steven_palmer1

I'm glad it worked out for you, Samantha. I remember I had the same confusion when I first bought my enlarger.

 

Steve

Samantha, I'm not familiar with your enlarger but on my Meopta the lensboard that the enlarger lens screws into needs to be turned over when switching from my 75mm lens to my 50mm lens. To clarify, the lensboard on my Meopta is kind of conical in shape and the 75mm lens screws in from the the convex side and the 50mm lens screws in from the concave side. If I screw the 50mm into the wrong side it will not focus no matter how high I raise the head.

 

Steve

Hi Greg,

 

Actually, it was quite simple - unfortunately. What I did, was to highlight the thumbnail image (or in my case, I selected all), right click on it and then hit delete in the dropdown box and the image is deleted from the folder - permanently. I have to admit that there is a warning box after I clicked delete that said the image would be deleted permanently but I never imagined that it would delete it from the original folder. Because I have never used Qimage before I didn't know that I should select the "delete from queue" option instead of just "delete". I also took Ann's advice and contacted Qimage support and they confirmed that I have permanently deleted the files.

 

Well, that's it. It was ultimately my mistake but it took only four clicks to remove an entire folder. I still don't understand why Qimage has to work in this way but it does.

 

Steve

Gregory, I'm happy to read your answer however, I was trying to find out what happened so placed 2 photos in a separate folder then opened those photos as thumbnails in Qimage. I selected the thumbnails and deleted them and then went back to check the folder and those 2 photos had also be deleted from the folder. After pressing the delete button an alert message came up informing me that the photos I wanted to delete (the thumbnails) would not be sent to the recycling bin. I think this is what I must have done to the folder containing the 50 photos but I can't understand why the designers of Qimage would have the program operate in this way. It would be like opening a photo in Photoshop and then deleting it and having Photoshop delete the original. It just seems absurd to me.

I've been playing with the 30 day trial version of Qimage and have just

apparently lost a folder of about 50 photos. The folder is still in the drive

but it's now empty. I dont know Qimage at all as I was just playing with the

trial version so I can't give any real information about what I did or didn't do

with the program. But, is it possible that Qimage would/can delete a folder

full of photos? I find it hard to believe that it would operate in that way

but the photos are gone and I know I didn't delete them.

 

Any advice is much appreciated.

 

Steve

Thanks for the replies. Sorry, Steve, I currently have an R220 but am going to replace it but am not sure with what just yet. The output of my printer is good but I am not sure about longevity. I want to make a book of several trips I've done and give to a friend and if she lives a normal life span these photos will need to survive at least another 50 years. As I said, these photos will be kept in a book form so will not be exposed to light (except when viewed) but I think the only way to be sure is to print them with pigments inks.

 

Steve

I know that archival qualities are a paper and ink combination and that pigments

are longer lasting than dyes, but does anyone know how archival (if at all) is a

print made with an Epson dye printer on archival paper such as Hahnemuhle photo

rag that is then stored in an album? I stress that I am not talking about

prints hanging on the wall.

 

I haven't been able to find much archival information regarding this combination.

 

Steve

Ronald, I think the main difference you will notice will be the colour balance. Kodak films are generally much warmer than their Fuji counterparts and whether or not you like this is a matter of taste. Personally I find the Kodak films I've used a bit too warm and find that I often want to cool them down a bit in post processing. However, I think this characteristic can be advantageous when shooting strong Autumn reds and yellows. E100VS and Velvia 100 are good films, which one you choose really depends on your subject and your vision.

 

Steve

Rich, I agree with your observations. I definitely would not say that Ronald's contact sheet is an example of a good scan. I cant see how cyan skies and magenta and yellow colour casts are indicative of a good scan. As far as the colour balanced photo is concerned, since when is snow magenta in colour?

 

Rich, if your scans look like Ronald's contact sheet then they are not good scans and you should seek a solution. I have the epson 4990 and think it is a good scanner, however, from my experience it scans positive far better than it scans negative. Perhaps a change to postive film will relieve some of your problems.

 

Steve

I would also recommend Plus-X but for some reason I more often than not have problems with airbells with Plus-X than I do with any other film. It's most likely my technique but the same technique is ok for other films. Anyway, I think you should try Plus-X because it really is a lovely film. Also, I think you should not forget about Tri-X. Rated at 200 or 160 it is quite fine grained and retains the Tri-X look that many photographers enjoy. I suppose it depends on what characteristic of APX 100 you are trying to find a replacement for.

 

Steve

I agree with the above posts that Astia is a very good film. However, another very good film that no-one talks about is Sensia 100. It is very similar to Astia, it scans very well with my scanners (Nikon LS 40 and Epson 4990) and is half the price of Astia. Astia is slightly finer grained than Sensia 100 but Sensia is still a fine grain film. Don't be mislead by people who consider anything other than Velvia is flat and lacking in saturation. Astia and Sensia have plenty of saturation and contrast. Just not to the extent of Velvia. I don't have much experience with Kodak films.

