rondal

<p>I sold my high-end backlit Epson a few years ago. It was a pain in the neck to get the negatives flat, and on the correct focal plane. Dust was also a big problem. The contrast of my b&w work was always too low, and impossible to correct in PS. For a while I thought all my photos were murky and blurry until I saw prints (and professional scans) of my work.<br>

To summarize, I am highly wary of flatbeds.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

thanks for your response and suggestions.<br>

1) The Epson is a flatbed. As someone who only scans film, I've had lousy experience even with the best flatbeds.<br>

2) A used Nikon 9000 is significantly more expensive at around €3000 than a used Flextight is at €2000.<br>

3) The Minolta, Microtek and Polaroid scanners don't seem to be available anywhere, even used. I'll keep looking, though.<br>

4) Thanks for reminding me of the Nikon Coolscan 8000, which I've added to my options.<br>

5) Yes, I'm definitely planning on getting Vuescan once I find an appropriate scanner.<br>

6) I still want to know whether I can physically get a Flextight Precision II to work with a contemporary laptop, and whether it's at all worth reviving this dinosaur.#<br>

Thanks again!</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I want to digitize several hundred b&w 6x6cm (2.5x2.5") negatives. Simply put, the scans should be good enough to publish in a coffee table book. At the same time, I'd eventually like to go through my entire archive of 6x6 and 35mm negatives, which probably includes a couple thousand usable photos that it would also be nice to have as digital images.<br>

My options are:<br>

1) letting a professional lab scan and optimize my negatives on a drum scanner for € 20 apiece<br>

2) using someone's Hasselblad X5 scanner for € 380 per work day (9 hours including toilet breaks)<br>

3) buying an Imacon Flextight Precision II scanner for around € 2000<br>

The obvious benefit of buying my own dedicated film scanner is that I can use it for as long as I like, and scan as many negatives as I like for no cost other than the initial investment.<br>

2000 Euros is about as much as I'm able to invest in a piece of hardware right now.<br>

But does it make sense to buy electronic equipment that was built in 1998 (that's 13 years ago!) and may not even work with a 2008 PC laptop? Is this scanner even up to current standards?<br>

Thanks for your advice.</p>

Thanks; I just realized that I can load multiple files into ACR and apply my settings to all of these files simultaneously, thereby rendering the 'image processor' script unnecessary.

I've been shooting 6x6 medium format for years, and would like to have the

option of also using my new DSLR to shoot images that will later be cropped to

square. As with my 6x6 cameras, when using the DSLR I want to continue composing

my images pre-exposure rather than post-exposure. Are there any elegant methods

of doing this?

I can use Photoshop CS3's 'image processor' script function to mass-convert my

RAW files to JPG. However, when I do this, the script saves the RAW files as

JPGs without enabling me to use the custom settings inherent in 'Camera RAW',

Adobe's RAW converter plugin (i.e., "White balance: Auto", "Exposure: Auto" and

"Curve: Strong contrast", which are my favorite settings for casual family

snapshots).

 

In other words, the automatically-saved JPGs end up with no corrections whatsoever.

 

Does anybody know how to solve this problem? Thanks.

Hugh Crawford wrote: <i>"I wish someone made a digital TLR."</i><p>John McMillin wrote: <i>"Give me a digital TLR with autofocus, please."</i><p>Perhaps I'm missing something, but wouldn't a digital Twin Lens Reflex camera be redundant? Digicams can give you TTL (through-the-lens) viewing without the need for a mirror box (or two distinct lenses). Hence, even with a full-frame 6x6 cm sensor, the camera would only be half as big and a lot less heavy. I know I'd buy one in a heartbeat, especially if it allowed full manual control (with knobs, not menus!) and didn't gobble batteries the way most consumer digicams do. Is someone at Franke & Heidecke taking notes?

Robert X--<p>why be disappointed? Go ahead and answer your own question; I'd be interested to hear your response. The reason I didn't pose the question is because, for me, it has no answer. Tenderness isn't something that I personally, as a photographer, would set out to capture, because my photographs more or less capture themselves. I'm usually surprised when I see my contact sheets, thinking, "Now, how the heck did I do <i>that</i>?"<p>Incidentally, I saw, and loved, the Seurat you mentioned, at London's National Gallery last summer.

Some photographers like to engage in "print exchanges". Apparently,

Willy Ronis and Henri Cartier-Bresson did the same, at least once. <a

href="http://www.humanite.fr/journal/2004-08-06/2004-08-06-398441">Here</a>

is an article that appeared in the French newspaper <i>l'Humanit�</i>

upon HCB's death in 2004. Ronis (who, for the benefit of those who

don't know, is a long-time celebrated photojournalist and member of

Magnum, which HCB founded) was interviewed at the time. A quotation

from this interview appears at the bottom of the article. Ronis

mentions the print exchange and recounts his words to HCB, which I

translated here:<p>"I'd like to have a print of your photograph of the

children at Simiane-la-Rotonde because there is extraordinary

tenderness in it. I'm an incurable sentimental, and this photograph

simply makes my heart beat."<p>The HCB photo that Ronis mentions is a

relatively obscure one, but it perfectly mirrors Ronis's predilection.

