dave_cheng1

P67-II AE prism finder is so bright that my 120mm soft focus outdoor at f8 and f11 is still fairly bright and usable. More money than p67 but definitely worth it. Tried a Mamiya prism on a C330f once. Totally unusable for me even outdoor.

"Here's my third reason not to change: How would someone easily ask the question, "Which medium format system should I get (for this purpose, within this budget, etc.)?""

 

It is a lest interesting thread for the majority participants of the MF forum. And you want the forum to remain as is for this particular kind of threads? Not I am not willing to help beginners. Most likely when you see a new thread like that there are plenty replies posted already. And those replies are the same thing being repeated over and over agin. I would not even bother to read it.

One great feature of the p67 forum in the past was its sub categories. A quick look at all sub categories gave you a clear idea what to expect from the p67 forum. I could search within a specific sub category and if necessary I could read every threads and never felt I was wasting time. Now after merging into the MF forum everything is scrambled up into a long list of threads. I could search still but each search always yield wanted and unwanted threads. Some threads may never be found any more. Most of the p67's great stuff in the past is lost. Imagine reading an encyclopedia that orders every thread by the date they were entered.

"In the six months before being merged with the Medium Format forum, the Pentax 67 forum was averaging 3.27 new threads per week"

 

There are 21 new p67 threads from June 14 to Oct. 14 (today). That's 5 threads per month after P67 forum is merged with MF forum, alomst only one thread per week. That's way down from 3.27.

If combined is better why not just one big photography forum for the entire photo.net? Why breaking down into two dozens?

Growing trend is a different matter. Combined in the MF forum there have been very few, or no Pentax 67 threads any more. A combined forum has no focus. A thread specific to something is forced to target all MF forum visitors. As a result you end up hearing more noise than real voice. People do not speak out any more if they do not face a more specific group of audiences. Why would you want to waste your time trying to tell someone who never used a Pentax 67 to make him believe hand holding a p67 is not a problem? Why would you want to waste time to tell those who's only camera is a digital camera how you can produce great images by shooting Portra 160VC or Velvia 50? Combined in the MF forum p67 discussions have been mostly dead, gone. So is photo.net to me. Recently I stopped visiting photo.net totally. One of the breaks was at least one month long. Pentax 67 was one of the best forum I've ever seen. It was unbelievably foolish when it was buried in the large combined MF forum.

"The three largest categories in this MF Forum are Hassy, P67 and Rollei. I for one would like to see these three broken out as separate forums with their own subcategories. Pentax 67 used to have its own forum separate from MF and it seemed to work better than what we have today."

 

I totally agree. Pentax 67 forum was a much better forum by itself. After it was cominbed into MF forum there has never been any interesting threads or discussions any more. Participation is way down. I used to vist photo.net on a daily basis because Pentax 67 forum was interesting. I now sometimes visit photo.net only once a week and found little to read. I am one who really likes to see Pentax 67 be a separate forum by itself and be led by one who has truly contributed the most to it again. Steve, the Pentax 67 forum needs a leader like you again.

Be prepared for astonishing image quality of MF projections. I have one. Image quality from 35 mm slides is no match to MF's. I bought my Rollei MF projector with a 2x zoom for $15 in a flea market. The lens was in a carton box with glasses dismantled. It took me an hour or so to put all pieces back together. Worked great since then.

Keith, I use PayPal all the time. I think PayPal will deduct a fee when you receive a money regardless it is e-Check, instant payment or charged to credit card as long as it is not a refund. A refund in PayPal's term is to receive money back from a payment you made previosuly, regardless it is partial or full refund. Only in the case of a refund you will not be charged by PayPal. Since you did not pay via PayPal in the first place the money (refund) you receive even in an e-Check is going to be a payment sent to you. You will be charged by PayPal still. I think you will be better off to receive a bank check or even a personal check from the seller. This is off topic.

 

I still wonder why it is 45 days and you do not have the refund yet. The seller offers a 5 day inspection period. You did what you should and I don't see justice when 45 days passed and still no refund.

Keith, if you had made your payment via PayPal then it would have been indeed piece of cake to get the refund through PayPal. It would have been a few clicks by the seller when he logs into his PayPal account. You would have gotten the full amount refunded to you. Otherwise it would not be a refund, in PayPal's term. It would have been one party making a payment to the other, which is you. You would have been charged by PayPal a fee for receiving that much of money. It would have been a few percent.

 

But instead of getting the refund through PayPal, if you get a bank check or personal check you would have to pay your bank for cashing it. Banks usually charge anywhere from $25 - $35 for the service.

