jim_simmons
-
Posts
511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jim_simmons
-
-
HC-110 keeps well in its original dilution and can then be mixed 1:15 or 1:31, depending the film, speed, contrast, and grain that looks good to you. My choice with old Tri-x was to shoot it at asa 200 and develop in HC-110 dil. B (1:31 I think). Very sharp, and a grain texture that I very much liked. I'm scanning those negs today with a Minolta Dual Scan IV and getting good results. Sometimes have to use the trick of scanning as color positive and then inverting. At full scan resolution and printed 7x10 the grain just begins to show its nice nature.
-
Thank goodness Gary Winogrand didn't get all mushy about whether or not his subjects wanted to be photographed or not. Or we'd be without some of the best streets shots ever taken.
-
I use the Canon for 4x5 and MF. I have used the demo version of Silverfast and have not been able to discern an improvement in quality over what I can get with the Canon software. I have no experience with the Epson scanner, so can't make a comparison. I'm happy with my Canon.
-
Adding to the "black t-shirt for a dark cloth" trick: at the fabric store, I bought a yard of the opaque material they use for sun umbrellas and sewed it to the back of a black t-shirt. That makes the top of the cloth/shirt completely light-blocking, which greatly adds to the viewing quality of the ground glass. And the cloth only cost about six bucks. Much cheaper than commercial dark cloths.
-
Gitzo table top legs and 1077 ball head. Much more versatile than Leica tabletop, but only slightly bigger.
-
You could always send a test file to your yearbook's printer and have them print a chromalin or other type of print that accurately represents their printing output. If it comes back and matches the monitor you regularly calibrate, then congratulations, you have eyes good enough to get Adobe Gamma to work for you. But, as Ellis said, it's hard to be consistent. Not to mention, you'll lose many hours of sleep worrying that all those yearbooks are going to come back with a heavy magenta cast. Acccch! Find the calibrator!
-
Paul: do some googling on the three major sharpening plug-ins and you'll learn a good bit about this topic. Ellis's suggestion seems to be the consensus for best quality. A very slight level of sharpening when scanning, just to sharpen up the softness that scanning always seems to introduce. Then a use-specific sharpening just before printing or posting to the web. It seems pretty important to do the final sharpening on an image that has been sized to its final dimensions. I always do my sharpening on a duplicate layer, so as to be able to delete it and try again if, upon examing the print, the sharpening was too little or too much.
-
Quality B&W 11x14 can't be done at that price. The "local lab" suggestion is a good one. For B&W-only printing at 8.5x11 max size, the Epson C84/MIS EZ inks solution is cheap and excellent value. I got that printer new for about $80, and the MIS CIS kit for it is about $200 and will last a long time.
-
Minolta spotmeters (M and F) are also very nice and highly regarded. I use the M - simple, accurate, reasonably good ergonomics. Don't buy into the zone system as a complicated ordeal. Learn the basic level and see if that's enough. For most folks, it is.
-
Trevor, that's a beautiful shot. What scanner and software do you use, or is that a scan of a beautifully crafted print?
BTW, I like the dainty shutter sound of the CL, but not nearly as much as the virile clunk of the Leicaflex.
-
I love my little daily visit to the nuthouse.<div>
</div>
-
Toyo makes a good RFH that slips under the GG like the Sinar model. It may not be built like a rolls royce, as the Sinar is, but when you compare the prices and realize that film flatness for both of them is well within the focussing tolerances of most any lens for 4x5, you may decide that "best" is relative.
-
About a year ago I downloaded the trial versions of NIK, PhotoKit, and FocalBlade and played with them extensively. I eventually managed to get relatively equal results out of all three of them. I settled on FocalBlade because it was the cheapest. I have since then used it a LOT and have learned even more of its capabilities. I like it and and am very dependent on it. It's fast, predictable, and can be used in either "dumb" or "complicated" modes.
-
I use the MIS inks in a C84, which I bought specifially for the inks. So they worked fine right off the bat. However, if I don't print on it for 2-3 weeks, it takes 1-2 cleaning cycles to get it flowing smoothly.
