ellis_davison

I would also suggest you try a high-pass filter teechnique. I follow John Paul Caponigro's technique, downloadable here: http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/downloads/technique/technique.php#testfiles

 

(I don't know how to do a link, so you will need to copy and paste to your browser.)

 

This, to my mind, simulates the classic analog "unsharp mask" better than the PhotoShop filter.

 

Also, your 25 megabyte file is normal. Your file has three colors, so 8.2x3=25. Between the camera firmware and the raw processor, three colors are interpolated into each sensor site, even though each site is filtered to pick up only one. (My command of this part of the digital magc is limited.) In other words, your raw processor is operating as it should and is not contributing to a sharpness problem.

I had my D60 converted to infrared when I got a Rebel XTi. One of the reasons I got the Sigma 10-20 over the Canon was that it would work with the D60, and it does. (Autofocus is a bit dodgy on both bodies, but that's another issue.)

I tend to agree with the previous poster, but I do think you need to think about other issues also. I got a Moskva as an inexpensive alternative to a Zeiss Super Ikonta. I think the lens is allright, but it had a light leak in an awkward spot (where the bellows attaches to the body) with no quick fix. The Russian lenses tend to be pretty good, but their QC is dodgy at best. A good one is a very capable camera, but there are a lot of bad ones, so you should test it immediately and be in a position to return it easily if there is a problem.

Can't help much except that you are on the right track in looking at ink prices. Also consider durability. I am on my fifth Epson, a 2200. The previous four self destructed in a year and a half or so, allowing me to rationalize upgrading to newere technology, but the 2200 (among the first delivered) is a tank. Six or seven years or so. At one point I bought a cheap letter-size because it did not seem smart to use my "good" photo printer for email, but then it occurred to me that the black cartridge for the cheap printer was about $24, versus about $10 for the 2200, for about the same amount of ink. They almost give away the cheap printers, then soak you for ink. Also, I have never had to run the head-cleaning cycle on the 2200, not once in six or seven years. Head cleaning eats ink. The 2400 (current version of the 13x19 pigment printer) is about four times your budget and may be out of reach, but do your own research on cartridge price and capacity and see how it plays out. (Most if not all of the 13x19s provide great output.)

I have had this problem also. Eventually found a cartridge that worked. Some possibility that the cartridges are out of date - this is the same behavior that a 7600 gives with an out-of-date cartridge. Check the "use before" date on the bottom of the box. (Of course, I could have had a contact problem that just managed to eventually resolve itself.)

Dust & scratches - the scanner uses a highly collimated light source, which is why it reproduces dust and scratches so magnificently. Sort of like the difference between condenser and diffusion heads on the enlarger, only more so.

I have the Acard Technology AEC-6712TU Ultra SCSI adapter in a PCI slot. I don't think the card is the problem: If it was, you probably would not get the pre-scan. Still sounds like a software conflict to me, but if you do not have another scanner installed, it is probably not the same one I have with the Epson software. In your shoes I would be inclined to download Vuescan - it is highly regarded and not terribly expensive - probably less than another SCSI card. I believe it supports the Minolta scanner, and it should be easier to get some tech support if the problem persists.

Nice scanner if you can get it working - lower resolution, etc. than some of the newer ones but mine has been dead reliable, once I sorted out the software conflict. (Be warned - I am not much of a computer expert. Even though I built this one from components, I learn just enough to get the bloody thing working.)

Not sure I can help. I have a F2900 that I have installed, uninstalled and reinstalled numerous times without difficulty. The problem I had is that the Digital Ice with the 2900 will not play nice with the Digital Ice on my Epson 4990, so to switch from one scanner to the other I have to uninstall and reinstall. (Example: Switch from the Epson to the 2900: Uninstall the Epson driver, reinstall the Minolta driver, turn on the 2900, reboot.) Annoying, but it works. I have used the original disk, and a downloaded driver, both equally successfully. Windows XP, Service Pack 2, Pentium IV, 2 gigs of RAM. Scanning through Photoshop 6 and, more recently, CS2.

 

I have been doing this so long that I honestly forgot what the hassle was that led me to this work around, but I suspect it was similar to yours. It is partcularly annoying since I don't use the Digital Ice, scanning silver-based black-and-white film, mostly.

No clue, but mine actually came back from service with that problem. Returned it to the shop (Ken Ruth, Photography on Bald Mountain), and it was rectified without comment. I get the impression that it is not an elaborate problem to fix, but should be done professionally. If the camera has not been serviced recently, it can probably be fixed without adding much to the normal clean-lubricate-adjust, which an old camera needs anyway.

Not much to add here. Another service alternative is Ken Ruth, "Photography on Bald Mountain," (get a copy of Shutterbug - he runs a couple ads in the service directory). He overhauled my father's IIA and did a good job. His turn-around is not real fast, but a little quicker than Henry Scherer. (I have a II patiently waiting in line at Henry's.) I think the old cameras are fun - your Retina, if it is in good shape, is more convenient to operate than a Contax and the lens is about as good but there is something about the precision feel of good machinery that adds a dimension to photography.

