david_f._stein

<p>Great responses all round. Thanks for those who posted outstanding quality examples. Having seen many of these threads. Yes, a dedicated film scanner is preferable. But, if I were using a flatbed, I would opt for what used to be the professional quality scanners, Linocolor Saphir2, UMax Powerlook series, Mircotek-Agfa, that have, I believe, superior optics to today's consumer models. With good technique as already outlined, and there are ways to combat Newton's rings, one can get excellent quality from at least 120 negatives. Some of the later models had Firewire and I retain SCSI capable computers to use older, but still excellent scanners.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing. "Nikon was lucky to have an American distributor" Yes, EPOI Ehrenreich Photo-Optical Industries (Joseph Ehrenreich). Still was an era when distributors played a huge role in photographic development. EPOI, Ponder & Best, major camera stores like Kling Photo, Willoughby's that would commission cameras, later Paul Klingenstein with Mamiya America Company and so on.</p>

<p>Thanks for the review. The most encouraging thing to me as these larger sensor in a smaller body cameras are now taking hold (Leica X1, Panasonic GF1, Panasonic G1/G2, Olympus Digital Pens, Samsung NX10, the Sigma DP1,2 and now the new Sony NEXs) is that they are not clones of each other-we really have some distinctive styling and ergonomic choices. Contrast to the mianline digital SLRs and the mainline compact, small sensor cameras. Bravo, Panasonic, Olympus, Sigma, Samsung and Sony. When Nikon and Canon come on board, it will be interesting to see who they follow. These other manufacturers are innovating. I can see well-heeled photogaphers wanting more than one of these cameras. In contrast, if you have a Canon digital SLR kit, is a Nikon or Sony one really that much different.</p>

<p>Great notes. Another camera format I believe pretty familiar mid-50s on was Polaroid. The 95A produced what I thought were excellent photos that have lasted well.</p>

<p>EDIT. Good approach, Marc, and good choices. One way of looking at this is what advances did professionals adopt (after first swearing that we don't need X,Y,Z.) Thus, having a meter in the camera at all, autowind, automatic exposure, even zoom lenses, automatic focus were all decried, then, adopted post-haste. I think the Canon F-1 and Nikon F* definitely belong in that they were most influential embodiments of FULL SYSTEM CAMERAS, although Olympus and Minolta did try and did compete. It is hard to fathom today, but at one time Nikon, Minolta and Olympus had maybe 4-6 lenses each devoted to MACRO, including ones without focusing helicals. I do miss the prime lens days. Although it is probably not as important or influential, I like that Olympus put multi-spot metering into SLRs and then its very first serious digitals like the C-2040, C-3040 etc. I don't know how many other SLRs, if any, had multi-spot metering like that. Another interesting technology was Canon's Elan SLR with eye-focus!</p>

<p>Good approach, Marc, and good choices. One way of looking at this is what advances did professionals adopt (after first swearing that we don't need X,Y,Z.) Thus, having a meter in the camera at all, autowind, automatic exposure, zoom lenses, automatic focus were all decried, then, adopted post haste. I think the Canon F-1 and Nikon F* definitely belong in that they were most influential embodiments of FULL SYSTEM CAMERAS, although Olympus and Minolta did try and did compete. It is hard to fathom today, but at one time Nikon, Minolta and Olympus had maybe 4-6 lenses each devoted to MACRO, including ones without focusing bellows. I do miss the prime lens days.</p>

<p>Thanks, Doug. Fantastic. How long are exposures-could you try a flowing river. Also, how did you develop the negative?</p>

<p>Have your son look through www.luminous-landscape.com. There are some good articles about video (from a predominantly still photographer) and I believe an article on the GH1 as a video camera. Actually, besides the microphone and tripod suggestions, his needs may be more in computing power and software to edit a movie.</p>

<p>Make your own.<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/pinhole.shtml</p>

<p>Thanks for posting. It is an excellent Photoshop action, purchased in the past and much-used, which I will look to renew if possible.</p>

<p>I think noise is over-rated, i.e. over-discussed. What we are looking for is clarity of expression. Getting that encompasses much more: image sharpness; lens resolution; accuracy of focus; tonal range and highlights are way more important to carry "reality;" fine discrimination of and among colors; what we used to call micro-contrast. I get many wonderful images from several low-megapixel, point and shoots of the past because these particular cameras had (maybe by blind luck at times!) accurate focus, uniform sharpness across the image, and what I like to call "plasticity" of the lens. Hopefully, as digital matures, there will be more opportunity to exploit and celebrate the character of individual lenses. Those were trying conditions. And, yes, there is nothing wrong with a tripod.</p>

<p>The best negatives for scanning are similar to what we use for conventional enlarging. Thin. So you could read through them over a newspaper. In fact, negatives with shadow areas too thin to enlarge without great difficulty will scan beautifully. Continued fun. It seems you are on the right track.</p>