 

Either way it will cost you. PayPal is faster but it will cost more. Hope you get your money back soon. And hope there is no damage done to the reputation of Will van Manen Karamera Service either. Please make sure to post a messgae at the end of the dispute. We would like to know how it is resolved.

Refund should be made as fast as the speed they ask you for your payment. It is unacceptable to wait 45 days and yet no refund.

That's wonderful. Thank you. Please, everyone in the Bay Area join me to shoot Fall colors this Fall and send your chromes to Wal-Mart. I do not particularly like Wal-Mart (or not). But It is our interest to keep its E6 processing alive. It does not have to be Wal-Mart of course. They probably all send E6 films to a same place for processing anyway. The goal is to keep them alive and kicking.

I do not have a boat load of E6 films but I do have 50 to 100 rolls in my freezer. I am beginning to worry that if I shoot them I won't be able to find a place to process them.

 

I have a suggestion to the film user community, especially if you like to shoot chromes. Why don't we all go out and shoot some Fall colors that is coming upon us. Then let's identify a few labs, Wal-Marts or whatever that are still do E6 in the East. Midwest, West, North and South. Then we all send our chromes to them within a one or two months period.

 

This may wake them up and realize that they have good reasons to continue E6 processing lines. If we don't shoot E6 they don't get business and have to shut down. As a reesult it makes us harder to shoot E6 too.

 

In my opinon Chrome films are the most desired media for photographic art work, not for commerical photography. Most commercial photographers are abandoning chromes for profitability reasons. But for the photographic art community it is a big mistake to abandon chrome films, regardless how good/bad digital trend is.

 

I have found to achieve most satisfying colors by scanning chromes. If E6 processing is dying out it forces me to stop buying chromes. It seems Kodak and Fuji are leading the industry to kill themselves from the chrome film business.

 

Let's organize photographic artists all to shoot chromes this Fall. Let's feed them with some pocket money and give them a kick. It won't cost much and it's fun. I am going to dig out my RVP-50 films and shoot.

 

Does Wal-Mart in the SFO Bay Area still do E6 processing? Let's begin to identify those names.

Processing your own color films at home then scan them using a CCD based film scanner that costs a few hundred bucks. Once the films are scanned the images can be optimized digitally (digital darkroom) then printed by inkjet printers.

 

The traditional optical/chemical printing process will wear you out and you will lose your interest in photography. Instead, the digital darkroom and digital printing using inkjet printers is more interesting. It will only boost your enthusiasm in photography. Don't go the wrong way.

I once printed a 16x20 color print out of a 6x6 negative using my home processing equipment. I had to print it 4 or 5 times to eventually get the colors and density I liked. The time spent in printing with my color enlarger and home processing equipment basically a large plastic drum on a motor base was like several hours in one evening. I did get one that I liked.

 

With digital printing using a film scanner and an inkjet printer the time is much reduced and the color tweaking on a computer makes the traditional darkroom work obsolte completely. You can see the result of your adjustment instantly on screen. Or you can print it by the printer in less than 3 minutes to see the result.

 

Colors are much more vibrant and accurate. Sharpness is out of reach by optical printing. Chemical hazard is none. It is really the way to go.

Arjun, my soft focus lens will be very soft, as if it is completely out of focus at wide open. But the degree of softness reduces when the aperture is closing down. When it is smaller than f8 or f11 the effect

of softness is reduced to almost none. It will not be as sharp as regular lens still, especially if the image is blown up. Soft focus lens is mainly for portraits. But I have not used it for portraits.

 

What I found interesting about my soft focus lens (120mm for Pentax 67) is in using it for closeup shots. It is able to shoot as close as about 1 foot from the object. and even with aperature at f8 or f11 it still produces extremely fuzzy background than normal closeup lens. The object is fairly sharp because of the small aperature. But the blurred background is far more dramatic than regular closeup lens can produce. Here is another example of a closeup shot with my soft focus lens.<div></div>

Traditional color print processing at home is very time consuming. I did it once for a few years. I even acquired a durst table top processor to improve processing speed and consistency. I acquired a few very high end color analyzers to help. Yet, productivity is very poor. You will be very sick and tired from doing it eventually. Yes, you will get some very excellent prints. That can be very encouraging. But your enthusiasm will wear out as I had.

 

Before you get started and invested in the equipment for the traditional process consider an alternative approach. Process your films only. It will be even easier to have them processed by Costco, Wal-Mart, etc. Buy yourself a CCD film scanner at a couple of hundred dollars. Scan your negatives then print them on a Canon inkjet printer. An excellent Canon inkjet photo printer can be had for less than $100.

