michael_daly2

Hi,

 

A while ago I decided to go digital. I sold all my old Canon SLR equipment

(F1n, T90, various lenses) and purchased an Olympus C-5050, with which I have

been very happy.

 

To get a little more SLR feel I recently purchased an E-20, which in many ways

appears to be a great camera (big maximum aperture, mechanical focussing and

zoom rings, good viewer, very solid).

 

However, I have noticed that the screen flickers slightly even when looking at

the menus and that the image noticeably breaks up and reforms when scanning

around on shooting mode. On the C-5050 there's a typically solid TFT image and

the image stays solid when scanning around during shooting. The question is

whether this is normal on the E-20 or a defect. And if a defect, whether

repairable - at a reasonable price.

 

Also, and again in contrast to the C-5050, it appears that there is no way in

the menus to turn off the resetting function. If true, this would be a

disaster, meaning that every time you take a picture then turn the camera off,

all the settings revert to default and have to be reset for the next picture.

Especially irritating on resolution setting, where default appears to be TIFF!

If the only way around this is to leave the camera on constantly, then battery

life is going to be pretty short.

 

Assuming it doesn't worsen, I guess I can live with the slight flickering on

the screen.

 

However, I think it would be very hard to live with having to change the

resolution every time I turn on the camera or having to leave the camera on

constantly!

 

I would appreciate any hints and / or comments regarding these two phenomena.

 

Thanks very much,

 

Mike

I used to love Panatomic X and Microdol back in the first half of the 60s, when I had a simple rangefinder camera and a darkroom.

 

I had a few rolls of Efke 25 around for a long time recently, with the intention to get some equipment and develop it myself. But then I decided not to bother and sold it.

 

Black and white memories. All gone.

 

Such is life.

 

But thanks for letting me partake in your conversation and look at your nice pictures!

Thanks, Matt, for the embarassingly simple answer.

 

Of course the menu for rotation has an option for the anti-aliasing function. I've just always overlooked it!

 

I just tried it out and it works fine.

 

Sorry to have bothered everyone with such a stupid question, but very happy I now have the solution!

 

Thanks also to Emre - as you can see, very uncomplicated.

I have Corel Photo Paint Version 12 and am generally happy with it.

 

However, there is one problem which constantly makes itself unpleasantly

apparent: rotating fotos even by a couple of degrees (something I find myself

having to do very often) causes jagged diagonals.

 

Questions:

 

A) Has there always been a way to remedy this in Photo Paint 12, which I just

haven't noticed?

 

B) If not, is there a third party fix for it?

 

C) Has this problem been solved in a later version of Photo Paint?

 

D) Is this a problem in all photo S/W, or is it not a problem in other

programs, ie. Photo Shop?

 

Many thanks for any advice which anyone can give.

 

Mike

This happened to my T90 about 10 years ago. I sent it in to an authorized Canon repair shop which fixed it and also checked out all the functions and repaired whatever else needed doing. It didn't seem too expensive, at the time, but these days you could simply buy a used body in eBay for probably less money.

Sean,

 

Thanks for the very informative, straightforward and prompt answer.

 

Especially thanks for making clear that Vuescan does, in fact, support FARE, so that with Vuescan dust (and scratch?) removal is possible. Also, for pointing out that the Canon S/W always sharpens and that its density range is lowish, hence causing problems on film with high contrast or under-/overexposure, generally.

 

As I recall, both density range and realizable resolution have been factors which have often been cited as either a) being in some cases considerably less than claimed by the manufacturer and b) having continually increased with the introduction of each new model.

 

Then there is the matter of software improvements. Presumably FARE III is than the original FARE, and the scan S/W has presumably been improved in other respects.

 

However, as with all things which aren't necessarily subject to rapid technnological improvement, ie. things mechanical and optical, I noticed some months ago in a photo mag, that the Epson 4990 flatbed didn't test as well as its predecessor, the 4870, even though it was (I think) two years younger and somewhat more expensive. Presumably Minolta had put their money into improving their S/W, but had saved on optics, to keep the price from exploding. Thus as in hi-fi, where a lousy CD in a great CD-Player still makes lousy music, so a great high-res sensor chip and great scan-software don't help if the poor optics don't focus the image well, in the first place.

 

And as we know from the history of lenses, time has not generally brought improvements in optical quality but only changes in ancillary areas, such as autofocus and lightness of weight, the former at the cost of creativity and the latter at the cost of aperture.

