User_1577653

<p>Les wrote:</p> <blockquote>That is unfortunate Jeff. Did you get a chance to have that banding fixed while under warrant? Was that something that developed over time?</blockquote> <p>Oh heck no - I bought the scanner used (and long after the warranty expired anyway)! But as far as I recall it had banding from the start. Banding with the 9000 is apparently less common than for the 8000 (the problem was supposed to have been solved in the 9000), but it does happen and I have heard of at least a couple others that have experienced it. In any event I hope no one will construe my comments as denigrating the scanner. I enjoy mine a lot and can highly recommend it!</p> <p>Ben, the images you posted tell the story I think. This kind of flare is almost certainly due to dusty/dirty optics in the scanner, which for the 8000/9000 usually means the fold mirror in the middle of the light path. It is a rather common issue for scanners in general, and you will find a fair amount of material written about it online. It is possible to clean the 8000/9000, and in many cases it can make for a huge improvement.</p> <p>Back to the question of scanning the full frame (including some rebate area), I think the comments above about frame size are probably the answer. The image sizes produced by different 6x6 cameras vary somewhat, and it may just be that yours are on the large end of that scale, at or near the limit of what the holders can accommodate. One thing that is curious though is the first image you posted – are you sure that wasn’t scanned with the rotating glass holder? I only ask because it looks just like what I remember you would get from the masks that are used with that holder. Specifically, the dark rectangle at the top due to the open notch in all of the masks.</p> <p>I'm not sure which is the most popular of the medium format holders, but if you end up trying to purchase one separately, you will find that the rotating glass holder (FH-869GR) is crazy expensive (if you can find one for sale at all), and the "regular" glass holder (FH-869G) only a little less so. If you want a glass holder, the most economical route is probably to upgrade the standard holder (FH-869S) by purchasing glass from <a href="http://fpointinc.com/nikon.htm">Focal Point</a> and installing it into the standard holder.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Unfortunately, I can say with certainty that at least <em>some</em> 9000's exhibit this banding problem. Mine does. If anyone is interested I can post samples of this banding, but the bottom line is that I have to use super fine mode in order to avoid banding anytime I am scanning at full resolution, just like users of the 8000.</p> <p>Curiously though, this fogging problem people talk about is something I don't think I have ever seen! I mostly use a glass-modified standard holder now, for which I never add any masking - not rebate areas or even the empty area past the end of the strip. Yet no apparent fogging, darker/lighter lines along edges, or anything like that. So I guess I'm lucky for that at least. :)</p>

<p>As far as I know Pentax never published lens performance data (MTF plots, resolution charts, and the like) for the 67 lenses. If they did, I would love to see that too!</p> <p>Probably the best we can do are old lens tests done by photography magazines and personal reviews. A good resource for such information can be found at <em>antiquecameras dot net/pentax6x7lenses.html</em> (sorry I can't post that as a link - apparently that URL is blocked due to spamming concerns). I find that site very helpful both as a general compilation of lens specs and for showing the differences among the different versions of the lenses. But it also shows results of several published lens tests reported by Modern Photography Magazine and a list of other reviews to check out.</p> <p>As far as people's personal ratings of our lenses, I find this <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-Medium-Format-Lenses-i5.html">lens review page</a> on the Pentax Forums website to be one of the most complete.</p> <p>That's pretty much all I have.</p>

<p>Wow! That's a very extensive list Luca. Thanks for taking the time to do this!<br> Ferdi, Luca has a link on that page to a much more user-friendly version, that I am copying <a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/35mm-legacy-lenses-sizes-and-specs.html">here</a>. </p>

<p>As far as I know there is no consistent way to view them directly as positives. If you don't have an enlarger or scanner, you might still be able to get the job done using a digital camera though - the idea is to photograph the negatives in good uniform backlighting, and then post-process the images to invert and adjust them. Of course there are a lot of little details involved if you want to get good results with that method, but there are people who seem to make it work for them. I have occasionally made quick "digital contact sheets" myself by just putting the negatives on my light table, snapping a picture with my Panasonic G1, and then inverting and playing around with the images in Photoshop. Nothing very high quality mind you, but still good enough for a quick preview of what I have.</p>

