I didn't like the notion of buying a new digital Canon body every year or two and losing over 50% of the value at trade in (usded digital gear doesn't trade well).

I spent quite a bit of time researching which MF system to purchase. I loved the Contax, unfortunately, as the previous poster mentioned, Contax let a lot of people down. However, when I worked with the Hasselblad H1, it was, in my opinion, much better (putting aside the few plastic parts that everyone complains about). The viewfinder is absolutely beautiful to work with.

Ultimately I went with the Hasselblad H2 and it is an amazing system. I still use film backs and scan with a Nikon 9000. The quality is superb and it is a well designed system.

Good luck.

dG

Darius,

I heard about the H1 battery being terrible. I rented an H1 before deciding and didn't notice anything. The H2 has been updated with a terrific lithium rechargable battery that lasts quite a long time.

To be honest, the H2 is not without hiccups. But nothing has stopped me permanently in the middle of shooting. Inconvenience? Maybe, but seldom. Hasselblad is sincerely devoted to this system and the design and quality shows it. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

I can show you a few samples: Photo.net seems to be down, I tried getting your email address and it crashed. Email me at dglickstein "at" wisechoicesoftware.com (dglickstein@wisechoicesoftware.com) or I'll try getting your email address again later. My photos are not posted here.

Be well.

dG

"The H is a major disappointment. Mainly, it's too heavy to hold at eye level."

This is true. I can't hold it, I only use it on a tripod. But disappointment? Maybe too harsh?

dG

Darius,

I went with the H2 (film back) after much consideration, including ergonomics, manufacturer reliability, viewfinder brightness, and so forth. It was not an easy decision.

While I have only shot about 5,000 frames so far, it has come with me hiking and has performed well. I do not notice any more "plastic" feeling than I did from my Canon gear--which is probably why it bothers you, are your other camera's outer skin metal? The H series has some plastic on the outside, it has a solid metal core and is extremely rugged. According to Hasselblad, it was designed in Sweden--but it does not matter to me. In fact, shooting with it has convinced me of how well it was designed; read this review, it says basically the same thing:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h2-review.shtml

You are right, I liked the Contax too but you know what happened there, it is unfortunate. But had Contax been around I still would have chosen the H2--it really is a well designed system. Be well.

dG

They did, it's called the H2D, the digital version of the H2. Very ergonomic. Excellent design.

Or did I just walk into a trap for people to bash Hasselblad and Fuji? I hope not, it really is an excellent system.

dG