don_nguyen3

Eric Chong,

 

<p>I use this method to preview my image before I do the wet print. It may look great for web display, if you place your 645 frame into the film holder square perfectly.

</p>

 

<p>1. The bottom piece of the film holder, there are two long thin rails that position 35mm film. There is a small space of each rail between frame three, and frame four. I chisel to flatten a part of each end of the thin rail about 2 cm , so the 645 negative can stay flat down to the film holder. ( NOTE: I just flatten down 2cm long of each end the thin rails near frame 3, and frame four. I choose that area, because each thin rail is discontinue right there. The rest of the two thin rails are still long enough to position my 35mm film. I THINK YOU DONT NEED TO DO THIS STEP, until you are happy with this cheap method, otherwise you may destroy your film holder)

</p>

<p>

2. I cut my negative one frame for each nicely. Carefully I cut my negative straigh, square, and as close as posible to the picture.

</p>

 

<p>

3. I place my negative with landscape position into the negative holder. To scan the left-bottom portion of 645 negative, the top of the negative adjusts at the top the film holder, then the bottom of your picture (not the bottom of your negative) fix right in the frame. I move the film to the right for the bottom-right. Do the same thing for top left portion, and top right portion of the frame.

</p>

 

<p>

4. The trick is place your film into the film holder perfectly square as posible, so you can line up four portions of your picture perfectly match with photoshop.

</p>

 

<p>

5. I only preview scan the first portion, and scan it. The other three portions, I don't do preview scan. I just scan it. If I do preview scan, and scan each portion, some how brightness, and contrast is different for each scan.

 

</p>

<p>

The attachment are four portions of the photo. It may help you better.

</p>

 

top-left portion:</br>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2001881&size=lg"></br>

 

top-right portion:</br>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2001854&size=lg"></br>

 

bottom-right :</br>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2001858&size=lg"></br>

 

bottom-left :</br>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2001860&size=lg"></br>

 

the whole image:</br>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=2001861&size=lg"></br>

 

Have fun.

Mr. Stephane,

 

I can not afford a good dedicated medium format scanner, so I scan my my 645 format film from my Minolta Elite (2820dpi) four times, and I copy and past them together using photoshop. The result is much nicer , and richer tone compare to the result from epson-3170 from the same b/w negative.

 

Under my eyes, even the same area of film, which scanned from the Minolta Elite (2820dpi) the images from 120 b/w film look smoother, and better tone than 35mm film. Did you see that too, or just me ? If you did not try to scan your 120 format from your Minolta 5400dpi yet, try it. It look wonderfull compare to the epson. I think the results even better than my case if you scan your 120 format film from your 5400dpi scanner. (Ofcourse I modified my negative carrier to make it fix 120 film format)

 

I am just a newbie, so correct me if I am wrong.

I shoot one or two B/W roles a month, and I choose D76 1:1 for my

standard developer. I like to make 2 liters out of 1 liter D76 bag

for my stock , so I dont have to add one part of water later to make

D76 1:1 . However, the question is how the storage life compare to

the instruction from factory suggestion ?

What happen to negative in the long run , if washing film too little. I have some several weeks old negative show white little dots every where when scan, but there are no little white dots before. Is that a result of washing too little? The remain fix chemical damage the negative ? Any one have this experiences ?

 

Thank for your help ?

I am also new to B/W photography. For me 100TMX is almost grainless. Here is a test for you to judge.

Oh my room temperature is around 17c to 19c, and some time it reachs 20c. I use 100TMX, and D76.

 

Thank for your help

Winter is comming, and my apartment is always cold. Processing

conventional B/W film at higher temperature gives better results than

processing film at lower temperature ? or same thing ? If it is

better I try to warm my solution before I processing.

The stick, you mean the film tank agitator ? Just an idea. Try medium size black marker, cut off the head, and saw a rail across the head, make it look like the origional one. The good thing of the black marker is one end is designed to grip, exactly the patterson tank agitator.

Thank you all. I like to try few rolls this weekend at Walgreen drug store nearby.