B+W #091 is an 8X, and they made it in B70 when I bought mine several years ago from B&H. A little pricey, and I think it is special order. (Does any lens in the whole world other than the 50mm Distagon CFi take the B70?)

This is not authoritative, but I would advise against it. My flash manual covers through the 550EX, and does not cover using the flash on anything other than EOS cameras. There are four other contacts on the shoe, other than the one that actually triggers the flash, and these may be shorted out by your Bessa's flash head. Whether or not this will damage the flash is unknown.

 

If it does work, it will be manual only, which means you must calculate your f-stop using the distance to the subject. All flashes used to be this way, and it can be done but would be slow and awkward. There are flashes such as the venerable Vivitar 283 that measure light with their own sensor, rather than using camera input, and would work much better (although would require some extra gear to cover 21mm.)

 

This is probably a question for Steve Gandy at CameraQuest, who seems to be an expert on the Cosina-Voigtlanders.

Suggest as an alternative the 645s - Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica, etc. My belief is that the mirrors are just enough smaller than the 6x6s or 6x7s to make a difference in hand holding. The negatives are not much smaller, particularly considering that 6x6s are often cropped to a rectangular format.

This may be heresy, since this is the "Classic" camera forum, but the newer Mamiya 6 and 7 also fit the bill and have interchangeable lenses, as well as the Fuji fixed lens rangefinders. The newere cameras will probably only have "X" synch and will be limited to slower shutter speeds, as Richard notes.

Just to add: The Yashicamat was Yahica's high end camera, which came with the Yashinon lens and a faster wind mechanism. Among the Japanese TLRs there was also the Minolta Autocord that was highly regarded. The most popular professional Japenese medium format TLRs were undoudetly the Mamiya C2 and C3 series, which were the only ones with interchangeable lenses. Not to say the 635 is not capable of fine images, particularly in the optimum aperture range (about f/8 to f/16).

You will see a lot of discussion on the Digital Darkroom forum. You do not specify format - the flatbeds will be a little challenged if you are trying to make large enlargements from 35mm. Conventional gelatin silver Black and white is a challenge for all scanners, because the individual grains that make up the image are opaque, and scanners don't like opaque. C-41 process films work best because the silver is replaced by dye. Next best are the thinner films, medium to slow. Fast films like Tri-X will challenge even a dedicated film scanner. Also, grain tends to be accentuated.

 

I have an Epson 4990 that I consider good for medium & large format, but not so good for 35mm, but I like to go to 12"x18" on prints. I have an older Minolta Dimage Scan Elite which is a pain to interface (SCSI) but does fairly well with medium to slow speed films convetional black-and-white films. An older film scanner may be a good option. 2900 ppi is pretty much required for 8"x10" or bigger.

 

You may also need to look at your computer - locking up may be a function of not enough memory. 2 gigs of memory are good if you are running Windows XP (or, presumably, Vista). The operating systems are resource hogs.

I defer to Mike Ferris's versions, which I think are excellent. Basic composition is good, and depending on how big the enlargements have to be, sharpening can compensate for the focus issue. I tried for a version that was a little simpler to implement. This uses "Levels" to compensate for slight underexposure, "curves" to pick up the contrast, and "Saturation" to desaturate a little of the on-camera flash harshness. I also selected the background (a very crude, bad selection but my time was limited) and replaced it with black. This was done in Photoshop 6 (which is the version I have on this computer) and could be done in almost any imaging program, including the less expensive Photoshop Elements. Advice: (1) get an imaging program and learn the basic "levels", "curves" and "saturation" controls. The kind of magic Mike did with your picture will come with time. (2) Try to stick with natural lighting - shade usually works fairly well with portraits - because artificial lighting is a whole other science. On-camera flash is good for fill, but is almost useless as main light unless you are looking for a snapshot look (and there are one or two fashion photographers who have made a fortune on this point-and-shoot look).<div></div>

I think it is an interesting question, although I would say a more practical question is, in a given situation, which lens and camera combinatin gives the sharpest picture? My benchmark is a 16"x20" from 35mm that you can walk right up to, and I have only achieved it a handful of times in many years of shooting. (Mostly I give up and just shift to medium or large format.) Accuracy of focus is an issue. Back in the dawn of time (when it was relevant) there were a number of comparisons between reflexes and optical rangefinders, and the rangefinders won with normal-to-wide-angle lenses. Later on (but still some time ago) there were comparisons between manual and automatic focus, and manual focus always won. Never by a large margin, in either case, but enough to make a difference in a large enlargement. As to pure sharpness independent of technique, I think we take Photo.do's answers as definitive, although (as noted) there are many fine optics that they have not tested.

Took a look at your seascapes and just had to amplify a bit. On any given day in the gallery section of this web site there are a dozen or so similar shots - sunrise/sunset, foregrounds brought up either with a split ND filter or photoshop wizardry. It is becoming a cliche. However, your shots have composition elements that set them far above this crowd. Well done.

