christopher_tucker2

<p>Correction: in addition to scanning as "color neg" I also had the analog gain set to -0.8 in the second scan. Whoops.<br>

I suspect the white lines may be caused by slight warps near the film sprockets. I may try trimming the sprockets off the negative entirely.<br>

I've also put the negatives in a book to make them flatter. The negs were fairly flat to begin with.</p>

<p>The end strip isn't a factor here, since the bright areas are along the long side of the negative, not the short side. I presume that it would be the short side of the negative that would be affect if I had a problem of some sort with end frames.<br>

I have been searching the photo.net forums and came across a post ...<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00VNPN<br>

... where someone scanned their b&w negative with Nikon Scan 4.0.2 set with the film type as "Neg (color)" instead of "Neg (mono)" which is what I had been using.<br>

This advice works for me. As the other poster noted, I find the scanned image to have less contrast, so the histogram looks more normal and not clipped, and detail is kept in the edges.<br>

I also tried scanning the b&w negative as a positive. This also yielded better results although the brighter area is still present. <img src="http://claw.omgcats.com/~tucker/toolight-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hello, I am scanning a frame of 35mm Tri-X and the top and bottom of the scan is too light:</p>

<p><img src="http://claw.omgcats.com/~tucker/toolight.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I made the scan carefully. The negative itself appears to have consistent brightness. I used a Coolscan IV (ls-40) with FH-3 film holder. Could it be that the negative is too curled? The neg has a slight curve (like a strip of celery, but not that curvy!. The outside of the curve is the film base and the emulsion side is on the inside of the curve.<br>

I also wonder if the brighter areas is caused by reflection from the FH-3 edges?<br>

The negative appears to be properly exposed. It looks like it would be easy to print. I have processed thousands of rolls of b&w and this looks like a fairly optimal exposure. But perhaps it could be 1/3 stop overexposed? I don't have a densitometer.<br>

I've also read that film scanners prefer thinner negatives to denser negatives.<br>

Input appreciated! Thanks.</p>

<p>The 1D mark III allegedly has autofocus quirks: <br>

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068</p>

<p>I recently purchased a used Nikon LS-40 (aka Coolscan IV) from keh.com for $450 or so. I like it.<br>

From time to time I come across image on the Web that were scanned with the Epson V500 or V600 which seem to be quite good scans. The V500/V600 scanners are also not very expensive, under $200.</p>

<p>Matt Laur wrote: "<a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00XV8C?unified_p=1" target="_blank">First</a>, never use your LCD display to evaluate the exposure (other than as a way to look at the histogram, or check the blinky display for blown out highlights, etc)." </p>

<p>Yep! Pretty much sums it up my thoughts on the matter. </p>

<p>Trying to use your DSLR LCD screen for proofing will only get you so far. Learn to love the histogram and the blinky display.</p>

<p>Ever considered processing it yourself? Processing b&w film isn't too difficult ... watch your time and temperature. It doesn't cost too much, either. Then grab a neg scanner, like an Epson V500 or a Coolscan or what have you and yer set!</p>

<p>Dunno if you can "correct" a 1-stop exposure error in PS, etc ... I would word it this way: "since up to 1 stop under or over exposed is coped with somewhat acceptably in PS, LR, etc ..."</p>

<p>I buy my film and paper and chemicals from b&h online and process b&w negs and prints at home.<br>

There's hardly anything available in my city (pop. 18,000) other than ISO 200 and 400 Fuji color neg film and a few one-hour labs. I was displeased with my last trip to the one-hour lab ... they botched my color neg roll. I don't know what they did, but the colors look very bad. I plan on mailing my film to a dip-n-dunk pro C41 lab next time.</p>

 

<p>Sure ... I'd use matrix metering and aperture priority or manual exposure mode. Make sure the shutter speed is 1/500th at least; preferably 1/1000th. Faster is fine. Keep the ISO as low as possible. 85mm is pretty short. Wait until the players get close before taking a photo. I wouldn't bother taking a photo unless the players' height fills at least 50% of the viewfinder frame height. This means you'll spend a lot of time waiting for the play to come close to you. Use continuous AF mode and use continuous drive mode.</p>