 

On the other hand, you never know exactly whose test to trust. Sometimes one observes that the consensus of user reviews may be considerably different than test results or "editor's ratings".

 

In closing I note that you were kind enough not to mention it, but I did put in the inch-size of A3 wrong. Of course, it's more like 12x16 inches (aspect ratio 2:3), not 12x24!

 

Once again, thanks for the good reply and for making me think about things again.

 

I look forward to your full-size samples, should you get around to putting them into your gallery.

 

Ah, and then there is the matter of Kodachrome and B&W film. Is there anything in this regard to choose among different manufacturer's dust and scratch removal systems, or among their different editions of their systems?

 

Michael Daly

I have been taking 35mm slides and negatives for about 45 years. When

I was young I had a darkroom (B+W) and for the last couple of years

have used a simple HP scanner to scan in prints and paper, using

Photopaint within CorelDraw 12 to work on the scanned images. And with

this humble combination I was generally happy.

 

Recently, however, my scanner broke and was not repairable.

Furthermore, of course, I have been following the scanner reviews and

market for some time, and my appetite has been whetted for something

better.

 

Now I'd love to have both a good flatbed scanner for paper (artwork,

etc.) and a good 35mm scanner. Were money no constraint, I'd go out

and buy either an Epson 4870,4990 or a Canon 9950F, as well as a

Minolta 5400 or a Nikon V.

 

Alas, being retired and with a son still at university my budget is

unfortunately limited and/or my conscience would bother me greatly,

were I to indulge in such luxury.

 

Hence having to choose between types of scanner, I feel it is clear

I'd get more from a dedicated 35mm scanner than from a flatbed. At

least more detail and perhaps better dust and scratch removal.

 

While browsing through Photonet just now I read a very positive review

and some positive comments in various places on the Canon FS4000US.

 

This 35mm scanner apparently came out in 2002, cost originally around

$/ﾀ 900, has 4,200 dpi, the first version of the FARE-S/W and USB 1.1.

It also scans APS, which is great, since my wife has (and even I have,

occasionally) used an APS-Ixus for the past 10 years, so we have a

fair amount of developed APS film rolls.

 

Please now assume you were in my position, with more time than money,

with lots of 35mm slides and negatives and a fair amount af APS film.

 

Yet as a discriminating type and already having prints in at least 4x6

inches from the photo lab, you weren't interested in scanning in

everything and printing it at 4x6 inches, but rather only that small

percentage of all your shots which had "fine art" potential or real

"sentimental" value.

 

And from this limited number of exposures, you wanted to be able to

get great quality, in order to print mainly at A4 (roughly 8x12

inches) but occasionally at A3 (roughly 12x24 inches). Since the

quantity is small, you're not concerned with speed but only with

quality. And bearing in mind that you want to spend as little as

reasonably possible, that Vuescan doesn't support the Canon FARE (as

far as I can remember) and that Silverfast is too expensive, you'll

have to rely on the manufacturer's scan S/W.

 

Then further please assume that you would have to pay $/ﾀ 450-500 for

a used Nikon V ED and an additional $/ﾀ 150 for a used Nikon APS

adaptor (if you could find one), but only $/E 250-300 for a used Canon

FS4000US in very good condition.

 

Given you were in this situation, which of these two used scanners

would you purchase, and why? Alternatively, what other used scanner

would you purchase, and why?

 

Many thanks in advance for anyone who cares to trouble himself with an

answer.

 

Michael Daly

In these discussions on chromogenics, everyone seems to be comparing the 400 ASA chromogenic films from Kodak and Ilford with Tri-X, a traditional BW film, also 400 ASA and hence, at least at one time, noted for its high speed, grain and contrast.

 

In this comparison, the softness and fine grain of the chromogenics is seen as something different from Tri-X, and hence different from traditional BW, generally.

 

Presumably this comparison is being made because the people making them are professionals who use (or used to use) Tri-X for available light events, incl. weddings, where high speed was required (including pushability).

 

On the other hand, there are (were) plenty of traditional BW films out there which were much slower, much more fine-grained and much softer than Tri-X.

 

I have plenty of prints done over 40 years ago, shot with Panatomic-X or Plus-X Pan, developed in Microdol and printed on medium contrast Kodak papers, which are as soft as you'd ever want to get.

