cbender

<p>Getting back to your original question, you've essentially got three main stream choices, and a handful of smaller brands. Fuji still makes Provia 100F, Velvia 100, and Velvia 50. If you're just getting into chromes, and the cost doesn't turn you off, Provia 100F is your best bet. Each of these are about $10/roll from the major US shops. If your local shop wants much more than that, consider ordering online. Five years ago the answer would have included closer to 10 options at ~60% of those prices, but those days are long gone.</p> <p>In the near future (months), Ferrania *may* manage to revive one of the old 3M E6 lines and start producing another 100 ISO emulsion that's based on Scotch Chrome from the mid 2000s (with perhaps others to follow).</p> <p>The third option is to try and buy out of date film via online auction or from any one of numerous sites that sell outdated film. Since you say your a beginner in E6, I highly recommend AGAINST this option. The film you get will have been stored under varying conditions, and it's unlikely you'll be able to acquire enough of any given emulsion to really understand it. Each time over the past decade and a half that an E6 emulsion I like has been discontinued, I've been quite irritated because much of the knowledge I've gathered in understanding how to use the film is now worthless.</p>

<p>Get some Provia, shoot it, and evaluate it for yourself. From a technical perspective, it's one of the most advanced slide films ever produced. </p> <p>However, be careful in shaded conditions. Provia (and, I think, all Fujichrome) tends to provide a more realistic capture of colors than Kodak emulsions ever did. Consequently, your shadows will be blueish, unless you modify with some on camera filtering. At the end of the day, this just comes down to understanding how an emulsion responds to any given situation; figuring that out will require you to shoot a brick or two.</p>

<p>And JDM, film is getting harder, and ridiculously expensive. I shoot less because of it and horde my freezer stash like a mizer. But at least I don't feel the need to update my camera body every 2-3 years.</p>

<p>Wow, I seem to have kicked off a highly engaged discussion, with lots of good points on all sides. I really didn't mean to start a film vs digital debate. More of a "why can't you just leave film alone if you don't like it" one. I agree, it's hard to argue with the technical purity of digital. Modern CCDs, CMOS arrays, and HgCdTe devices are clearly superior to their anlog counterparts; I've got a characterization lab full of them, and no astronomer would take observations with an emulsion.</p> <p>But (for the hobbiest, or artist, or non-professional photographer who is not depending on workflow speed to put bread on their table), I love the tactile sensation of film. I have yet to encounter a digital image that can cause the same visceral reaction I get when I toss a perfect chrome onto my light box and peer at it with my loupe. It's a private viewing experience that isn't the same with the modern share everything world.</p> <p>I also like to (incorrectly) convince myself that I can understand what's going on photochemically (and miss those technical discussions of old that Lex recalls). And at some level I do know what's going on, having made my own B&W emulsions in the distant past (which were not very fast, or coated very uniformly, but were definitely photosensitive with decent resolution). All of the SPIE papers in the world can't convince me that I could ever build a CMOS detector (although I understand the theory and can write the control software).</p> <p>As for hybrid processing, if I could print E6 via analog (in house) I would, but I can't. So I occasionally use an ink jet, which admittedly can easily and cheaply beat any darkroom results I could hope to muster.</p>

<p>And I'll add that I'll continue to use my FM3a and my Mat-124G as long as I can continue to find processing for my freezer full of E6. I'm eagerly awaiting my kickstarter purchase from Ferrania; a "new" emulsion, how exciting!</p>

<p>Wow, lots of strong feelings here. I don't read p.net as regularly as in years past, and post even less frequently. (Afterall, there's not a lot of activity in the film forums.) But I'm hard pressed to understand the hostility towards the concept of film by some members here. It's not like the existence of film is hurting you personally. Clearly you didn't enjoy using it as a medium; clearly some of us do.</p> <p>I shoot film. I print digitally. I build furniture using both my power tools and a wide range of hand tools. I grow my own vegetables, and cook my own food.</p> <p>I'm not making a living through photography, so efficiency is much less important that process and enjoying the experience.</p> <p>Plus, being an astronomer, I deal with enough digital images during at work.</p> <p>Perhaps it's time to head back to apug. But they tend to get awfully hostile about my Epson printer. If p.net is drawing a line in the sand against buggy whips, I'm not sure where those of us living with both modern emulsions and modern inks should go.</p>

I too had thought Nikon was no longer servicing scanners. If the scanner is actually scanning (sounds like this is the case) then I think the only thing a servicing would do is clean the mirror. You can do that yourself - there are instructions online. I cleaned my ls-4000 a couple months ago and it only took me 30 minutes. I can't offer any advice on the feeder units. I've only got one, and it'a always fed like a champ.