<p>Barry, I think 116/616 film is the most likely candidate. How are you measuring exactly? Width and length of the piece of film itself, or of the image on the film? That is a point of confusion sometimes. For reference, the most common <strong>image</strong> size you will find on 116/616 film is nominally 2½×4¼ inch (about 64mm x 108mm). But the dimensions of the actual piece of film would be a bit larger - in fact, pretty much exactly what you measured! So that is why I ask.<br /> <br />I have some old 116 film which I measured for comparison, and its width turns out to be about 68.8mm. That was using my cheapo caliper, but still pretty close to the "70mm base" most often quoted for the width of this film.</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>Just to clarify, when you say the "top" of each frame, does that mean along the long edge the film holder (either right or left side)? A bunch of other questions which may or may not be diagnostic:</p> <p>Did you get normal images previously, and this just started? Or has the scanner always done this with the 120 holder?</p> <p>Do you see the effect in the preview image also, or just in the final scan?</p> <p>If you do some pixel-peeping do you find that the edge of the line is soft, like a shadow? Or is the transition more distinct - so on one side perfectly normal pixels, then at the next pixel it is darker?</p> <p>If you scan with a much smaller crop - say, just the middle 1/4 of the image - do you still see the effect?</p> <p>Does this happen at both full resolution and lower settings? Also, does it go away if you scan with ultra fine mode?</p> <p>Interesting problem - hope I never have to deal with it with mine!<br /> <br /><br /></p>

<p>Just to throw out another possibility, you could consider the FD 300/2.8L lens in conjunction with the 2X-B teleconverter. That gets you to 600mm with a minimum focus distance of only 3m (adding the TC doesn’t change the MFD), so quite a bit closer than the 600/4.5 lens. This particular combo is considered something of a standout in that you lose surprisingly little (if any) image quality with the TC in place. It is a flexible approach too since the 300mm lens is such a highly regarded image maker all by itself, offering the possibility of 420mm and 600mm focal lengths as sort of a bonus, just by adding TC’s. Of course the downside with this approach is that you lose two stops of light due to the 2X TC, so actual maximum aperture is only f/5.6. But my experience is that f/5.6 is still generally quite do-able for most wildlife work.</p> <p>I have to at least mention one other possibility not yet discussed – the Canon new FD 150-600mm f/5.6L zoom. OK, I know it’s a ZOOM and you were looking for a prime, and it’s not exactly what you would call inexpensive either (if you can even find one for sale in the first place!). But its big 4X zoom range, excellent image quality, and its 3m minimum focus distance, all make it a very flexible and capable lens for wildlife and other applications. I use mine with and without TC's for wildlife (including small birds), for closeups, and for astrophotography.</p>

<p>There is a thread on APUG in which PhotoKlassik magazine's Henning Serger reports measurements made for resolution, grain, and other factors for a multitude of different films. On <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/131396-rollei-rpx-25-grain-resolution-5.html">this page</a> he lists results for 400 speed films. You will have to look earlier in the thread to get an explanation of their test methods, but the bottom line is that it looks like T-Max 400 was measured as the highest resolving among true B&W films. </p>

<p>Phillippe, it doesn't seem like those are a match for the S2/S3/S5. I happen to have a Lensmate brand adapter on my Powershot S3 and am making comparisons presently. The main thing I see is that all three bayonet tabs appear identically sized on mine and are symmetrically spaced. Also I think the total tube length you measured would be too short. Mine is more like 41mm, and just the internal threads clear the front surface of the lens assembly. </p> <p>If you are still wanting to compare dimensions or need other information, the Lensmate FAQ for the Powershot S2/S3/S5 (http://www.lensmateonline.com/newsite/S2.html) may be a good reference. </p>

<p>Yes, I think that first shot says a lot. It is pretty clear (to me at least) that the bright spots in that one are simply out of focus light sources or specular reflections - perhaps the setting sun, and a lamp of some sort down on the beach?. In the subsequent images the spots are significantly larger, but that can be expected just from having a different relationship between camera focus and distance to the source. </p> <p>The only thing that confuses the matter, as you pointed out, is that interesting 5-"blade" pattern in some (but not all) of the spots. It really does look a lot like a shutter blade pattern! I would note that the spots in the first image appear to be 5-sided as well. Because of that image, I am thinking it most likely that there is some structure in the camera which has a pentagonal shape and you are getting some interesting diffraction patterns with 5-fold symmetry. Alternatively, I suppose it is possible that the sources themselves are actually that shape (except obviously not if the one is the sun), but regardless, I am thinking that the most likely explanation is that these are all out-of-focus spots rather than some kind of reflection per-se.<br> <br />If you have an opportunity to take some daylight shots with objects at a range of distances, hopefully you will be able to troubleshoot whatever focus issues the camera may have. <br />Good luck!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Ok, that is strange then. Is there any possibility that this was caused by some light source in the scene that you simply hadn't noticed at the time? Given how out of focus the image appears, a distant source such as car headlights or a sun glint off of something reflective might look similar to this. Were there people in the scene? If so, that offers a whole host of other possible unnoticed light sources that could have been involved. </p> <p>The question of why it seems SO out of focus remains too, as it seems blurrier to me than I would have expected simply from a focus slide being moved to the near focus range. Could the focus shift be related to something like a loose lens that can shift in position? I have to admit that I don't know this particular camera in any detail so I am just grasping at straws here. But it is a fun mystery to try to solve!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Jym, can you clarify exactly which model camera you have? I only ask because the Brownie Junior Six-20 that I know is a box camera with a rotary shutter and a slide having two different holes for aperture settings (i.e., Waterhouse stops). With no leaf shutter or adjustable iris it is hard to think of what could be in that particular camera that might lead to what you are seeing in your image.</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>Craig, I agree with you, and would say that is good advice in general. However, in addition to periods of non-use or failure to get a finished roll immediately processed, there are other situations that can lead to confusion about which film is loaded. In my case, it has occurred on photo trips where I purposely brought multiple bodies, each loaded with a different film, so as to be prepared with options as situations were encountered. For example, trips where I was shooting both slides and B&W, different speed films for different lighting conditions, when comparison testing the different Velvias, etc.<br> (And yes, removable backs sure would be nice! But alas, that is one downside to the Pentax 6x7 system)</p>