 

At the time, I also admired some of the contrasty, grainy shots other people were doing, which at that time seemed to be mainly a result of using stronger developer solutions / shorter developing time and contrasty paper. These prints were very "graphic", but that wasn't what I was after. I wanted to get all the smallest branches on trees and all the detail and shades on their bark.

 

If I wanted more contrast, I used yellow, orange or red filters. The long exposure times resulting from the combination of slow film, small aperture and filter factors didn't really matter, because I was doing landscapes and still shots, mainly with a tripod.

 

Even with chromogenics, one had presumably better use a filter, if one wants to get great clouds, though I don't know if these would be BW or colour filters. And if one wants all the detail, one's going to have to stop down.

 

Also presumably, tweaking today can be done much more easily and just as effectively using photo S/W and adjusting the tonal curves, saturaton, brightness and contrast, coupled with printing through a good BW printer, like the HP7960.

 

If this is true, then it's very convenient, because you only need one type of film, a fast chromogenic film which, because of its different chemistry, has fine grain and will capture much more information than Tri-X. rather more like Panatomic. By scanning, this information can then be selectively enhanced, de-emphasised, filtered-out or whatever, with software, allowing you to achieve the effect of several types of BW film / developer / paper, with much less effort.

 

At least that seems to be the theory.

Thanks so much for the overwhelming (eleven!) response(s). It is truly uplifting and inspiring to receive so much friendly and informative advice. After thoroughly reading all 11 replies and looking through the web a little more, I will now attempt to formulate a reply of my own.

 

The general consensus seems to be that:

 

1) Agfa`s or Ilford`s slow to medium speed conventional films are just as good as anything, including Efke`s, (though nobody really plugs Plus Pan 125);

 

2) Doing your own developing will give better results than a B&W lab;

 

3) Three developers were named: Rodinal, Neofin blue and Clayton F-76;

 

4) With Efke there`s the additional problem of very soft emulsion and need for extra hardening bath;

 

5) Using a (reasonably priced) scanner and printer won`t give results equal to own printing and developing.

 

To 1)

Please look at the pictures at www.adox.net (Adox Inc., Calgary), made and developed with Bluefire Police, a film with 80-100 ASA. These prints seem wonderful to me. Is this quality possible with APX or FP4 at a rated 100? I have asked this company if it is related to Fototeknika and how its film (which seems like Efke R50) differs from the Efke films, but have not yet had a reply. I am surprised that no one seems to consider Plus X Pan as an alternative.

 

To 2)

I think the consensus is right. I started years ago with a plastic tank with a crank and a long plastic sleeve for the film. I later changed to a little stainless steel tank with a stainless steel spiral, which I liked better. Have there been any improvements in the meantime to make things easier, more automatic and/or less light sensitive?

 

To 3)

I know that both Rodinal and Neofin blue were popular 40 years ago, though I never used them. Being that old, they`ll be full of nasty chemicals. As I`m allergic to nearly everything, the Clayton F-76 sounded good. Unfortunately, it doesn`t seem to be available in Germany. Does anyone know if this solution, under another trade name, or something similarly good and benign is sold in Germany?

As with film, it seems surprising that no one mentions Ilford or Kodak developers.

 

To 4)

I have looked at the web on this subject and find essentially the following: It seems to be generally recommended to use a hardener for conventional films, though Ilford say that this is not needed for its Pan F or FP4 and some say it tends to impede washing. Fotospeed make RH100 Rapid Hardener to add to their Fixer. Maco produces a hardening additive for developer, called Geladur. (Seems there might be a danger of impeding developer absorption, but maybe it`s harmless.) Kodafix seems to be the easiest solution, though, including a hardener and requiring no mixing. Unless anyone has some good arguments against it, I think I will try Kodafix, which contains a hardener, requires no preparation and is fast.

 

To 5)

Re scanner and printer, I have written something on this in the b&w printing forum. Even if printing quality isn`t as good as from your own darkroom, I`d really like to avoid the darkroom for prints. Just too tedious and dark. Also, I really don`t have the room for it. And my wife couldn`t share in the work, which she likes to do on the PC.

 

Thanks again for all the thoughtful and useful replies.

MFD

 

As a young man In the early 1960s I used to develop and print b/w,

using Panatomic X and Plus X Pan with Microdol. Since then I?ve only

shot colour negatives which have been developed in commercial labs.