The photograph may have Cartier-Bresson's typical geometry, but I

think it has all of Ronis's sentimentality, as well. It makes me see

HCB and Ronis as a sort of Kubrick-and-Spielberg team, yet in much

better complementation.<p>What is your favorite HCB photo?<div></div>

Merkle finally agreed to a refund, and has refunded my payment.

My Gossen Lunalite meter fell down and doesn't work anymore. When I

meter something, the LED always displays overexposure. Even in

extremely dark situations, with the ASA dial set to a low number, the

LED tells me that I am overexposing at all f/stop and shutter speed

settings.

 

I have tried to dismantle the meter with only limited success. The

aluminium back cover comes off easily, but the circuit board below it

will not come off. I have removed the four screws holding it in place,

but there appears to be a central axis holding it place where the

little screw for the aluminium panel goes in. This brass socket seems

impossible to remove.

 

If anyone has successfully dismantled and/or repaired a Lunalite

meter, I would be quite grateful for detailed instructions on how to

do this! This is my only meter and I desperately need it...

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to respond.

Here is a shameless cross-reference to a post I made on photo.net's

Member Recommendations forum regarding Merkle Camera, a dealer of

LTM-to-M adapters. Several people have recommended that I relate my

experience at the Leica Forum as well, so here goes:<p><a

href="http://www.photo.net/neighbor/view-one?subcategory=3&neighbor_to_neighbor_id=311168">http://www.photo.net/neighbor/view-one?subcategory=3&neighbor_to_neighbor_id=311168</a><p>It

might be a good idea to limit user responses to the post itself at the

Member Recommendations forum, just to keep everything nice and

tidy.<p>I hope the information in the post linked above will be

appreciated.

To those of you who have some experience developing Kodak TMax 3200 in

Rodinal (various dilutions):

 

1) According to your experience, what is the effective EI of this

film/developer combination at which you can still get the full tonal

range?

 

2) What is the highest EI you can expose this film at (for development

in Rodinal) *before* it starts looking really ugly (i.e., no midtones;

everything is either grossly underexposed or completely blown out)?

 

3) What Rodinal dilution would you use to get the most out of this

film when exposing at a high EI, and would you recommend an agitation

that is normal, increased or decreased?

 

My reason for asking the above questions is that I dislike the various

fine grain developers for fast film because they merely mush up the

grain rather than actually making it finer. I prefer honest, defined

grain to grain that pretends it's not there, but actually is. :-)

 

Thanks!

Thanks for all your valuable comments. I have decided to forfeit the idea of converting this lens, and will be buying a low-cost fixed-lens camera as a backup instead of a second interchangable-lens body.

Thanks for your responses.

 

I am planning to use a Leica M2, M4 or M4-2 as my primary body and a 40/2 M-Rokkor as my standard lens (whose FOV is allegedly a perfect match for those cameras' 35mm framelines).

 

The tricky part is that I would like to have a backup body, as well, and I can't afford another M-mount body, even one not made by Leitz. And - you guessed it - I'd like to be able to use the Rokkor on both the M body and the LTM one.

 

Using an LTM lens on an M body is not a problem, since the dedicated LTM-to-M adapters are widely available. As far as I can see, no 40mm lenses that are f/2 or faster exist in LTM. Even the 40/1.4 Nokton by Cosina/Voigtländer, apparently, has only been released in M mount.

 

Suggestions?

I would like to be able to use an M bayonet lens on an LTM body. Is it

possible to surgically remove the M bayonet from a lens and replace it

with a screw-mount, while still being guaranteed focusing accuracy?

Who is capable of doing this conversion?

I have a film retriever for 35mm film cassettes, made by Ilford. Do

you know where I can buy refills for this retriever, once the soft

plastic tongues get too worn to use? Thanks.

Thanks, guys. I'm going to try Tri-X in HC-110 or in XTOL for the slower stuff, and T-Max 3200 in T-Max solution, D-76 or Calbe A49 as well as Delta 3200 in Microphen or Diafine for the faster stuff, and then decide.

Actually, Allan, my phrasing was as hazy as the grain I'm complaining about, but then, I often find it just isn't possible to accurately describe what technical aspects make a pleasing negative. In fact, though, you pretty much got it right in the last paragraph of your post.

 

A certain amount of grain, IMO, can be quite pleasing. But there's crisp grain and there's grain that's just "blah". I think it has more to do with the shape and sharpness of the grain than with its size. Generally, the displeasing type of grain I think I mean is popcorn-shaped, fuzzy and low in contrast, while the pleasing type of grain is edgy, sharp and high in contrast. OTOH, I find that if *any* grain is sufficiently dominant to be noticed when you're looking for it, that is displeasing, as well.

 

Your suggestion that Calbe A49 may be the original Rodinal formula is very surprising. Could you point me to a source for this statement? The Calbe A49 I have is a powder developer, the stock is usually diluted 1+1, and it yields soft grain and low contrast, while my Rodinal comes in a bottle, the stock is usually diluted 1+50, and it yields sharp grain and high contrast (the downside being that the grain is much too dominant unless I am pulling by at least one stop, and the likeliness of losing shadow detail is greater than with the Calbe). I find that these two developers thus have practically nothing in common.