<blockquote><strong> Does anyone achieve impressive results with today's options?</strong></blockquote> <p>I hope to be able to answer that soon! I am actually in the middle of testing some of the current offerings now, namely the Rollei Retro 80s and the 400s, with the intent of finding a suitable replacements for my Efke IR820c.</p> <p>As someone already mentioned, the quality of these films really is a cut above the now discontinued Efke. They are up to several stops faster with a 720nm filter, the grain is MUCH finer and smoother (especially the 80s), and they seem to have better quality control over the emulsion than Efke did. They also happen to be very interesting and useful films in their own right, i.e., just for regular old B&W photography (without the IR filter).</p> <p>One downside of all the current offerings (in my opinion at least) is that their spectral response doesn't extend quite as far into the infrared as the Efke did, and it remains to be seen whether I will be able to achieve as pronounced of an "infrared look" as I am looking for. Of course it is all just a matter of taste, and some actually prefer the more subtle effect these films achieve. Another thing I was aware of with these films is that they were said to be very contrasty and in fact challenging to achieve good shadow detail with. From what I have seen so far, that is pretty much true! With normal developers at least, the shadows due tend to block up very easily. (Again, some people prefer that starker look anyway!)</p> <p>Anyway, I have a few tricks up my sleeves to hopefully tame the contrast and also produce a stronger (more Efke-like) IR look. So we shall see! :)</p> <p>Jeff</p>

<p>Someone once gave me the suggestion to use different colored rubber bands as a code for the film type in the camera; the idea being to simply to stretch the appropriate colored band around the camera when loading the film, wherever it might be convenient. That was actually for a different camera (Pentax 6x7) but you might be able to make it work for your Mamiya also.</p>

<p>For anyone wanting more information about Argus TLR's specifically, there is <a href="http://www.arguscg.org/reference/tlr.shtml">this page</a> on the Argus Collector's Group website that Paul mentioned, which shows the full range of what was produced. There is also a page about <a href="http://www.arguscg.org/manuals/e/gaon-em-repair/">restoration of the Argoflex EM and conversion to 120</a> which concludes with a rather detailed breakdown of the history of Argus TLR production.</p> <p>It is amazing to me how dedicated some Argus fans are and how much information there is out there, for this range of mostly rather simple cameras. It turns out that there is even a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_Museum">museum</a> dedicated to the Argus Camera Company, it's people and products.</p> <p>Apparently some people just love Argus! And that's great, in my book. :)</p>

<p>The Argoflex Forty is another one of those underrated yet surprisingly capable old shooters. I bought mine thinking of it as sort of the "top end" in simple cameras, fully expecting its coated triplet lens and decent selection of aperture and shutter speeds to offer a lot of potential. And, I have to say I haven't been disappointed! As your pictures demonstrate, these little triplets can actually be rather decent image makers. Yours seem similar to <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum51/132451-samples-argoflex-tlr.html">these</a> pictures which are from a different Argus model, but the same lens. So far I have nothing but "test" images to show from mine since I undertook to do a complete overhaul and wanted to first see if everything was working right. But I hope to get some more interesting pictures soon, especially some IR images since one of my tests was actually to characterize it for IR film.</p> <p>In addition to the decent lens, I also like the Forty for its stylish good looks (IMO), its bright viewfinder - similar in size to a Kodak Duaflex - and a few other features that you don’t always find on simple cameras. These include a tripod socket, a cable release socket, a nine-blade iris, and a real pressure plate. Another thing I found after setting infinity focus was that the focus remained reasonably accurate over the entire range, being off by a respectable 4 to 6 inches at the closest focus setting (3-1/2 ft). Finally, the viewfinder accuracy is surprisingly good too, having a coverage about 5% larger than what the camera actually sees. (One of my pet peeves is inaccurate viewfinders).</p> <p>When you include name variants such as the "Argus 40" this model really is not that uncommon, at least not based on all the sales I have seen. Fortunately, the prices are often pretty reasonable too. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>The Ful Vue finder is very good,so much so that kids take digital shots through it. However I processed a film that had been taken on one of these cameras and there were 12 shots of the underneath of someone's chin and nose as they had used the finder as the taking lens and used the taking lens as the finder.......</p> </blockquote> <p>It took me a minute to visualize that... Oh my, that's hilarious!</p>