 

Imagine you can print a beautiful 8x10 in 3 minutes. You can easily print the entire roll in one evening. No more worries about chemicals. That's the way to go, in my opinion.<div></div>

Canon i9900 and Pro9000 are two additional choices. These printers use dye based ink. Dye based ink has a broader gamut so your prints will be more vibrant. Epson R2400 is probably much more than $500. It uses pigment based ink. The print will not fade too quickly and will be waterproof but it will not have the vibrancy of prints from printers that use dye based ink. The paper for R2400 will be expensive and refilling with 3rd party ink will be very difficult. The cost of buying and printing are all much higher than using dye based printers.

 

Canon i9900 and Pro9000 with dye based ink will yield extremely beautiful photos. But the print will fade within 5 - 10 years depending on how they are protected from Ozone gas and UV light. The advantages are cheap to print and the prints are more vibrant. They are easily refilled with 3rd party ink such as from Hobbicolors on eBay. If you have a low end Canon Pixma printer and try Hobbicolors refill ink you will realize how good the prints can be and how economical the ink supply will be. There will be pleanty of choice of good photo paper as well.

 

But if you plan to sell your prints then Epson printer such as R2400 with pigment based ink is probably what you should get. If you are paid then the cost of printing may not be an issue anyway.

Jason, I did what you are thinking of doing to entering MF with less than $100 but more than 10 years ago. I bought a Rolleicord for about

$100 to get started. You will grow your addiction to MF from there. I am now $5k (or more) into MF. Lots of fun. Lots of beautiful images. A Rolleicord can be had for $100 still today on eBay. Very good quality camera and decent lens. Light weight and classy. Good luck.

"I'd prefer the image on the negative to be as close to what I want as possible."

 

In the case of negative films this is not a practical thought in fact. When the negative is printed you will be dealing with contrast, density and saturation adjustment or optimization too. This may not be done when you print in 4x6 size but if you order enlargements and if the enlargement is done using a Fuji Frontier system your negative is scanned and level adjustment is performed.

 

The level adjustment is not adding saturation to the image. If the negative has a very wide dynamic range the level adjustment is to optimize the histogram of the image and bring the hidden contrast and saturation out of it. No color is added. You will have no control of level adjustmnent if you give your negative to a lab to print for you. But if you scan and do the digital darkroom work yourself you have full control and really get the best out of your images. You will realize there is no need to search for higher saturation films.

I guess what I am trying to say is getting a right film is only half way to achieve the saturation and contrast you desire to achieve, The other half way is in the darkroom printing. If you can do it digitally by yourself you pretty much can use all low contrast films for the contrast and saturation you want.

 

I almost gave up photography completely because I was constantly disappointed from the results of shooting films. But after I discovered about film scanning and Photoshop I am fully engaged in photography again. You don't need an expensive Photoshop to do it. GIMP is a free program just as good as Photoshop.<div></div>

Here is the same image after a few steps of simple level adjustment for the image. It has the saturation and contrast desired.

Chris, have you looked for other directions other than more saturated films to achieve more color saturation? Printing on paper is half of what it takes to reach a final view of an image. If you scan your own films with a dedicated film scanner you have a whole new world to explore in it. You may find that searching for more saturated print films is not necessary. You will only need fine grained films which are a lot easier to find.

 

Here is one landscape image I shot with Fuji NPH400, a very low contrast and low color saturation film. I used this film because it has a very wide dynamic range. I can shoot in bright day light without losing highlight or shadow details much. I scanned the film and sure enough it is low contrast and low color saturation. But once loaded up into Photoshop and make a few very basic level adjustments it came out as a contrasty and plenty of saturation image. I then print it on my inkjet printer. I have all the saturation I want and I do not need any more saturated films at all.

 

The scanning of the film and level adjustments I made is really the kind of darkroom work that is supposed to be done for analog printing except it is done digitally by me on a computer. The film scanner I have is available for a few hundred bucks. There are free image editing software available on the internet. It's not a huge investment you need to spend.

 

Here are the two images as an example.<div></div>

If you are talking about C-41 process the stage of rinsing does not require to be at 100 degree F. This step is a rinse after bleacing and before fixing. I simply use tap wtaer at whatever temperature it is. But if you are talking about E-6 there is a rinse step (the first rinse) that needs to be at 100 degree F just like the first developer.

Well, sometimes you just don't have the time to set up a tripod, or you just don't have the energy to carry one all the time. But it is not as horrible as you may think. I almost always shoot with my P67II handheld. Here is an example shot unsharpened.<div></div>