<p>Yes, don't use canned air. It can spray oil onto the sensor. Use a rubber hand-powered blower bulb, or blower-bulb-brush with the brush part removed.</p>

<p>That will only get the easy dust off the sensor.</p>

<p>To get the stubborn dust off the sensor, order a Sensor Swab (google it).</p>

<p>Dust is a fact of life for DSLRs ... if it's only one speck, I'd say live with it until you have collected a dozen or so spots. Then use the sensor swab on it.</p>

<p>I am strongly of the opinion that gaps are fine. I think it is a mistake to think that a photographer must have *every* *single* focal length available.<br>

That being said, I love 50mm primes. Check ebay or keh.com for the 50mm f/1.8 EF Mark I lens, which has a metal mount and sturdy construction, unlike the Mark II 50mm f/1.8 EF. It's cheaper that the f/1.4 model.<br>

The 50mm Mark I uses an arc-form drive, however, which some people dislike. It never bothered me, however. AF speed is fast, and the motor makes a happy chirpy sound when operating.</p>

<p>Lots of people do. I process b&w film in my kitchen. Prints, too, although prints I start in my bathroom, then move to the kitchen for the final wash. It only takes me a few minutes to set everything up. I like b&w prints because they have a proven record of lasting a very long time. (I treat my prints in Kodak Brown toner).</p>

<p>I have some aluminum pop cans that I washed and cut the tops off of. I can easily pour 8oz of chemicals into them. I place them in my freezer to cool the chemicals if necessary. To heat the chemicals up, I place the cans in a container with warm water in it. I stir the chemistry with a thermometer to monitor the temperature.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter, as far as I know, as long as you fill the tank fully. (16 oz of chemicals, or whatever your particular tank capacity may be).</p>

<p>I just realized: the 1959 Nikon F has better color and high resolution than the Nikon D1, D100 and D2h. And the DSLRs are some 40 years newer than the F is!</p>

<p>I've been shooting the Nikon D1, D100 and D2h for the newspaper since 2000 or so. I've always had to wrestle with the color on the digital cameras. But color on 35mm film and scanned (which is what the paper used before the D1 came out) was not as difficult for me to work with.<br>

More modern DSLRs are much-improved as far as color goes. I'm tempted to upgrade from the D2h, but these digicams are pricey buggers.</p>

<p>The sensor is the achilles heel IMO. It cannot be changed. If you want to upgrade the sensor, you must buy an entirely new DSLR.</p>

<p>What about this quote:</p>

<p>"Color negative film sales have been very stable over the past year. Black-and-white is also doing extremely well. It almost feels that there is a very real resurgence for film. A lot of people that were completely digital are now accepting film again for certain things--or they do like the workflow. And the most exciting thing is to see the younger people adopt film. It's almost a generational thing. They have not shot film growing up, but once they do get a hold of film in a university, they just seem to fall in love with it."<br>

--Scott DiSabato U.S. Marketing Manager for Professional Film Eastman Kodak Co.<br>

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/09/generational-thing.html</p>

I've been a photo-j since 1998. I started at $8.80/hr at my first tull-time job at a weekly newspaper. When I left that job years later I was up to $12/hr. Now I'm at a small daily working full-time making a bit over $14/hr, with full bennies. In short, I don't recommend this career. It can be fun, however, which I suppose is part of the "pay." I'm considering going back to college to get into computer science or sumthin'.

I had the opposite experience with Nikon's El Segunda repair service.

 

I purchased a refurbished D1 in 2007 for $450 from Cameta. It appeared to be in excellent condition, but I quickly discovered the camera was "backfocusing" -- all photos were not sharp, but were instead focused behind where I wanted the image to be focused at. I sent the camera to Nikon. About 1.5 weeks later, the camera was returned to me and the backfocus problem was *perfectly* repaired ... all images were tack-sharp. The camera was under a refurbished warranty so there was no cost to me.

 

Unfortunately, a few days later I realized the light meter did not switch off after six seconds as it should, but instead remained active for as long as the camera was switched on, causing the battery to die faster than normal. I re-sent the D1 to Nikon, and after another week and a half, they shipped me a replacement body that is free of defects and is in excellent condition. I was not expecting them to do that, but I am very happy with the service I received.