anthony_ilardi

<p>Your only choice appears to be Titan Photo Labs in Troy (suburb of Detroit) titanphotolab.com. They do a first rate job. <br>

Spectrum Photo on 12 MIle Rd. in Berkley has stopped processing film, but still prints from large format film. The owner there traditionally used large format camreas in his professional work.<br>

I am not aware of any local store that carries much in the way of large format equipment new or used. You may want to check out Camera Mart in Pontiac on Telegraoh Road and Huron Camera in Dexter (not far from Ann Arbor) which always has a large slection of used equipment, but I do not recall seeing that much in the way of large format. Woodward Camera in Birmingham on Woodward Ave. still processes 35mm film, but its used department is small and mostly 35mm. I order my 4x5 film from the usual suspects: B&H, Adorama or Freestyle.</p>

 

<p>With my Leicas, I use TMAx (TMY-2) pushed to 1600, developed in TMax developer per Kodak's recommendations. I typically shoot with a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar or a 35mm Summicron. My Canon 5D set at 1600 (typically with a 50mm f/1.4) is superb as well. I use the Leica where the shooting environment and subject requries a smaller, quieter camera. In a mixed portfolio of prints, almost no viewer can tell which print orginated with film and which with digital. </p>

<p>I periodically check my two M6ttl cameras against my Canon 5D and my handheld meter. I tend to use the Canon in selective mode and with manual exposure, so the metering pattern and methodology are similar to the Leica, but not identical -- the Canon selective mode angle is narrower than the Leica. Also, I usually use an 18% gray card for confirmation when cross-checking the meters. The Leicas and the Canon 5D are spot on. The handheld meter generally needs a 1/3 stop correction. I am not concerned so much with absolute expsoure, but relatively consistency between meters. Have you checked your meters against each other? If the meters are wildly off, then perhaps the M6 meter needs an adjustment. </p>

 

<p>I have both a .58 and .72 M6TTL. (I wear glasses, so the .58 iwoth short lenses is ideal for me). The .58 initially replaced two, meterless .72 M bodies. For about 18 months I had only the .58 (although I also have SLRs) and found it very easy to use with a 50mm lens, as I still do. I added the .72 because I like working with two cameras much of the time, not because I found using the 50 difficult on the .58 and it made sense to have the flexibility of two maginifications. Most of the time, a 35 is on the .58 and a 50mm on the .72, but if I only carry one body, it is most often the .58 with a 50 and 35. I have even used my 90mm on the .58, but it is easier on the .72, of course. The 21mm goes on either body. In short, I would not hestiate to use a 50 on the .58. </p>

 

<p>A Nikon ED5000 Coolscan or equivalent will produce first rate scans and certainly up to a 12x18 print you will be hard pressed to see differences from a drum scan. Assuming you intend to make prints, you will also need a good printer, preferably one that prints BW well, such as the Epson 3800 or its successors, and you will need to learn Photoshop techniques for getting the best print -- not all that different from processing digital, but still there are differences. If you do not have it already, you wil need noise reduction software, such as Nosie Ninja, and will have to apply sharpening a bit differently from the the way you do it now. I use both digital (Canon 5D) and film in my Leicas, BW and color negatives. I also have old Kodachromes Ektachromes and even some Agfachromes, and I have scanned them all, and made prints. With patience and proper technique, all the films scan well.<br>

XP2 is a fine film, but it has a different look from TMAx or Tri-X; generally, I prefer the silver-based BW films. Keep one thing in mind: the Nikon scanners (and several others) have Digital ICE, which does not work on silver-based BW; you will have to learn to spot (easy enough in Photoshop, even if a bit time consuming). Digital ICE works with XP-2, and, for some, that is enough to tip the balance. I say give it a try and make your own decision. </p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>I grew up around NYC and go back fairly often to visit. Typically, I have a camera in my hand (not to protect it, but because it is much faster to shoot that way) whether a Leica M (with a 35 and 50 -- and sometimes two bodies) or a Canon 5D with grip (28 and 50) (which is a lot more noticeable than the Leica). Never any issue, even on the 1970s when New York was not as nice as today. If you are going as a tourist, I cannot imagine where you would be that you should have any concerns (that is pretty much true as well for Detroit, where I now live, and any other large city. Of course, it is always prudent to have your equipment insured -- who knows, you may drop it in the harbor leaning over to get that perfect shot of the Statue of Liberty! </p>

 

 

<p>Kodak's data sheets (available on the web -- make sure you use the one for TMY-2) have recommendations for push processing TMAX 400 to EI 1600. These recommendations are a very good starting point. I have been using TMax developer 1:4 for a bit over a year and am pleased with the results. One virtue of TMax developer is that you can use it as a one-shot developer. Tight grain, reasonable shadow detail, all considered. </p>

