dglickstein

We all have our moments, and you were correct, I should have searched. I usually do, but I sent that from an Amtrak train.

Does the glass reduce scan quality, as in the more glass the light has to travel through... or is there no other way to hold the film down?

dG

Edward,

Thank you.

dG

Is it better to scan 645 transparencies with a glass holder in the

Nikon Coolscan 9000?

If so, why?

If not, does the film just sit on a tray?

Thanks in advance.

dG

According to the manuals, you attach the extenders to the lens first and then attach it to the body--do not attach the extender to the body without the lens.

dG

Understand--and thank you very much! Nearly all of my 35mm shots are on the tripod and it's going to be the same for MF. Wind is the biggest problem for me with slower speeds.

Another question: Have any of you had a lab cut the transparency in the wrong spot or mid frame? Or is it an automated process? (I can't think of any of my 35mm slides having been cut in the wrong spot.)

Thanks again.

dG

After lots of reading, lots of advice from this website and renting a

Hasselblad H1 and taking 5 test rolls of 120 Velvia slides -- I'm

purchasing an H2 with several lens and film back and hopefully within

a year or so moving to a digital back.

My simple questions:

1. The 5 rolls I had developed came uncut and protected by a clear

flat plastic strip. What is the best way to get 120/220 developed -

Cut? In rolls and uncut? I will be scanning my good frames in a Nikon

Coolscan 9000 and I am very bad at cutting straight lines.

2. In 35mm I shot 100VS or some Velvia -- in MF with slower lenses,

if I use Provia 400 will I notice the grain? How about when enlarged?

3. For developing, what do you recommend for 120 or 220--mailers (if

so which), local lab (I work in NYC)? From what I understand my

choices are increasingly limited.

4. Current digital backs have a crop factor--is it just a matter of

time until they have a full frame digital back for MF?

Thanks in advance.

dG

Expect TIF files greater than 130MB (35mm scan with Coolscan is 110MB+)!

I have recently started using Iomega REV drives and disks. Each disk is 35GB uncompressed and 90GB compressed and it's pretty fast--much faster than CD or DVD. The drives run about $200-$300 and they hook up Firewire or USB.

I got mine from www.newegg.com, but you can get them anywhere. Good luck.

dG

Leszek,

I primarily shoot 100VS. It does look like a finger print. I am waiting for some Velvia to come back to see if it appears there. I checked other rolls--the blemish goes through the entire roll sometimes (or it does all the time and I can't see it), so I was mistaken in my original post. It is difficult to see with a faint or blown out background. The darker the photo the darker the blemish.

I have seen the blemish in rolls from different batches of film (from different boxes). It occurs with different lenses too.

I don't know what I could have done to cause this. It was developed using Kodak mailers. It does look like a finger print or a round shadow.

dG

OK, here we go, hopefully it will work now--looks horrible, but you see the blemish.

dG<div></div>

Here is a shot from my EOS3, 400mm f5.6 L lens, Kodak 100VS. There is

a blemish in the upper right corner and it's gone by frame #16. I

have a few rolls like this, different lenses, not all shots in the

roll have this blemish. The blemish occurs in the same place in the

frames in which it occurs. It gets lighter or darker depending on the

exposure. Over 70 rolls, this occurs in about 10 rolls only.

Do you think it's something wrong with camera, film or developing? Is

it a spirit or the source of Intelligent Design? Kidding aside, this

bothers me and thanks in advance.

dG<div></div>

I have these L lenses:

24 TSE; 35 f1.4; 85 f1.2; 135 f2.0; 300 IS f4; 400 f5.6; 17-28 f2.8; 35-70 f2.8; 70-200 IS f2.8

and I am embaressed to say very emotionally attached to each. It has taken many years to build the collection. I have a few others but the are not L.

dG

I have to say thanks to everyone for the advice. Your words have helped. I definatly see that 35mm is good for some photography and MF for other types. I didn't know if I would get a better trade in price if I traded in when I purchased from my dealer.

I think I will take a wait and see approach and not trade in immediately if at all. Thank you again.

dG

Cash may be an issue. I'm looking at an H2 plus lenses with film back right now and later a digital back. But I would take a serious hit on the value of the lenses.

Dan--I'm planning to move to MF for several reasons that I outline in this post: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ds8k But basically, I'm looking for more film surface area and a migration to larger digital sensor size. I beleive replacing a back as a way of moving from film to digital (or from color to B&W) is the right design as opposed to having to upgrade the entire body every year or so. Digital is my future, that's clear.

Robert--I worry that I will be shooting like you, 645 more and more when I switch. If that's the case, why keep the 35mm?

dG

When I switch to MF from 35mm should I keep my Canon gear?

If you shoot both 35mm and MF, how do you lug both sets of gear

around? Do you just work out of the car or hike with a one body or

two bodies at a time?