-
The B&W negative setting should work fine, but sometimes on a really contrasty negative, the dark and light ends will get cut off in the histogram. The trick then is to scan as a color transparency, tricking the software into reducing the contrast. Then in photoshop you can invert the image to a positive again and change it to grayscale. You'll probably have an overly flat image, but if you output to 48 bit and expand the contrast in Levels in 48-bit, you'll end up with a good image.
-
The old Soligor meters are the most affordable of them all. Built solidly, no fancy features. Check to make sure they use a readily available battery; I'm afraid they use the old mercury cells. I second the vote on the Minolta M meter. I use one at work, and it's accurate and easy to use. I myself have a Sekonic L-508. At around $300 used, it's still not cheap.
-
An ebay ad doesn't need to be slick. It needs to be clear and honest about what you've got, and the payment and shipping terms need to be stated clearly. Reply to all requests for information or more photos rapidly and in a friendly manner, and you'll probably get all the equipment is worth, and you'll have a pleasant exhcange with another enthusiast or professional. I agree with Dan that the right starting price is the lowest price you'd feel OK about. Then let the chips fall where they fall. Lately I've only sold on ebay with either a paypal payment or money order. Painless.
-
My experience with Quantas 18 months ago is that they were very polite and accomodating when I requested a hand inspection, as was American on the way out and back. A confident friendly smile is the best way to start these discussions, and that almost always puts them on your side. Starting out with a copy of the TSA rules in hand is not the way to go. You might want them in your back pocket, but keep them there unless you have to take it to the supervisor level. On the other hand, ISO 400 and lower is indeed safe for the carryon luggage portion of the trip.
-
I downloaded the demo versions of FocalBlade, Nik Sharpener Pro and one other sharpening plug-in, can't remember which They all worked pretty well, giving me a touch sharper result but with less introduced noise than photosharp's unsharp mask filter. I though Nik and FocalBlade were about the same, so I saved the money and got Focalblade. I use it on everything now, although I also do a very slight sharpening on each scan that I do, just to give the sharpening software a file to work with that hasn't been softened too much by the scanner. Experiment.
-
I have the Photoflex Changing Room. Well made, and easy to operate. While some feel it's fine for 4x5 and cramped for 8x10, I personally only use it for 4x5 and wish it were a hair larger. To each his or her own.
-
Ummm... how does one do this patented technique of cranking up the backlight?
-
Red River makes some excellent double-sided matte papers. Try their Premium in various thicknesses. Mitsubishi's DS matte is very white, with good blacks. Only about 7 or 9 mils, though. Epson's DS matte is very good. And Moab's papers are very popular. Another alternative is Mitsubishi's semi-gloss. It's not a thick paper, but it's got better color saturation than the matte papers without having that glossy glare. Has a weird slickness to the feel though that some don't like.
-
I've got ezcolor 2.5 with the original Monaco colorimeter hardware, the one that most folks diss pretty bad. Anyway, I got it el cheapo on ebay, so I tried it out, and although not perfect, I now have great confidence that I can try out a new paper and have it printing very good images within a couple of profile tweaks. I trust my monitor, and I'm making good prints. That's the bottom line. Printer is Canon s900.
-
I use the 9950 with 4x5 Astia, Kodak E100S, Ilford HP5+, and Fuji NPL negative. I get good results with all of them. Note that these are not dense-black films, like Velvia. Shooting Velvia and scanning on a budget scanner is just asking for disappointment. Shoot a less saturated, less dense film and add the density and saturation where you want or need it in Photoshop. An architecture photography friend does all his scanning on an Epson 3200 and his clients are very happy with what he sends them. He was shooting Kodak trannies before, but now that he's scanning everything, he's doing what I do and switching over to Fuji negative stocks.
Anybody use Mediastreet inks in Canon s900 or s9000?
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted
Anybody out there use the Mediastreet Plug n Play dye inks in a Canon
printer? I've got the s900. I like the output, but I'm getting ready
to head into a heavy printing session, and the cost of Canon inks is
killing me. Buying a refill kit and bottled inks from Mediastreet is
looking good to me. Also, any experience with the MIS dye inks for
the Canon printers? Thanks.