engelgrafik

<p>On ScanCafe's website, they have a picture showing how they seriously wrap up many individual boxes from individual orders onto a giant palette before shipping to India from California. All I can say is that if a plane crashed into the ocean, that palette would probably float for a good day or so.<br>

J. Harrington makes an excellent point about quality and working locally. Here's my take:<br>

Local scanners usually start at $2 per scan for Medium Format and go up to $200 for a drum.<br>

I don't need all 1200 of my medium format frames scanned in at such high quality and "custom" precision. I just want all of them digitized at a resolution I can use for placement and layout, and so I can see which ones I want to scan at super high res with a drum or Imacon, later.<br>

I want a quick digital catalog of all my film shots. Even doing this myself would take forever, even if I was just scanning at 300 DPI.<br>

ScanCafe provides this for about $1 per frame which is 2X cheaper than the cheapest local guy... and they provide a high quality online user experience to choose your photos you want to buy, and you only have to buy 50% of the photos that were scanned. Local scanners do not offer this, they just don't have the online resources and turnkey systems because they are usually unwilling to spend good money for good web applications.<br>

For me, everthing else ScanCafe does...3000 DPI, digital ICE, trained color calibration, etc. is icing on the cake!<br>

Then, when I have my 1200 strong catalog of MF shots in Aperture or iPhoto, I will then go through and decide which ones I want scanned in by a local guy for the $50-200 drum scan. ;)<br>

In this way, ScanCafe's value proposition is completely different than the local, custom high quality scanner.<br>

I only wish the local scan providers would catch on to this, but it costs a lot of money to set up a turnkey scanning system that provides all the things ScanCafe does.<br>

A lot of people think it's all about price, but a lot of it is about user experience. ScanCafe just makes it so much easier and simpler to get scans made! Local scanners could learn a lesson here, they need to focus on simplicity, reducing obstacles like so many different types of scan choices which only confuse and put off the potential customer. I went to one website and was bombarded with simply too many choices... and the pricing was hard to figure out. It's clear they are marketing to a completely different need.</p>

<p>Wow these threads are frustrating because there is never any followup... I still can't find anybody comparing ScanCafe scans with home-grown or competitors.</p>

<p>The biggest problem I see in the retouching area is what people THINK is "fashion" and what actually IS "fashion".<br>

The moment someone emphasizes words like "soft focus" or "glow", you know what they're talking about is really '80s glamour.<br>

Look at actual fashion photos today, they show plenty of detail in the skin, the photos are SHARP, but the skin has a textured silkiness to it, almost a bronze look. That's actual fashion retouching.</p>

Do we have the results yet? It's been over 8 weeks! :)

I always look at a photo and say "is there something I'm thinking about for this photo that isn't SHOWN in this photo?" Because if there is, then nobody will care about the photo most likely. How can they care about what I care about if they don't see what I saw?

 

Put it simply: good photos are the ones that show everything the photographer wants to say. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything more, and it's the viewer's choice.

 

My point is that perhaps you placed a lot of importance on this figure. For us, we don't see the relevance. We don't care enough about this figure. You haven't separated him much from the background to help us understand what is important in the photo.. the small aperture makes everything in focus, everything "important". When everything is important, we don't discover anything and we simply go into "landscape" mode and begin treating the image as a landscape nature scene.

I realized I didn't really make a point above. The point is, as much as I want to see what the M1 will do (I've used Microtek about 12 years ago and the product was great), I worry about the company these days. It seems a bit flaky from lots of reports I hear here in PN.

I've heard horrible things about Microtek support. Stuff bought new in the store even.

http://www.betterscanning.com

 

Just go there.

John Kelly, I am definitely aware of the BetterScanning stuff and I actually have a holder for my 120/220 film with anti-Newton Ring glass. I'm definitely thinking about going that route for the new 4x5 stuff they just came out with.

Good point Kip, but the one I was using was a really old one in terms of scanner technology. It was a big scanner, apparently had less resolution than my Epson 3200, however the 4x5 Polaroid 55 I scanned on that Creo was way better than my Epson. I've tried searching on ebay for the scanner but because there are so many different names in the product, it's hard to tell if I'm looking at hte same scanners. I think I found one on ebay a few weeks ago that seemed to be the closest to the one I was using, and it was selling close to $2000. Again... this is an old scanner.. from before Kodak even owned it.

I tried out a Scitex Creo Eversmart scanner a while ago and was blown away at

the quality of this scanner. It's an older scanner, probably cost a bundle back

in the day, but it still gave me scans that blew away my Expression 3200. I was

scanning in 4x5 Polaroid type 55 negative. Right on the glass too, no holder.

Can't do that with the Epson.

