Didier Lamy

<p>Electric poles. Everybody has at least one nearby, unless he is a thibetan monk. </p>

<p>Glenn, go to the Dolomiti in the Italian Alps, much greater tetons...<br> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1055844</p>

<p>"favorite large format, medium format, and small format wide-angle landscape lenses?"<br> none... 95% of my landscape (mountain) 135mm photos are with a 50mm, 5% with a 135mm, and <1% with a 35mm. When necessary, I zoom with my feet. If there is a precipice or a cliff, I ignore it. Sometime I miss great shots, but I enjoy moving - and climbing - around for the best spot. </p>

<p>Looks less grainy than my example, could it be the scan (4000ppi versus 2400)?</p>

<p>And full size:</p><div></div>

<p>"This is how I like the grain". Dirk, to me this is a lot of grain..<br />My photo above is 35mm (F3, 50mm/1.4 ZF2, +monopod).<br />After the scan (NikonScan) I set three histogram control points at: (in/out) 91/47, 125/76, 231/223. Then sharpenig at R=1.3, i=65, T=10 with PSPX9. Below are the results, 100% and downsized from 20.8 Mpx (scan at 4000 ppi). Once printed at 360 dpi on A4 I find that the grain is inapparent, which is how i like it...</p><div></div>

<p>And the full photo</p><div></div>

<p>the unsharpened version looks ~ok to me, I would apply only a light sharpening. Below is a 100% crop of a 4000 ppi Coolscan 5000ED 16 bits greyscale scan, no processing (pre or post scan). Tmax 100 Xtol 1:1 21°C 9'20. With this protocol I usually add some contrast with the histogram tool of PSPX9, light sharpening, and it looks fine at 360 dpi. The full source is also below.</p><div></div>

<p>I have read somewhere this trick claimed to be equivalent to a monopod: a string stretched between the hand holding the camera and a foot</p>

<p>" a device called a Hangie", interesting, but what about just framed photos of your cameras? (as long as you still keep two of them...)</p>

<p>"cycle Poco" 4x5, is it the same camera as Jame's one above in this thread?</p>

<p>When the time comes for me to go digital (i.e. my Coolscan dies), I will keep my hardware in a dust-free environment, whatever the money (small anyway) I will be able to get from it. So many souvenirs... It would be like throwing away my retired pair of 100% leather mountain shoes...</p>

<p>Andrew, I guess that your 5 years old camera is a F6? And what about your 48 years one?</p>

<p>"The convenience of visualising and shooting digital"<br> Arthur, the convenience, yes, but what about the fun of delayed gratification? </p>

<p>"What are you doing with your older cameras?"<br> I still use them...I am just back from a mountain trip with a F3/50mm ZF2 in my backpack, ready to process the films in my bathroom. I am sure that I have some great ones. What a pleasure to compose slowly a landscape through a 100% viewfinder, and with only two settings on the all metal camera. And there is also the processing cuisine... A lot of fun..</p>

<p>"Simpler is better" agreed. There are enough photos posted by members, no need to add sunsets etc.. Nothing wrong with a unified black/grey color, why not just replace the present ~Russian blue with dark grey? The star under the photos was a good idea.<br> Many thanks to PN's staff efforts to improve things, and to go back to the old version.</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>If you are located in Europe, try Nikon Germany at this site: Nikon GmbH, Service Tiefenbroicher Weg 25 40472 Düsseldorf. <a href="wlmailhtml:{A40FE3E1-410A-46F2-84FD-DB539D1A8DD6}mid://00000016/!x-usc:http://www.nikonrepair.de/">www.nikonrepair.de</a> . nikonrepair@nikon.de<br> They take repairs from other countries, they have no problem to take care of the 5000, they have serviced mine last year for a routine CLA that Nikon France would not bother to consider. And it was fast and (for me) cheap: 143E including return shipping to France.</p>

<p>I assume that your holder is the FH3/MA 21 one that comes with the scanner. Do you have the same problem with the SA-21 which takes 6 photos strips?</p>

<p>For me this is not quite Adams' style of photography: too much non-photographic post-processing (i.e. photoshop). Remember Group f.64 's manifesto: '" (...) to define photography as an art form a simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods (...)" (Group f.64, MS Alinder Bloomsbury 2014).</p>

<p>Black & White marble,<br> F3, Tmax400 Xtol 1:1 21°c, Coolscan 5000D 4000ppi 16 bits<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/18254838&size=lg</p><div></div>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00dycK?start=10<br /> This one is typical<br /> The photo appears normally on Safari Apple IOS 9.3.2. Cannot try other browsers.<br /> By the way, I see all photos here:<br /> http://www.photo.net/no-words-forum/00dyfY<br> and nothing here:<br> http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00dri3</p>

<p>All the photos I upload in forums threads do not show up on my screen (MSW 7 64bits, IE 11.0.9600, jpg grey 8bits/canal), but they are visible on my iPad IOS 9, and on the Photonet monthly contest page (no candidate this month), and on my photo library.<br> In the threads, they seem to be non-existent since no room is spared for them in the text. But the captions appear.<br> Any idea why?</p>

<p>Nikon Coolscan 5000ED, see below a 100% crop, no sharpening, 4000ppi 16 bits B&W scan of Tmax400 Xtol1:1 21°C, and the full photo at:<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/18080369</p> <div></div>

<p>Stuart, I am scanning and I know all the work I could do with Photoshop, but actually I am ok with this ~digital print (and its paper print too). IMHO, getting more details in the sky would not improve the overall picture, and might be a distraction against my main focus which is the bunch of irises and the clouds reflection.<br> Combining two exposures: yes, maybe, but I find more fun to be minimalist with post processing. Once a photo is scanned with zero correction, I just play with the histogram of the entire photo, and that's all. Now if I had the Picture of the Century to print, maybe I would indulge in more tricks</p>