After conventional b/w was developed, can it be printed at one hour

local lab ?

First my English is not good. From my experience, Once I bough a brand new Nikkor 35mm/F2 from a local camera store. At home, I was so happy for my first brand new len. I moved the appenture ring to F22, and I move a small level that control the appenture blades to largest appenture, F2. I let go the level, the appenture blades did not go back to F22 that it suppose to. The appenture blades are stuck.

 

It was a long story, but I know that damn local camera gave me a used broken len instead of a brand new one.

If Nikon set leader out on rewind automaticly by default, are there more complains or less complains than no leader out on rewind from Nikon users ?

I am curious too, and I wonder why most non-zoom point and shot go with 35mm or close to 35mm ?

From Google search for photo.net. Up to now I found:

 

1. Tri-x has 3940 hits

2. fp4 has 787 hits

3. fp4+ has 707 hits

4. hp5 has 1160 hits

5. hp5+ has 1250 hits

6. APX has 742 hits

7. Neopan has 716 hits

 

Let say the number of hits of fp4, and fp4+ are distinct. Same

assumption for HP5, and HP5+. From this assumption, do you think Tri-

x is the most popular B/W film out there ?

For me, Canon EOS300D + 24mm. As a beginer, you can shot, and learn all day, every day without film, and developing cost.

Fix longer make film thinner ?

Hi Mr Rick Jones, I understand your suggestion, "Trust your results not someone elses", but a good teacher like you may save me a lot of film. I believe learning from some one's experiences can save alot of time, and resources. So, I like to develope film myself for scanning. I like to shot FP4+ at IE100, what is your favorite time chart ? Despite your suggestion, I trust you.

A crop from previous image. Actual pixels

This is my first roll test of FP4+, and ID11, and it's also my 3rd roll of home B/w developing. I am considered a beginer, a little knowledge of b/w developing, but like to share my first few roll of b/w developing.

 

I go for the sharpness from fp4+ data sheet from ilford.com

 

IE100, ID11 1+3, 20.4c, 20 minutes

 

The attachment are the results. I like the results so far, but I will try some more rolls with different varies.

Thank you for all your inputs. Like Mr. Avery Homes said "Discussions are what make these lists valuable", I also thank to Mr Carl Stone's complement.

I did not know "Nikon is not a vertically integrated digital photography company like Canon" hmm... maybe it's time for me to sell off all my nikon gear to switch to Canon.

What are Nikon guys thinking of not trying to compete with Canon

Rebel digital under 900 bucks. Maybe they try to sell off their

expensive P&S coolpix 5700 at $1099 before introduce some thing like

Canon EOS digital rebel under 900 bucks ?

Motie, if you choose a film scanner for both negative, and slide film, take a look at tipa award 2003-2004 products, www.tipa.com. Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400: Best Film Scanner of 2003-2004 . I have a lower version Dimage Elite II 2880 and I am happy with it. It's a bit slow, if ece turn on. I did return my Canon FS4000US with 15% charge re-stock fee for B&H to get my Minolta Elite II. The Elite II (the lower verson) give better shadow detail than FS4000US. Ofcourse the canon FS4000US 4000 dpi gives more pixels per inche than Elite II 2880 dpi. I doubt Dimage Elite 5400 give the same or better shadow detail for slide scanning with more dpi compare to the older model Elite II 2880.

 

Good luck

"since the frame-rate of the systems my company makes are far higher than what the D2H does"

 

Peter Nelson, I am curious how big in size is the high frame-rate system under what Mega pixel that manufacted by your company ? Is it as small as the Nikon D2H ?

 

Nelson, maybe you are right. I believe one day Nikon will make D10H with 20mega pixel full frame at 2ms shutter time lag, 16 frames per second for continuously 72 frames under 3000 bucks .

Nicholas, How about the shuttle time lag of the Digital Rebel ? I never try a D-SLR before, but I tried a compact digital of my friend. One time I wait for my 5 months old nephew smile, I press the shuttle button , but several seconds later the camera actually take a photo. His mom ask me "how come I don't see he smiles in the photo? " .