 

So I'm wondering... are there some older scanners, "sleeper" scanners that

people who aren't in the high-end scanning biz don't know about? Maybe a scanner

that cost $10,000 in 1995 but now costs $500 and uses SCSI but blows away an

Epson 750?

 

Just curious.

 

I've heard of people who buy old drum scanners for real cheap (compared to what

they went for in the day).

 

Let's hear some suggestions for stuff that is under $1500 and will blow away,

say, a Nikon 9000 film scanner or the Epson 750 and the Canon equivalent.

 

What about those Epson 10000XL models?

 

Doesn't Fuji have something as well?

 

Let's hear it...

Any particular place in Wompatuck? I've been there.... it's busy in the summer. Not exactly secluded or private... unless you know of a particular place?

It's a subjective statement although there are some known facts which will affect your opinion.

 

1st, if you're using a 35mm lens, and you're using a crop sensor, you are not getting the full characteristics of the lens. You're only getting what's in the center of the lens and not the edges because that data is falling away from the sensor.

 

This may be an issue for you. Let's say you used to shoot 35mm and you LOVE your 50mm lens. Maybe you even love the way it falls off and vignettes a tad when you open up the aperture.

 

Well, on your "DX" type Nikon camera, you won't get all that stuff on the edges anymore. Your camera will now telefoto out due to the conversion. It's no longer 50mm... it's 75mm.

 

Now, put that wonderful lens on the new D3 coming out and you will get all the characteristics of that lens. You will get the same bokeh, the same X and Y and Z as you did on the 35mm camera.

 

In THAT sense, yes, a Full Frame camera will give you "better" images. If you're coming at it from that viewpoint.

 

However, if all you've ever known were you DX cameras like the D70, D80, D200, etc. then you'll have to do your own tests to really determine that.

 

You may not like the "new" characteristics of the lens on your full frame camera.

 

Personally, I can't wait for full frame. I think there's a depth to the images that the DX doesn't allow for. It may be the drop in resolution around the edges of various lenses that the DX cropped cameras don't capture. All of this contributes to the overall "feel" of a photo. And in that way, it's subjective. My opinion is full frame is better.

You can try Motophoto in Washington Square (Brookline?... it's on the green line.... not sure which track.. save track as Coolidge Corner and Cleveland Circle) if you're in a rut. Ariel is really the only person you want to work with though as nobody else there knows how to clean negatives properly. Last I heard she was working Wednesdays to Saturday, but she was also moving away soon.

 

The best place in the Boston area itself would be Colortek across the street from South Station. Take your Green line to Park Street station and then get on the Red Line that goes out to Braintree or Ashmont (doesn't matter). Get off two stops later at South Station. It's right across the street from SS (not the big Federal building, cross the OTHER street where the gym is and stuff). Colortek is great, but they charge $7.50 per roll of 120 (E6, C41, b/w, etc). Not sure about price for 35mm, I don't even deal with it anymore.

 

Also, somewhat near you (NorthEastern), in Kenmore Square, along the row that you find Eastern Standard, McDonald's and other places, is a branch of Hunt's Photo and Video. They're a big retail place in Melrose, but they probably ship the stuff out to Dorian in Arlington or something. This little branch probably does the same.

 

I'd just go with Colortek honestly.

I thought I had a location but the owners still haven't gotten back to me.

 

I need to shoot a photo for a series I'm working on and I don't want gawkers, so

I'm looking for a very infrequently traveled/secluded area near a creek, gulley,

small river, etc.

 

Problem is... I need to find it in the next 24 hours.

 

Any suggestions? I'm hoping some of you are in my neck of the woods and maybe

have some land or know of someone I can contact with land.

 

I live in Waltham, MA, about 12 miles west of Boston.

 

If you know of a great spot, I'd appreciate it. A friend suggested an area up on

route 101 in New Hampshire. That's a bit of a haul for me, but at this point I

may be willing to travel it's a sure thing.

 

To get the shot, my subject will be implied nude. So we'd like some reasonable

privacy and safety from onlookers.

 

It needs to be near a creek, and relatively safe for my subject to be close to

that creek.

 

If it's on a pond, that may do.

 

Need sunlight as well. I'm shooting IR.

Howdy everybody, I'm interested in possibly setting up a photography workshop

for people interested in shooting in Florida. However, I need ideas! I lived in

Florida for 13 years from high school through the beginning of my career. It's

been 7 years since I've lived there and really explored it like I used to. I

know several areas that I think would be great for photography, but any

suggestions would be appreciated. Here are some of the ideas I have:

 

Torreya State Forest west of Tallahassee... the "Garden of Eden of America"

 

drive down US 27/19 through Tampa and maybe hit some locations in Clearwater/St.

Pete?

 

continue down west coast to Alligator Alley or Tamiami Trail? Tamiami Trail hits

the Everglades walk. Any good or are there private folks who can take us out on

"safari"?