 

Thanks for listening to my confused ramblings...

Also, if I *do* have the option of exposing an entire roll in the exact same lighting conditions, would your recommendations remain the same, or could I "upgrade" to a more specialized film/developer combo? If so, what would your recommendations be for 1) overcast daylight, and 2) bright sunlight? Finally, in the latter case, would you be exposing for shadows, highlights or a middle ground?

 

Sorry to pounce on you with all these questions, but now that I can no longer blame the camera for bad results, I want to get this right once and for all...

Ah, Lex, I was hoping you'd field this one. Thanks for the tips... I'll be trying them out.

 

Do you dislike Neopan, or do you simply find that Tri-X suits your purposes better?

 

IIRC, you sometimes use Rodinal. When, why and how? Thanks again.

Hi,

 

having recently switched from an Olympus XA to a Leica M3 with

collapsible 50/2 Summicron for my street photography, I've decided

that the current film and developer combo, which was fine for the XA,

does not mirror my high expectations of Leica glass. I'd love to get

some recommendations from the gurus here, who have been quite helpful

in the past.

 

Before anyone pipes up, I realize that the best recipe for fine grain,

crisp contrast, pronounced shadow & highlight detail etc. is to expose

at ISO 100 or lower. In fact, I'm quite happy with the quality of my

work off the tripod, especially in medium format. I also realize I

have no right to expect this quality from handheld grab shots taken on

the street on 35mm film. But at least I'd like to do as well as the

medium allows. Also, while I'm more open to exotic experiments in

medium format, I prefer more solid results in 35mm.

 

The combo I've been using so far has been Adox CHM 400 film (which I

believe is repackaged HP5+) pulled to 250 whenever possible, and

developed accordingly in Adox ATM 49 (formerly known as Calbe A49)

fine grain developer, with the stock solution diluted 1+1 at 20?C;

constant gentle agitation during the first minute, then for about 5

seconds every minute until 2 minutes before dumping, when I stop

agitating. Immediately after dumping, I fill the tank with tap water

(same temperature), agitate for about 15 seconds, and let the film

rest in this highly diluted solution for another minute before washing

and fixing.

 

The resulting negatives look rather dull through the Summicron, which

has lower contrast than the XA's lens. At the same time, the

Summicron's higher resolution shows that fuzzy, ugly grain is now the

limiting factor of image sharpness.

 

After some dabbling, I find that I generally like the results I'm

getting out of Neopan 1600 exposed at 1000, though even those could

use more "oomph" (sorry that I can't be more precise). Would you

recommend pulling this film even further than 1000; say, down to 400

or even less? Which developer would you use for this film to achieve

the most pleasing results (see 2nd paragraph)? Would you say I'm even

headed in the right direction with my choice of NP1600, or would a

different film suit my purposes better?

 

Finally, if at all possible, I'd like to stick to a single developer

bath for the sake of convenience, especially since 35mm film is

something I shoot a lot of, and - unless I'm mistaken, and in that

case please correct me - doing a 2-bath development would take a lot

longer. In bulk 35mm, efficiency is the key word for me.

 

So, please ramble away. I'm eager for instruction.

Thanks, guys! I ended up getting a $5 "Polaroid Automatic 250" pack film camera (the one with the coupled range/viewfinder) for experimenting. If the lens does not turn out satisfactory results, I will try and replace it per Donald's suggestion. And if the enterprise turns out to be a money-maker, I can always get a more upper-end model to complement it.

Steve - thanks! Are Speed Graphics easy to use handheld with rapidly moving subjects (street photography style)?

<blockquote><b>Wolfgang Wachata</b> wrote:<br><i>With a used Linhof Technika for example you'd have a solid and nice camera, many lens options, rangefinder, movements etc.</i><br><br><b>Jim Adams</b> wrote:<br><i>The only one of your criteria it doesn't meet is the part about the "elegant, old-fashioned body" (kinda don't see what appearance has to do with camera quality, anyway).</i></blockquote><p>Thanks, guys, for responding. I'm planning to use this camera handheld to take photos of tourists in the street and sell them the (instant) prints. First, Wolfgang, it would be rather problematic to handhold a view camera such as the Linhof (though, yes, I'm dying to use a Linhof for other purposes!). Second, Jim, I think it would help sales if the camera looked like something from a different age, being that that's the image sought by most tourists where I live (heck, I might even dress accordingly).<p>Interchangable lenses are nice, but not necessary - a nice "normal" length fixed lens would suffice.<p>Jim, your name popped up just now when I searched for your recommended 600SE. Looks like you're quite the celebrity. Those photos are brilliant! Incidentally, I like the look of the camera, too - in this day and age of sleek plastic digicams stuffed with electronics, the 600SE already smacks of a different day and age. Unfortunately it requires quite an investment, so I will have to seriously think about it before buying.<p>Thanks again.