jimdesu

<p>Great! Thanks y'all!</p>

<p>I have an aged Imacon Precision II that I got used back in '99 when I had some folding cash, and it's suddenly started scanning awefully. Even on 300dpi preview-mode, the amount of noise is visible from across the room, and the noise comes with a massive orange cast in the no-negative-here space that results in a seriously em-blue-ified image that's no fun to color correct.<br>

I've tried CCD calibration, etc., to no avail; am I about to be forced into the low-rez digital world? I'd hate to lose 4x5, 6x9, 645 and 35mm to be stuck with my prosumer APS-frame Pentax (nice as it is for snapshots).<br>

Any help or recommendations would be greatly appreciated, as I can't afford to bop out and purchase another one. :-)</p>

<p>When you take a field camera into the field, they say "hey, neat camera!" When you hoof a monorail camera into the field they way "whoa! is that a camera?".<br>

:D</p>

 

I love shooting with film because the registered rewind on my Pentax LX allows me to preflash my film so I can

shoot on Ilford Pan-F at E.I. 3200.

Thanks all!

 

My back has the same protruberance and I lack the tools to remove them -- I'l stick with double-darks instead (I never shoot more than 10 shots on an outing anyway, so that's not *too& much of an inconvenience).

Thanks all,

 

The camera's back isn't a graflok, so I can't lock it down as I would have with my old super-speed graphic (which went the way of the dodo last year). I can put my hands on some lisco holders and try them to see if they come out ok, and I'll print out the manuals too.

 

thanks!

 

James

Hi there,

 

I bought a Cambo Legend for cheap and took it out to do some shooting with, and

the results were chock-full of light leaks. I checked the bellows out with a

flashlight, and don't see any pinholes or cracks anywhere. My only theory is

that perhaps the back on a Legend is incompatible with grafmatics? Or do

grafmatics ever go bad?? The negatives were distributed between two different

grafmatics, so it isn't just a case of me having spoiled one of the sets of

negatives via carelessness (which was my first thought).

 

Here are urls for five pix that I've tweaked the gamma on to best show the light

problem.

 

http://jimdesu.us/tmp/leak1.tif

 

http://jimdesu.us/tmp/leak2.tif

 

http://jimdesu.us/tmp/leak3.tif

 

http://jimdesu.us/tmp/leak4.tif

 

http://jimdesu.us/tmp/leak5.tif

 

thanks!

 

Jim Mitchell

The really nice thing about LF instead of digital, from my perspective: no purple fringing. Everything they said above is correct, assuming you don't crop as much as I do, but w/ digital you've always got to watch out for fringing in uber-high-contrast situations. It's a royal pain in the posterior.

Mr. Littman, I thought your camera was a pretty neat idea, and due to your lens/cam offerings, had been saving money up towards a purchase. In the meanwhile you've become a circus of this forum, and while you are correct that you're being teased, it's not as if in your hypersensitivity you haven't been asking for it. I can't be bothered to read any more of your rambling as it makes my head swim, but I can say for certain that I won't be purchasing any cameras from you -- if this's how you deal with criticism, I can't imagine how you'd deal with a frustrating repair issue.

 

For your own sake sir, please switch to decaff. You'll be better for it.

My pet hate is that there's no digital LX. With LX's metering, feel of body, accessories, etc.

Wow, I'm a Pentax fan, but I may have to switch to Nikon!

6MP makes for an ok 12x18 print, but I almost always end up cropping, often substantially. I need 12-18MP so that I can have 6-8MP of image once I'm finished cropping.

Read "Ins and Outs of Focus" (linked above, and stop worrying about trying to compute image-plane depth-of-field. You'll be really glad you did. Or, if you want a really "thumby" rule of thumb:

 

As you move from the plane of focus towards your lens, items smaller than your lens's aperture will be rendered out of focus. Items will defocus by the same amount as you move away from the plane of focus away from you, and, after you've covered the same distance away from the object as you are from it, you'll keep getting even more out of focus at the same rate.

 

But of course Merklinger says all this much better than can I.

Hi y'all!

 

I'm considering purchasing a Canon 50/0.95 (as I can't afford a Noct)

for "available darkness" snapshotting, and am wondering if anyone else

has used one of these on an M5. Does anyone know if the lens occludes

the the viewfinder/rangefinder?

Hi y'all,

 

I'm considering picking up one or two ZI lenses, and am wondering if

anyone else also likes to use lenses very close-up to the camera.

Almost everyone optimizes for good performance at infinity, but the

close-end generally isn't that great. Can anyone comment

knowledgeably on the close-up performance of the new ZI M-lenses?

 

thanks in advance

 

James

It seems to help resist flare. But then, so does a lens-hood.

I'm a paying subscriber, and don't mind the ads to the side of the material (I'm rather glad to see them there, actually, as I like this site), but the inter-page ads are vexing, and if they continue, I'll likewise abandon photo.net & not renew my subscription. This'll be a loss for me, as I make great use of the site, but interstitial adverts are a great affront I won't tolerate.

I tried to get someone to answer the same question, as there's at least one more "James Mitchell"; if someone does respond, would you please post here?

 

thanks,

 

James

I use both MF and 35mm. I use the latter because I have too much depth of field with my MF gear for some of the selective-focus shooting I enjoy. If Mamiya would come out with some really fast lenses for their rangefinders (my other two MF cameras are fixed-lens) -- my 150mm is f/4.5!, then maybe that would be ok, but I haven't found anything affordable that'll replace 50/1.2 and 85/1.5 lenses from 35mm.

I don't have the Dimage, but on my Imacon they automatically sharpen the image if you don't tell it not to. Try killing USM in the scanner settings (you should always sharpen as your last printing step instead of your first one, anyway), or even setting the USM value to a negative.

Hi there,

 

My Pentax LX is getting long in the tooth, and I'm thinking seriously

of replacing it (sometimes it makes exposures way too long(with film

in); the electronics getting dicey I guess), but I can't find anything

that can do the one thing that I love about my LX: it has a racheted

rewind that will let me expose my whole roll of film, then rewind back

to frame 1 (exactly) and do it again. This's *very* important

functionality, and I haven't been able to find it anywhere: the

closest I've seen is some bodies that'll automagically wind a roll

back to the next unexposed frame, but this won't suffice for my needs.

 

Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

James

I think the question's fine: see your other copy of the post for my answer.

It depends on what kind of focussing screen you have in your SLR. Rangefinders show you the position of exact focus, rather than the general focus. You get the same focussing advantage you'd get as you would with a split-screen in your SLR viewfinder, BUT, generally, the viewfinder is much brigter since you're not looking through a pentaprism, mirror & complex lens, but just a finder instead.

 

The geometric baselength of the rangefinder also matters: you can focus anything exactly with a split-prism SLR finder, but if your rangefinder's baselength is too shallow, the trigonometry doesn't give you enough precision to focus long(er) lenses. I can focus my 150mm on my Mamiya 7 easily, but my 135mm on my leica M5 is a harder proposition.

I've a Moskva-5 in need of CLA that I'll give you for free if you promise to use it a lot. I bought it and decided I prefer my medalist; nothing against Moskva's themselves....

Well, I'm one of those wackos that likes low-contrast landscapes with more "pastel" colors, and I'm more than happy shooting with Portra 160NC. I think the garish, uber-saturated primary-color madness is highly overrated.