 

Go up the east coast to Jupiter and visit Blowing Rocks, Jonathan Dickenson

State Park with its awesome mangroves... any better mangrove areas?

 

get down to Miami, hit South Beach, Coconut Grove, then maybe some Calle Ocho

(8th Street)... this will appeal to the street photogs

 

Down to the Keys and hit 'em all the way down Key West.

 

 

If you know of any great locations along this route... let me know!

I will be there! The new location rocks and so do Adam, Joel and Lauren!

I use an old $2 Kodak Cine Ektar 63mm f2 lens.

 

I was looking for a loupe long enough to reach through the depth of the hood of the Speed Graphic. I had heard someone say they just use an old cheap telephoto lens and I started sorting through some used gear and junk at a camera store in the Boston area. On a hunch I looked through the lens with just my eyes. Looked bad. But before I put it back, I was like, "wait a minute" and I turned the lens around and looked into the FRONT of the lens. I turned it to f2 and set it for "24 inches from film" (movie lens terminology). I put it up against a piece of clear plastic that was standing up in the store and lo-and-behold... every single detail that was on the surface of that plastic came in super sharp!

 

$2, not bad for a nice loupe!

Those are Holga shots for sure.

When will people realize that photography in public is LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL no matter what??

 

I don't care if it's a public park. No city can override laws against photography in public.

 

They try and get away with it, and are successful for a while through INTIMIDATION... NOT the law.

 

All you have to do is look at most of the actual cases that go to court.

 

The photographer almost always wins.

I don't so any pictures above where it's obvious the woman was happy to have her photo taken, except maybe that first one.. but that could be your girlfriend. My statement stands!

Dave, Wood effect is about IR bouncing around inside plants and then pumping out, full force, into the camera where it, again, bounces around inside the camera and creates the halo or glow. Halation... halo... same etymology. In effect, the IR bounces around inside the plants, doesn't get absorbed and it mostly comes out to the camera. Negative doesn't have an ANTI-HALATION layer which would absorb and stop the bouncing around.

 

It's all the same. The negative is picking up the light that's been bouncing around inside the plant, AND it's picking up the light a "2nd" time as it bounces off the backplate.

 

Reason why you don't get the glowy halo Wood Effect with other IR film or digital is because the anti-halation layer exists.

 

I'm not technically, scientifically linking "halation" with Wood Effect. I'm linking them by effect.

Steve D, I'm familiar with the too large filter. There was (is?) a guy on eBay who is selling filters for the 178mm but everyone I know who buys one says the filters are too big. I did the same thing. He replaced my large filter for one UV, a yellow and red filter that was the correct size, but no retaining ring. I'd love to get my hands on a retaining ring but so far, no dice. I asked SK Grimes down in Woonsocket RI if they could do it and they said it's a bit of work and a bit out of budget for my needs at the moment. I may just jerry rig something for now.

One thing I'm thinking is that since 1/3 of depth of field is in front of a focused object, and therefore if I focus closer, the other 2/3 of depth of field should give more focus latitude to the object I want in focus. So "focus closer" makes sense. And yes, I will definitely bracket. I think I'll be shooting several sheets per shot just to make sure.

OK, I'm about to start undertaking my photo project and before I start

experimenting, I'm hoping to get some folks to hand me down some good advice and

suggestions.

 

I have a large format 4x5 Speed Graphic with a custom-mounted huge lens, the

178mm Kodak Aero Ektar f2.5 aerial lens. I love the classic bokeh this lens

uses, it will be perfect for a personal photo project I'm working on.

 

My main question is this: at 178mm and opened up to f2.5, do I still need to

worry about focusing issues if I'm only using a Red #29 filter (or a large

processed empty sheet of 4x5 E6 film, as I've been told works excellently as a #29)?

 

I did a calculation on DOF with one of the online calculators. At f2.5, depth of

field is REALLY shallow with objects that are super close up... talking inches

and even less than an inch in some cases. My subjects will be probably around 10

feet away. At that distance, depth of field is only HALF a foot!

 

So as you can see, any recommendations on adjusting focus would be great. I

don't know how much "red" the #29 lets through but if it lets through 50% red,

then I'm assuming I should be just fine, and the IR and "AURA" attributes of the

film will contribute to the glowy dreamy effect that I'm looking for, even if

the IR part of the spectrum is a tad out of focus?

 

However, let's say I was focusing for IR, would I be rolling the bellows BACK or

FORWARD after focusing on ground-glass? With my 35mm and medium format lenses, I

THINK I turn "closer" to ajust for IR film if I remember correctly, but I can't

remember. So if it's closer, then I think I push the bellows FORWARD and OUT,

correct? Or is it the opposite? I don't know why I'm so confused. LOL