<p>I will second the vote for an Ebony RW45 -- a great camera; the Ebony is not inexpensive, but it is a good value (I was lucky enough to find one slightly used) -- and Gitzo tripods. My personal preference for lenses are a 135 and a 180 rather than a 150 and 210, but that is a quibble. A 90mm could be added as a wide angle, but for weight reasons I would recommned the f/8 lenses (f/6.8 in the case of the Rodenstock) instead of the f/4.5 lenses. You will also need a good tripod head. I use an Acratech, which is light and strong, but there are numerous choices. Do not forget film holders -- I like the Toyos, which I bought new a few years ago from Freestyle, but they have gone up since then. Used ones seem to be plentiful. You may also need a film changing tent, even if you have a place to change film at home, if you want to change holders in the field. <br />You are right about the quality. A few years ago I saw Robert Polidori's Chernobyl exhibition at Edwyn Houck galleries in New York. The prints were about 4 <em>feet</em> by 5 <em>feet</em> and stunning. I believe he used a 4x5 camera for those photos, although I know he sometimes shoots 5x7.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Color-Skopar, which I have used for 5 years. I have the LTM version and use it on film Leicas. At 10x15 or 12x18 enlargements, I have not noticed objectionable softness in the corners any more than from any other lens (including my Summicrons). There is some barrel distortion, easily correctable in Photoshop, and nothing out of the ordinary for a lens of this focal length. Unless you are photographing something with straight lines most of the time you will not even notice the slight distortion. Similarly, there is sometimes, depending on lighting conditions, some vignetting, but if truth be told, I can also see some very occasional vignetting even on my 35mm Ver. IV Summicron. In any event, the vignetting is also easily corrected in Photoshop. Finally, I have used this lens successfully for available light, shooting B&W at an EI of 1600. On an M6 it can easily be handheld at 1/15 and sometimes at 1/8 of a second. Of course, if the subject it moving, these low speeds may not always freeze action, but you would be surprised how often it can. It's a very good lens at a very good price.</p>

<p>See Joel Sternfield's "Stanger Passing." </p>

<p>For many years, I shot Tri-X, developing in D-76, HC-110 and Microdol-X, as the spirit moved me. Recently, I have returned to B&W and have been using TMY-2 developed in TMax 1:4. Today I scan. I have shot a lot of the TMax at 1600 in "available darkness." It responds extremely well, much better, I think, than Tri-X, which seems to block up a lot more when pushed. TMax is not bad at 400 either. The look is a little different from my old negs, but those were not taken with modern scanning in mind either, although I have great success scanning negatives developed in HC-110 or D-76; less so with those developed in Microdol. In the end, TMax and Tri-X are different tools, but both good. </p>

<p>I have an Elan 7 with grip (BG-E4) which I am about to put on eBay. If you are interested, please let me know. I find that the grip provides better balance, especially with a lens like the 70-200mm f/4L. Overall, it is light and aways gave me good performance. My Elan 7 has been replaced by a 5D, but I still shoot film with my Leicas. </p>

<p>The correct chart for TMY-2 is Kodak datasheet F-4043, not F-4016, as listed above. F-4016 gives Kodak's recommendations for the old TMY. F-4043 shows you used Kodak's recommended time for TMY-2 in D76 at full strength. </p>

<p>The CV 28/2.0, 35/1.4 would both be excellent choices. I have the CV 21/4 and a Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 (which is made for Zeiss by Cosina) and both are good. My other lenses are Summicrons (35, 50, 90) and I do not see any meaningful difference in 10x15 prints. Based on my experience with the two Cosina manufactured lenses and the reviews, I am considering adding the 28/2.0 myself. </p>

I just added a Canon 5D with grip plus a 24-105/4 (not much smaller than the 24-70) to my existing Canon film system. But mostly I shoot with a pair of M6TTL bodies, which I intend to continue to use. I do not think it odd at all to combine the Canon plus Leica systems -- they complement each other. Different tools for different situations.

This has cropped up a couple of times with my G4 Mac with 1.25 GB RAM. It is not limited to slides -- it occurs with negatives as well as slides. I uninstall then reinstall the software and am on my way.

From the comments, it appears that the issue occurs both on Windows machines as well as Macs.

 

I have also used Silverfast in the past; that was not free of bugs either (like 30 minutes to scan slides with a different scanner, but the same computer I am now using.) I have not used Vuescan.

I am using Fuji Pro 160S (not 160C) and Nikon Scan with a Nikon ED 5000 and have

absolutely no problems. I assume, but do not know for certain, that the differences

between 160S and 160C should be small. I leave auto exposure on. I do very few

adjustments in the scanning software, leaving most color correction to CS2. I will use,

however, the midtone color sampler in Nikon Scan to get a basic setting. For color

negatives. I leave Nikon Color Management on -- I turn it off for transparencies, using

the plug-in in Photoship, then assigning an IT-8 profile, then convert to the working

space-- Digital Ice and not much else. It is easy to inadvertently leave a setting in the

wrong position -- I have done it many times -- and gotten some odd results. Assuming

that all the settings are correct, I suggest you play with the curves settings until you get

something you like, then save those curve settings.