<p>Welcome to the forum! My take on the old roll of partly exposed film is that it is definitely worth trying to develop just to see what old images may be there! Of course I may be biased since developing found film is something of a hobby of mine. But as Ken pointed out it certainly <em>can</em> be developed with B&W chemistry, so if you have any experience with B&W development, it won't be too difficult. For inspiration have a look at <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm">Gene M.'s page of found film developments</a>.</p>

<p>I am confused by the use of the Pentax Auto 110 for a "low fidelity" project. Isn't that camera supposed to be a much higher quality imager than that? Just curious.</p>

<p>This is a way cool idea! Compared to the "standard" methods of wet scanning (for example the after-market kits that are available for some dedicated film scanners), this approach would seem to be significantly less messy, less fiddly, and ultimately more convenient.</p> <p>I find myself wondering if larger 120 format "sleeves" would also be practical, for use with medium format scanners such as my Nikon 9000. Aside from any considerations of improved scan quality or mitigation of dust and scratches with B&W film, I am thinking what a boon it could be for achieving film flatness with these scanners.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your first moon shot! I think I actually like the first one better, WITH the trees. :)</p> <p>This reminds me of what I learned shooting the 2012 transit of Venus across the sun - initially I was frustrated by the partial cloud cover and not being able to get the "clean" high resolution shot I wanted, but the partly obscured views turned out to be MUCH more interesting than a simple pair of disks would ever have been, with the clouds lending a sort of other-wordly atmosphere that I hadn't appreciated at the time. As for moon images, I find that no matter how technically perfect or high resolution my full moon capture may be, partial phases always come out more interesting. I think it is because the shape and the longer shadows both serve to bring out the depth in the body and make it seem less like just a flat disk.</p>

<p>I agree with Jon Shriver's answer - it could have been developed in C-41 chemistry by mistake, although it is odd that it didn't come back completely blank in that case. You really should talk to the people at Rocket and see if they can help resolve what happened. Do you have any receipt/paperwork which indicates what kind of processing was done? If they DID send it off to the marked "C-41 process" then that was their mistake, but it is also possible that mistake occurred at the actual processor. Either way, if it was mis-processed you should ask for your money back.</p> <p>Before this talk about color processing, I was thinking that the heavy grain and overall faint and washed out image looked a lot like a case of severe under-exposure. For very thin (underexposed) film I wouldn't be surprised to see streaking like this - the scanning and processing required to get a usable image out of the film tends to accentuate even the slightest unevenness in development. The fact that it is a color scan doesn't necessarily detract from the idea of simple underexposure either, as it may be the lab's default to always scan in color, in which case you can easily have some color cast like this. So maybe underexposure is still a possibility. </p> <p>As for the age of the film, I would say that it is not likely at issue at all - a couple years past expiration usually doesn't result in much if any degradation. Certainly not like what you are seeing here, anyway.</p> <p>But you have it right about learning to develop yourself. You will come up to speed a lot more quickly and less expensively this way. Good luck!</p>

<p>I'm with Grey - this looks to me like nothing more than dust and debris showing up in the scan, rather than anything having to do with the development process itself. </p> <p>Dust control is something almost everyone doing home scanning struggles with at least on occasion (if not as a constant battle!). So the first place I would look for a source would be your own scanner and the environment around it. How much experience have you had with this scanner, and have you ever seen something like this before? If not and you normally don't have any issues, and if there is nothing obviously different in the environment or in how you handled the film this time, then it could indeed be Costco. I know nothing about your local store of course, but you will find all sorts of accounts online of of labs with poor handling technique, including horror stories of technicians dropping film on the floor and whatnot. Before I gave up on them, I discovered that even proper camera stores often returned film to me with excessive dust or scratches. So it is certainly possible.</p> <p>By the way, I love the color in these scans - on my monitor just perfectly natural looking!</p> <p>Jeff</p>