Why should I keep both formats? Is there a good reason?

I am asking so I can decide whether to keep my L lenses and 2 EOS3

bodies or trade them in for some money--I do not know if they will

ultimately just be collecting dust.

Thank you in advance for your advice.

dG

Try cleaning the print nozzles using the utility or hold down the ink button for 3-4 seconds. This may help, it did with me once. Good luck.

dG

Hugh,

Here's my thinking (and sorry for the length of the answer): Upon my return from a recent photography trip, I immediately looked at the 16.67mpix Canon since I have many L lenses. I liked it a lot. But I don't like the built in obsolence. $8,000 is a lot but if I am going to want to upgrade to Canon's 20mpix or 22mpix next year, I'm going to lose most of my investment on a trade in; digital loses value 10x faster than film bodies or glass. Plus I'm getting better resolution with my Nikon Coolscan 5000 (over 5000x4000) which directly equates to printing dpi, no way around that.

That led me to consider what many have advised me here on photo.net--switch to larger size film/sensor. With 645 or 6x6 there are digital backs so just the back is replaced. With more surface area, digital or film, you get more. So I figure, invest $ in a system that will stay with me for years to come with only one component changing--the digital back--if necessary.

Canon and Nikon keep coming out with new technology and I don't want to make photography like computers: meaning I accept that I need to upgrade my computer every 1-2 years if I want to process more. I don't want my photography to become like that.

Phew, sorry for the length, but this is a very expensive decision for me.

dG

Dan,

After I wrote this I started looking at other MF cameras with 6x6 instead of 645. I looked at the Rollei 6008AF--I guess I should rent it too.

dG

I rented an H1 with 80mm lens (50mm equivalent in 35mm format) to see

if I'd like shooting MF. I am considering switching from Canon EOS3

to an H2 film and then later purchase a 22mpix digital back. I have

seen a bunch of other forum posts of people in the same boat and

reading the back and forth has helped me so I think I'll put my 2

cents in with my questions and experiences.

Firstly, renting an H1 was a good way to go because it had very

similar features to 35mm (autofocus, similar functionality, etc...).

It didn't take long to get acquainted with the H1.

The larger area of MF (even 645) is nice. I loved the 100% viewfinder

(yes, I could get that with a 1V or MarkII Ds123--whatever the model

# is (Canon has got to fix the model # problem)). The interchangeable

back is a great thing. At first loading the film was intimidating but

by the third roll it was easy. I see the switch to digital being an

easier transition by simply replacing the back. This is a great

thing. With Canon I'd be purchasing a whole new camera body. When the

next latest and greatest from Canon comes out I'd be looking to

upgrade. With changeable backs, well, you just upgrade the back. And

at 22mpix, that will give me many, many years of use before

considering a switch.

What I didn't like was film changing was not as easy as 35mm. My

EOS3, while not as sealed as a 1V is good to go in light windy rain

(and many wipe-downs)--an H1 or H2, no way. I was very careful with

the rented H1, not only because it wasn?t mine (hey, most people now

a days abuse rented things because it isn't theirs!) but because it

is very expensive. While the digital sensor is bigger than 35mm full

frame, it isn?t the size of 645, it?s 48mm x 36mm--I guess this is a

MF crop factor, I don't know. Another drawback is that the digital

back is over $20,000!

Personally I love film, however, film developing is getting scarce

and costs are increasing. I clearly see the advantages of checking

your work in the field with digital--it sure beats blowing many rolls

of film if you made an exposure mistake!

I don't think I took any great slide shots today but I'm holding out

on a final decision until I can see the actual slides on a light box.

One final thought: When I finished my first roll on the H1 I returned

to my car and right in front of me was this huge gopher! I

immediately grabbed my EOS3, threw on a 400mm F5.6 and fired away--I

think she was posing for me. I hope with an H2 I can work as quickly,

maybe with time that will happen.

That's my 2 cents.

dG

I own 2 Arca Swiss B1s, each for a couple of years, and they're both great. They go through hell since I hike with the head uncovered. They're scratched, dirty and function just fine.

I do find sometimes the knob doesn't release the ball but I just giggle it a bit it it's fine. I never had to send either of the heads in for repair so I don't have experience with the company.

Good luck.

dG

442 West Belden

Chicago, IL 60614

773-248-2513, Fax 773-248-2774

Maybe the "authorities" were ashamed of their own thoughts when they viewed this guy's photos--how would they know the photos were inappropriate unless them felt a particular way?

What about naked sculptures or nude photography or current day clothing ads? How about underwear commercials?

dG

Wow!

Luckily I don't have a photographic memory.

dG

You forgot to dream that it weighs only 24oz.

dG

What are your experiences scanning 6x4.5 size transparencies with a

film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000?

How is the color and focus quality and resolution?

What size prints are you making from these scans?

Thanks in advance.

dG