<p>Has anyone here been purchasing paper from the "new" Ilford Imaging? Is there a simple way to distinguish the old II Switzerland from the new II UK?</p> <p>I just received a new box of Ilford Gold Mono Silk from B&H, and the box looks completely identical to the latest box I had which was purchased before Ilford Imaging Switzerland went into insolvency. I'm hoping that the paper I received is still the old stock, but being that the company collapse happened over a year ago I find that hard to believe.<br> <br />Not that I have any reason to believe that the paper produced by the new company is in any way inferior. I'd just rather not have to redo my custom printer profiles.</p>

<p>Can you clarify what you don't like about the lower quality image? To my eye, on an uncalibrated laptop, it looks somewhat grainy and unsharp. </p> <p>When I resize for the web, I don't use the 'Save for Web' feature. I resize manually, and followup with the PixelGenius sharpening package. If you sharpened at full size, that won't translate well to the smaller size.</p>

<p>That B&H catalog page brings back memories ... recent memories ... as two of the scanners listed (Nikon LS-4000 and Epson 2450) are still part of my regular workflow. Amazing workhorse machines.</p>

<p>Your budget is quite limited for a traditional film scanner.</p> <p>One option I haven't seen mentioned here is to buy a used Nikon 35mm scanner. Prices for the last models that Nikon made (Coolscan V or the LS-5000) are crazy, but I was able to pick up a LS-4000 last summer for $200. I cleaned the mirror (which is easy if you're the least bit mechanically inclined), and the scanner works great. It has a resolution of 4000dpi, a pretty good dmax, and has the advantage of being able to scan full film strips (you don't need the *very expensive* Nikon adapter that was supposed to facilitate this; a simple modification to the standard strip scanner will activate that feature). I use it with Vuescan software under windows 7.</p> <p>Now, there's considerably more risk in buying a scanner that was new 15 years ago. I'd certainly avoid buying one without a good return policy. But I think it's generally agreed that modern scanners marketed towards enthusiasts can't match the quality of the Nikon's. And at the end of the day you have to decide how much risk you're willing to tolerate; unfortunately, your budget doesn't allow you the luxury of getting both high quality and low risk.</p>

<p>There have been several conversations about this topic over on apug, with several film chemists weighing in. If I recall correctly, it's not obvious that the backing and emulsion will hold up when cooled so extremely. CTE differences mean that things will shrink differently, and you may not be happy when they warm back up. Below standard freezer temps, I'm fairly certain aging effects are dominated by background radiation. If you want to beat that, you need a salt mine. </p>

<p>If carrying a grey card around with you is too much of a hassle, you can bootstrap a measurement of your hand reflectivity to that of the grey card. Measure the grey card with your meter. Then measure your hand as if it were a grey card. Then commit that offset to memory (or better yet set the expsure compensation on your camera).</p> <p>Granted, you'll have to take off your gloves to use this technique in the snow. But at least your hand won't dissolve in the wet; a grey card will.</p>

<p>Yes, it will work with NiMH batteries, but will be heavy as hell. I used to use NiMH in mine, until I got tired of strapping a brick on my camera. I started putting Lithium batteries in mine just to reduce the weight. On a side note, Lithium batteries seem to have blown out the LED on my MD-12, but the drive function is not affected. I've used it that way for several years. Your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>I had an FG lockup on me about 15 years ago. The culprit ended up being the top light tight cap on the inside of the tripod thread mount, which had come loose and completely jammed up the inner works of the camera. I had that camera repaired, and a piece of black tape solved the light leak from the bottom. With current prices for used FGs, I doubt it's worth the cost today. </p> <p> </p>

<p>If you're not set on pigment-based, take a look at the Artisan 50 (or whatever the latest incantation of it is). It's Claria dye inks have been tested to be quite stable.</p> <p>I've had one for a couple of years now, and have never had an ink clog. I've also left the printer unused for periods of several months. In previous Epsons, those two statements were completely exclusive. But Epson seems to have solved its clogging problem with these inks.</p> <p>The printout economies are likely not as favourable as with the 2400, but the footprint is a lot smaller.</p>

<p>I have one which I still use. It's a good scanner for 120 as flatbeds go. I haven't tried scanning 35mm on it. I do have a few frames scanned with the Epson which I then had scanned professionally with a Imacon X5. The X5 scans are obviously much much better.<br> The 2450 works fine under Windows 7. I agree with others that the price is too high. To get really good results, I suspect you'll need a non-Epson film holder. I have an extra of the betterscanning models that I'd be willing to sell you for very cheap (bought a replacement after I couldn't find my original one, only to find it some months later).</p>