 

Steve

Thanks for the links and opinions. I'll have a good look at the instuctions and then decide if I can do this without busting it.

 

Steve

Another vote for Sensia. It's the only slide film I use in 35mm. Provia is good but more prone to colour casts than Sensia. For an easy to work with slide film, Sensia is the best from Fuji. People have the impression that Sensia is low in contrast and not saturated. That's not true. People just get so used to the over the top colours of Velvia. Try Sensia, I think you'll like it.

 

Steve

I have a Nikon LS40 (Coolscan IV) which works very well but lately the scans

seem to be dull and low in contrast. I dont know for sure but I wondered if

the lens/mirror or whatever else is in there, could be dirty and thus causing

the problem. My house is very dusty and the scanner has had no maintanence

since I bought it a few years ago. So, is it an easy job to clean the

optical parts within this scanner or should I leave it to the experts? I

have been quoted up to $150 just for a clean!

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

Steve

Here is another vote for Sensia 100. Sensia 100 is a very good film that no-one talks about. It doesn't suffer from shadows blocking up like Velvia, or the cyan cast of Provia or the awful skin tones of Velvia. It just quietly goes about capturing the scene producing a fairly neutral colour balance, good sharpness, good saturation and fine grain. For an all round film I think you should try it and see what you think. I cant comment on the 200 or 400 versions as I have never used them. I've used most of Fuji's films and some of Kodaks and I keep coming back to Sensia. It's cheap too!

 

Oh, one more (important) thing. I have found that Sensia scans very well and much more easily than Velvia or Provia.

 

Steve

I also use Acros 100 and have no problem rating it at 50. With this film I use rodinal at 1:50 for about 8 min @ 20 degrees celcius.

 

I don't know who told you that you can't downrate slow film with good results but it's not correct. Try rating Acros at 50, I think you'll like it.

 

Steve

Thanks, Jim. I'll give that a try.

 

Steve

When I installed photoshop CS I remember selecting certain types of files to

automatically open in photoshop. I want to change this now but cant remember

how to do it. Can anyone help out with this one. Thanks.

 

Steve

Forgot to answer your other question. 1:1 is 1:1, whether it be in 300mls or 500mls. The strength is still the same. Manufacturers recommend a minimum amount of developer per roll of film. This information can be found on their website. There are times when you may notice a difference but this is when you go under the amount necessary to develop the film completely. This can sometimes be a problem with very high dilution, like say 1:100 or 1:200, but people often ignore the manufacturers minimum amount and still get good results. Rodinal is an example of this. You can't do that with D76 though.

 

Steve

Jermaine, they mean 250mls in total. I use 300mls per reel of 35mm film. In your case if you are using D76 1:1, use 150mls of developer and 150mls of water to make the 300 total. 300mls will ensure that the reel is fully covered and that if the tank leaks a bit (some do) then you have some room to play with.

 

Steve

Mike, you should never divide the powder contents to make a smaller amount. It doesn't matter how carefully you measure because with a powder the different chemicals that make up the developer are not even distributed in the bag. Having said that, I really don't know if that is the cause of your almost clear negs. D76 is easy to use and produces good results (as you would have heard many times) so I would buy another bag, mix the whole bag and try again. BTW, for a 6x9 TMY I would definately use 1+1, but that's me.

 

Steve

Well, I use Print File and Klame sleeves and I have lots of scratches on the non-emulsion side of lots of negatives that weren't there after development. And this is on negatives that have never been printed before. I have taken the negative out of the sleeve to print it for the first time and have noticed scratches. These scratches are quite fine and dont look like they have actually scored the negative but they are very obvious. I dont usually notice any scratches on the print but I am still unhappy to see them on the neg. Sometimes it's a tight fit sliding the negatives into the sleeve and I am sure this is the cause of the scratches. Some of the sleeves are looser than others which would account for not all negs having scratches. I stopped using Klame negative holders because the middle sleeve of every sheet was so tight I could hardly even get the negatives in. Now that I know of some alternatives I will check them out. I'm referring to 135 here. I dont have any problems with 120 negative holders.

 

Steve

Thanks, Mike. I checked it and found it set to "automatic" and the status "started", so I guess it's turned on which means that the problem must be somewhere else.

 

I think I might have to re-install XP Home and see if that fixes it. If I re-install XP Home will I lose any files?

 

Thanks again for your help.

 

Steve

Mike, I forgot to ask, where/how do I check the status of WIA?

 

Steve

USB cable is plugged directly into the computer, not via a hub.

 

I have tried other cables that I know do work.

 

I've had the scanner for a few years now (using with a different computer) but I dont remember any "USB card".

 

Mike, I haven't checked "WIA". I will try to find that now.

 

Thanks.

 

Steve