<p>Bulent<br /> depending on where you're located (Turkey?) you may be able to locate a pre press flatbed scanner like a Creo, Screen Cezanne, Fuji Lanovia or similar. These scanners are capable of true optical resolutions of +4000 dpi with 120-film and you'd be hard pressed to say their output quality is worse than the quality of a drum scanner. If you are persistent and perhaps a little lucky you can find one for much less than a Nikon Coolscan 9000 although these flatbed scanners usually cost some +$30000 when they were new some 10 years ago. You can probably find a few of these machines in places like Sirkeci and Barbaros Bulvari in Besiktas. When labs and prepress shops go out of business these scanners are sold or sometimes even given away for free. A place where you can ask is Gold Color on Barbaros Bulvari 66.</p>

<p>Good info. No one will ever believe it, but even the readily available old graphics pro-oriented flatbeds (Umax, Microtek, etc.) with REAL OPTICS did a fine job with 120, 4x5, etc. film. Compare the modern consumer copier that is just a scanner with the older generation lens based ones. Short answer: you can do a wonderful job with an old flatbed scanner, say Powerlook 2000 or 3000. The last generation even had Firewire or USB, as opposed to SCSI. Yes, Newton rings can crop up, but there are ways of dealing with that. I have laid Delta 100 120 film on a Umax Powerlook III and gotten wonderful scans.</p>

<p>You just gave a sterling demonstration of why, in the good old film days, photography students would have been better served by learning and beginning their B&W work with a 2-1/4 TLR. Yet, school after school, they start with 35mm b&w, which is actually much harder to master.</p>

<p>Even at this day and time, there may be no better camera for the surgery suite work you mention than the Coolpix 995. One of its greatest virtues besides close focus capability and image quality is that the flash throttles down well. Your surgeon friend should consult with the medical photography department of nearby hospitals and see what they use. One key issue is what cameras are most easily and effectively able to be sanitized, etc. to be brought into the clinic and/or operating room environment. Coolpix 995.</p>

<p>This leaves me with the shutter problem I.E. how to make exposures of less than a second for example. PACKARD SHUTTER. It looks like a neat vintage camera; I guess early last century, teens. I wouldn't really call it a process camera, as much as a copy camera. You may find it on the "Mathew Brady" vintage camera site, if it is still online.</p>

<p>Last Leica ever had a trade-up, trade-in program?</p>

<p>I didn't look at all the celebrity pixs but I do expect they used what we know as a disposable camera (although they are actually recycled). I think the Drew B was different. American Photographer did something like this YEARS ago, putting points & shoots in the hands and eyes of "average" Americans and the results were superb, much better than the few I looked at here.</p>

<p>Went to the basketball Hall of Fame on a random day some 20 years ago and just by chance it was a special event-saw and spoke with George Mikan, the Big O and Dolph Schayes! Yes, the Bessa L was kind of a proof of concept and did feature an exposure meter.</p>

<p>The photos are very nice. When someone uses an old camera with a standard lens two things become apparent. The first is that even cameras this old were and are capable of good results. The second is that a standard lens in the 50mm range is easier to focus than a slower zoom and can do many things well. EXACTLY. Simplify and concentrate on the world before us. Beautiful work and post.</p>

<p>Jeff, enjoyed your comments. You obviously had the talent and motivation to make such a rewarding move.</p>

<p>I've worked with some of these "simple" scanners for 35mm film (Epson 2450, 3200, V500) and it takes a quality 35mm color negative to get maybe decent results. I did much better on real flatbeds with quality optics (i.e. Umax in the olden days.) I would pare back and start fresh, trying to get the best you can out of that scanner and the Canon software. Silverfast is not a beginner's scanning software, even the SE version. Start over, Canon's own software, simple mode, etc. and see what your scanner can do. It's often better to learn and work to the limitations of whatever we own rather than chase after ... Sadly, development of and competition for dedicated 35mm film scanners has basically stopped. The last Canon and Minolta were reportedly good, but only Nikon to my knowledge still makes a pro level 35mm scanner.</p>

<p>If you are familiar with the Windows world, I think you should stay there. I am big believer in external drives and not tying so much up with your computer, unless you are someone who can swap hard drives if need be. SATA or Firewire externals can work great. This, however, is what is so great about Macs: you can partition internal and external drives as you see fit and boot any system from any partition. Thus, in the OS X world, I have computers I can boot from 10.2, 10.3 or 10.4, even OS 9 or Classic mode on older Power PC models. If a new program doesn't work well with the latest system, you can drop back and have a custom boot drive with that system for graphics, partitioned with scratch disk space, etc. Think of storage and your working methodology, not just the processor and RAM specs (you've gotten great advice already on that.)</p>

<p>"The silly MP counts of the current crop of these cameras mean less images per card, more space taken up on hard drives, slower uploads and manipulations, awful noise at high ISOs and reduced IQ across the board." Agreed. I doubt consumers asked for the megapixel race; manufacturers didn't know what to do. Video features make sense, as it was the family camcorder that displaced the film SLR. Now, the camcorder is sneaking its way back into cameras. What I really want from compact digital cameras: no distortion at the widest setting (even when it is a modest 38mm) and no highlight clipping.</p>

<p>Anyone e-mail files to a site from on the road. This would give an extra step of backup.</p>