wogears

Scanning over 2400 spi on a flatbed is pretty much a waste of time. For slides, I would get a Plustek or something similar.

I thought that Ilford built their own lab?

Yeah. I think the film end slipped out of the take-up reel.

Mamiya 7

The negatives look like this, correct? No detail, etc? Were there any strange things about the way the film was wound? Are the five "good" negs all in a row, or randomly scattered on the film? It's hard to imagine a TLR doing this to the negatives. The path from lens to film is straight, and it's a leaf shutter.

No, I mean this is a real thing.

B&H had short-dated Provia 100F for about $7 per roll not long ago. I have some, and the rolls I shot were fine. I'm waiting to get E100.

I asked. She said yes. The dog licked me.

There are ways to make it work.

Here she is.

The true resolution of an Epson V700/800 series flatbed gets close to 2400-2800 spi, with optimum holder height and ANR glass for flatness. Some claim wt-mounting increases the resolution, but I think it just makes for cleaner scans which "look sharper".

My F3 HP is my favorite 35mm film camera. I shot two rolls of Provia 100 with it recently, and got 72 correct exposures on "A" mode. I love the smoothness of the wind mechanism and the "click" of the shutter. With the H2 screen, I seldom miss focus.

It is NOT an either/or situation.

The Darkroom dot com, Dwaynes, North Coast Photo, etc. I use Alkid Photo Lab. You can do this at home, of course, but I see no reason to. YMMV.

My father let me use his Leica. I broke it, because I didn't know about three-ply threads when I was nine. It was repaired, and I continued to use it. He taught me the basics, and I learned "Sunny 16" from the film boxes. My mother taught me a little about composition (according to her, Dorothy Norman was a buddy). I took a useful class about 1964, which resulted in my first published photo. We had a darkroom for the class, which resulted in my almost achieving mediocrity as a printer. I was lucky in that after college I had access to an amazing collection of books at the local library.

Did you test this on a tripod with VR off? If not, you need to.

I can now certify that an F/F2 screen WILL fit correctly in an F4 screen frame. Focus with the screen agrees perfectly with the Green Dot of Doom, so registration would appear to be correct. It's so damn dark out today that I can't check the exposure easily, but the Nikon chart indicates no compensation necessary with the lenses I have.

I didn't make it, as usual. :) Congratulations to all who did.

I believe there were G screens for F4, but no H. I'm looking at some reasonably priced G2s.

Hey, that's cool. No problem here. I do check the focus out with cheap film before I shoot for serious, and I make sure that the screen "pops" in without force and rests correctly on the registration pins (if any). Also, F4 screens are rare, and the less common ones go for USD 100 or more. Sucks.

I'm very familiar with that site. It has the following: "WARNING: F screens are NOT compatible with the F3." This is actually not true. The F/F2 screens will fit in an F3. They will be correctly registered--I get accurate focus with mine. The F/F2 frame does not have the "lip" that an F3 screen frame has. In order to remove an F screen frame from an F3, you have to remove the finder and push up on the screen with a soft object (cotton bud works).

Hello! I'm currently using an H2 focusing screen in my F3 HP. It's actually an F/F2 screen, which fits properly in the F3 finder (you do have to push it out thru the mirror box to remove it, but it is in perfect registration). I love this screen. I get sharp focus about 90% of the time with lenses from 85mm to 180mm. I am now wondering whether I can put an F/F2 version of this screen in an F4 frame (this works with F3 screens). Anyone ever tried this? Thanks, Les

Honest and truly, WHO CARES? This ridiculous fascination with gear has almost no bearing on actual photography.

These are the good restorations, and very much worth seeing.