I am not sure whether Photoshop or NikonScan assigns sRGB. I scan using NikonScan 4.0.2 with color management turned off; the scan always opens in CS2 with sRGB noted as the embedded profile. I then tell Photoshop to disregard the embedded profile (i.e., do not color manage), then assign the approriate IT-8 profile (Ektachrome or Kodachrome) then assign the working space of choice (typically Adobe RGB(1998) or J Holme's Ektaspace PS5). This seems to work. For color negative (my film type of choice for the last few years),of course, there is no IT-8 profiling involved, so I scan using Nikon's color management turned on, which allows you to select a working space.

I currently use two M6TTLs (a 0.58 and a 0.72). My first Leica was an M3; in between I have owned an M4, a couple of M4-2s and an M4-P. Ultimately, I prefer having the built-in meter. Also, the M3 lacks a a frameline for a 35mm lens, which is my primary lens, as it is for many others. As to build quality, in the 35+ years I have been using Leicas, I have never noticed any material difference in any of the bodies. They are all good. I would go for the M6 (but I really like the TTLs a tad better).

Yes; an Ebony RW45 -- worth every penny (about the same price as a used M6); if you shoot with Leicas, you will understand -- and two lenses, 135 and 180. I also use a light weight carbon fiber tripod and ball head that I originaly bought for use with the Leicas, but this combination is more than strong enough for the lightweight Ebony (about 1.9kg). This model Ebony has relatviely limited movements and a relatively limited range of lenses it can use, say 65mm - 300mm.

 

This set up suits my needs, but this is also not the first 4x5 set-up I have used. The first one was a monorail, with 90 (too wide for a main lens) and a 210 (too long for a main lens), a monster wooden tripod and heavy tripod head. Monorail cameras have more movements but I learned I do not need most movements other than tilt and rise, and occasionally some swing. It depends on what you shoot, of course, but unless you are going to do table top stuff most likely you will not need the extensive movements that a monorail can provide. One of the most important lessons I learned from my first 4x5 set up was that heavy bulky cameras stay in the closet where they do not take pictures. Think about the Leica: it is not a do everything camera, like a modern SLR. But it is superb at what it does. Approach your large format camera the same way: what will you do with it?

Nikon Coolscan 5000ED with ICE4. Works as advertised. But, it never hurts to stasrt with a brushed, lean negative.

Spectrum Photo at 3127 Twelve Mile Rd. in Berkley, MI, does a terrific job. The lab is owned by Laszlo Regos, a large format architectural photographer. Tel no.: 248-398-3630. Their web site is spectrumfoto.com. They process B&W and C41, although I only shoot color. They recently did a 30'x40" print from for me from 4x5; I could not be more pleased.

I used the Kodak Kodachrome IT8 to create a profile in MonacoEZcolor, scan using

Nikonscan and then assign the profile in Photoshop. No complaints whatever. In the past

I have used Silverfast with thier target (made by Faust) for Ektachrome; I can see no

difference, but, in truth, my current Nikon 5000ED is a much better scanner than my old

one.

There is always much to learn in scanning. First, calibrate, calibrate, calibrate: calibrate your monitor (I also use Optix, but others do a good job), profile your printer. You cannot tell whether the slide is flat or contrasty without proper calibration of monitor and printer. For slides, calibrate using an IT-8 target. VueSCan and Silverfast, which I have used in the past, both permit IT-8 calibration in the scanning software; NikonScan does not. Nevertheless, I prefer NikonScan (I also use a 5000ED), with a profile created in EZColor. Assign the profile in Photoshop, then convert to your working space (Edit >assign profile and Edit > convert profile). Kodak's targets are available from B&H at reasonable prices. You should be able to use any E-6 target, but some say the targets from Hutch or Wolf Faust are more accurate. (Make sure your profiling software supports Hutch or Faust targets if you choose to go that route).

To reduce grain -- more significant in scanning color negatives -- look into Noise Ninja (my choice) or Neat Image. There are others. Check around on the web for reviews and opinions; then try the demo downloads). NN to my eye works better -- and faster -- than GEM (inclued in NikonScan) and substantially better than Silverfast's implementation of noise reduction. The dots in the sky may be dust or grain. ICE should take care of the dust; NN the grain.

 

 

Now, I do not shoot with Velvia -- I have tried it (several rolls) and I find it oversaturated and too contrasty for my taste (my film of choice is Fuji NPS), so I suspect (but do not know from first hand experience) getting good shadow detail without blown highlights will require a lot of work.

 

The learning curve here is steep -- I understand the frustration, having gone through it myself. Keep plugging, and good luck.

Like many of you, I also have no interest in anything other than full fame. I use a 21, 35,

50 and sometimes a 90 and would not be willing to purchase new lenses. And, for the

estimated price of a digital M, I will happily stay with film.