Your photographs are very, very good, and therefore it will be almost impossible for you to have a bad web site. That being said, and since you asked, you may want to consider simplifying the opening page. It starts to get a little busy as you scroll down. I'm thinking one of your two lead photos displayed larger, with your logo at top and either your menu bar or a simple "enter" link at the bottom, which would also be activated by clicking on the photo.

Learning black-and-white film photography using infrared film is about like trying to learn to drive using a Formula 1 race car. It isn't that it can't be done, but it is not the easiest way. One of the things that keeps photography fascinating is that it is so difficult to take a good picture, and almost impossible to take a great picture. (From Mary Ellen Mark, who has her share of both.) That being said:

1. Infrared (HIE?) cannot capture anywhere near the detail that good medium speed conventional emulsions can. If you need the detail you may need to think about going to medium or large format.

2. Focus shift. Most older lenses have a little red dot or line, and sometimes it also have a little red "r" next to them. Focus normally first, then shift the focus to line up the footage mark on the red mark. It may look out of focus in the finder, but it will be correct on the film.

3. Depth of field can help compensate for the focus shift, but out of focs is out of focus.

4. If you are using a single lens reflex, the shutter speeds with HIE are ust about at the worst spot for mirror bounce. Lock up the mirror if you can.

5. If you are not using a tripod, you need to, and the sturdier the better. The tripod wlll help absorb the mirror bounce if you can't lock up the mirror.

6. Bracket, as in take a lot of shots at different exposures, over and under what your meter indicates. Meters are not partciularly accuate at measuring light at the infrared end of the spectrum. Film is cheap, compared with your time.

7. Looks like some dust spots on the second one. Dust can be cotrolled, but is tough to entirely eliminate. It gets retouched either electronically or using special retouching dyes or inks on a conventional silver geletin print.

Keep going - you have a good eye. I particularly like the second one. If it was easy, anyone could do it.

Steve Gandy, www.cameraquest.com, sells the Cosina "Voightlander" clip-on meter for $174.00. Fits on the accessory shoe and looks fairly straightforward in operation. I am contemplating getting one, although I have several hand-held meters, because I think I will probably use my meterless cameras more. (Getting lazy in my old age.)

My first encounter with the SRT 101 was in 1970. I was an assistant to an architectural photographer for about a year between the time I graduated from college and the draft caught up with me. I went out to shoot some commercial buildings, and the nephew of the owner came along to show me around. I ad the 8x10 Deardorf and he had an SRT 101 loaded with black-and-white film. As a courtesy I processed and printed his film. It was the most consistently and accurately exposed role of 35mm film I had ever seen in my life.

 

For me, this is the landmark camera of the 20th century. This camera (in most situations) already knew what it took me five or six years as an amateur, and some time as a professional, to learn about exposure. Make a reasonable choice on aperture or shutter speed, focus, match the needle and shoot. Other developments, automatic exposure, focus, etc. were incremental, but this camera started a major change in professional photography, and not for the better, because it took a good part of the mystery out of getting pictures to "come out." (Digital photography, of course, also threw a pretty big nail in the coffin of professional photography as it used to be.)

 

Philosophy aside, good camera, well made although not quite up to the Nikon F and other "professional" cameras of the era. Good lenses. Operation is fairly straightforward. I believe it uses a mercury battery for the meter, so you will need a "Wein Cell" or other kludge to get the meter to work.

 

I would suggest not trying to fix it yourself. Essex Camera Repair (www.essexcamera.com) works on stuff of this vintage, and their turn around is good. Ken Ruth (Photography on Bald Mountain, ads in Shutterbug's service directory) fixes anything that is not "electronic," and this camera qualifies, and does it well but his turn-around is a bit slow.

Just a comment to the Canon 7 suggestion - many collapsable lenses will gouge the interior baffles when retracted. Found this out the hard way with a 50 mm Leitz Summitar. Although a great camera, not much of a candidate here any way - a bit big and heavy.

My experience is limited to one camera, but based on that I would not agree that the Contax IIIa shutter is particularly unreliable. I have my father's IIa (same camera except the IIa has no built-in meter). He bought it in Germany in about 1955 and when I inherited it the only problem was a slight capping at 1/1250th. I had it CLA'd by Ken Ruth (Photography on Bald Mountain) and it has been fine. Ken's turn-around time is not fantastic, but he does good work. As with any antique, the lubricants will gum up over time. Henry Scherer (who now has a Contax II of mine, and they do have shutter issues) also does lenses, but it seems better to get another one without fungus, because fungus can cause etching of the glass which is probably not worth repairing.

By reputation (again, neither of my Contaxes have meters) the selenium meter could be the hardist to get working. Ken Ruth did a Canon 7 for me, that also has a selenium meter, and it is now faily accurate. (Camera is also "newer," by a decade or so.)

The Retina will be a bit faster to operate, with the lever wind, etc., and I believe is also worth fixing. In both cases you end up with top-notch optics and good reliability (after overhaul) for not a lot of money.