 

I have some pretty nice Canon SLR equipment (F1, T90, FD lenses) with

which I am generally happy. Having recently retired I would like to

try b/w again, though without darkrooms and chemicals. I tried XP2

years ago, which was convenient, but not great, and am currently in

the process of shooting a roll of T400CN, which I am told is better.

We?ll see.

 

In order to become informed on the current b/w situation I just spent

two days researching b/w films, developers and printers on the

internet. To my (mild) dismay, I found that Panatomic X has been

discontinued, though Microdol and/or clones still abound.

 

While searching for info on Efke films I came across this forum.

Although I did find some info on Efke in the forum, I found more info

in a German photo shop?s website. As it didn?t seem there were too

many German speakers in the forum, I thought a translation might be

useful for some of you. (The notes in brackets are mine.)

 

- Begin quote -

 

Efke films are classics with high silver content and a fantastic grey

tonal range.

 

Efke films are produced from the old ADOX recipes on German machines

(note: at Fotokemika in Zagreb, Croatia). Film base is ORWO (note:

East German Agfa). The emulsion was developed by Dr Schluessner for

ADOX (note: Adox Kamerawerke, Wiesbaden) in the 1950s and quickly

became the favourite of travel and journalistic photographers. In

times when good exposure meters were still a luxury, the unbelievable

flexibility, tonal richness and fine grain of this high-silver

emulsion were very well esteemed. Pictures you make with Efke film

live. Efke captures the atmosphere of the original scene. Grain-

free enlargements are yours when you use Efke?s low speed films. The

wide latitude and consequent tolerance in developing makes Efke films

ideal for beginners in their own darkrooms and for schools.

 

All Efke emulsions are poured onto clear bases and hence can be

reverse-developed for b/w slides.

 

Even the 25 and 50 ASA films differentiate red and blue exactly

(note: presumably because panchromatic and there?s only one emulsion

layer). Efke films bring highlights and shadows onto your negatives

without spot metering. In the studio, you should have no problems

with bright spots or reflections.

 

Efke films are single layer. Only one layer of emulsion is poured

onto the base and hence the sensitivity is based solely on the grain

size (note: not on which layer the grain is in). The emulsion

becomes thicker, the higher the sensitivity (note: due to increasing

grain size). Neither flat nor pre-exposed silver crystals are used

(note: not like modern Tmax or Delta). You can?t make photos more

classicly than with Efke film. This is the way film has been made

since the beginning of the (last) century. Efke film is the last

representative of the old school. Efke films are consistent and

manageable. They?ll do everything you want, they behave well.

 

But be careful: all the Efke films actually have approx. twice their

nominal sensitivity, so please don?t overexpose or overdevelop!

Although, on the other hand, the film is pretty resistant to

underdeveloping. (Note: might make sense to adjust exposure to ? stop

higher). The developing temperatures have to be maintained, otherwise

the grain will become wrinkled. We recommend using a hardener after

the stop-bath! For developing times, see instructions or request from

us.

 

- End of quote. -

 

Since I have used conventional b/w film and still love the effect of

old photos (and movies) from the 30s and 40s, Efke film sounded like

the right place to start trying out (real, not C-41) old style (not

Tmax or Delta) b/w films. The wide tonal range and latitude sounded

especially good.

 

Hence I have today ordered 3 each of the 25, 50 and 100 ASA Efke

films. My plan is to take some bracketed shots of different types of

scenes (high and low contrast, high and low range of tonal gradation

and difficult surfaces like glass, clouds, water, skin) and to have

one roll of each speed developed in each of the three common

developers used by b/w labs here: Agfa Atomal, Kodak Xtol and Tmax.

With these combinations I should ? hopefully ? be able to see which

film speed, exposure, and developer is best overall and also for

specific scenes. The only thing that worries me a little is the

recommendation in the above to use a hardener after the stop bath,

something presumably not done routinely by labs (although I don?t

remember using a hardener with Pan X, an even older emulsion).

 

Presumably these b/w specialist labs should be okay for developing

negatives and the cost isn?t too great for developing and test

strips. They?re pretty expensive for prints, though. But according

to what I?ve read on the internet, printing in a darkroom is not

necessary anymore, given the quality of photo software available and

of the current scanners and printers.

 

MFD