aa

<p>Hello,<br>

I had about ~6 GB worth of photos on a 8 GB disk when they "disappeared". Someone offered to take pictures of our family, I setup the shot, handed them the camera and I think that they pushed some "extra" buttons.<br>

Anyway, I noticed that when I hooked the camera up to the computer that I was missing 1 days worth of photos (~200 pics) and the previous photos that were on the camera were no longer visible (I've already downloaded the vast majority of pics). However, when I continued to take pictures and also when I checked the amount of space remaining left on the disk - the camera said there was only ~2 GB left.<br>

cliff notes - I think that there are pictures on the 8 GB disk, but I can't "see" them or download them.<br>

What is my least expensive solution?<br>

Sincerely,<br>

Andrew Albright<br>

<a href="mailto:albrigh_1999@yahoo.com">albrigh_1999@yahoo.com</a></p>

I want the tripod to fit inside my LowPro Mini Trekker. Carrying a 501CM

Hassy and 80mm and 150mm.

 

Will a Gitzo GT1550T handle the Hassy. or will a Gitzo GT1540T with an Arca-

Swiss Z1 be better?

 

Thanks for your help.

What is the easiest of the flatbed scanners to use?

I have 35mm negative film that I would like to scan.

 

The only output is 400x600 pixel JPEGs.

 

I do not want to print from these scans, only view my negatives and post on my

crappy, semi-hobby website.

 

The two attributes that I'm looking for in a scanner are:

 

1. Fast output. Put the negatives in, scan them, turn into jpegs, and view.

(I'll only upload a few that I like)

 

2. Cheap. From reading this board, I'm guessing that I don't need a very

fancy scanner?

 

 

What flatbed scanners fit this bill?

 

Thank you very much for you help in this matter.

"J. Harrington USA (Massachusetts)

www.imagers.com"

 

Wow, I didn't realize that it was so expensive. A quick analysis shows that it would be less expensive to buy a $600 scanner than send out 20 rolls to have them scanned.

 

Thank you everyone for your help!

 

Andrew

Thanks for the help, and I check out the information provided.

 

I was OK with the quality of the scans when the scanner works, this was my main problem though:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I4fw

 

 

I think I might search for a Nikon Coolscan of better quality.

I am currently fed up with my crappy DiMage scanner to the point where I don't

even want to shoot pictures any more or develop film.

 

Are there any mail order places in the US that people would recommend. I could

send the B&W negatives cut in sleeves (I would prefer this) or rolled up. I'd

want back reasonbly good scans of reasonble quality. I just want to view my

work, make some low res jpegs, and collect negatives that I will ultimately

print (wet lab, old fashioned printing).

 

Thank you,

Andrew

What exactly am I looking to clean when I open it up? Moving parts? Anything with dust on it?

 

Thanks,

Andrew

Hello,

 

I have a DiMAGE Scan Dual IV Scanner, which locks up EVERYTIME I use it. (This

person describes problem very well.

http://www.carlmcmillan.com/dimagescandual_iv.htm) "1. One big quirk, is the

fact that sometimes the Scan Dual IV will scan holder after holder of slides

without any problems at all, then for no known reason it will lock up in the

middle of scanning a slide. "

 

The only difference for me is that it makes a loud grinding noise and the

holder doesn't look like it sits evenly. This happens every time now and the

scanner is unusable. And BH doesn't sell the replacement holder anymore

(presumably because Sony bought out Konica Minolta).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?

A=details&kw=MISHU1&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=233863

 

Anyone have any solutions? An old, broken scanner and want to sell me their

holder?

 

I enjoy developing my own black and white film, but this is such a hassle to

scan stuff, it's backed up my whole system.

If anyone is still following this thread, I have a question about expect prices for user M2 or M3's. I am still fiddling around with the IIIf's; however, I know that one day I will purchase a M series Leica. What can I expect for prices for a user M2 or M3?

I see everyone has wild imaginations!

 

I DID shoot digital and got some decent results, but I also took some color pictures with a real camera with real film. I hold out hope that my real camera will have taken better photos. (Canon G3 vs Canon AE-1)

 

Afterward it occured to me that if I just send them out, then someone in a photo lab could have access to them.

 

And it is nothing that interesting..just science. In the past I worked for a university and we were pretty open about unpublished results and I could send stuff out - in the unlikely event someone got their hands on the photos no big deal - they probably wouldn't even care.

 

However, now I work at a company and in theory I should probably get a confidentiality agreement in place. This might be a lot of work, unless I can find a lab that does this work routinely and already is familiar with the process, has their own form, and has a reputation established.

 

Lastly, I develop all my own black and white negatives, does any hobbyist really develop their own color negatives by hand?

Hello,

 

I took some pictures at/for work. Fuji NPH 400 Professional, color

negative film.

 

I need to send them out to a photo lab to be develop and have prints

made. Does anyone know of any professional labs that maintain a

strict level of confidentiality?

 

Sincerely,

Andrew Albright

IF I DID IT THE RIGHT WAY, THEN IT WOULD MAKE IT TOO MUCH LIKE WORK! I'M DOING THIS FOR FUN.

 

Besides, I'm out of that same film (I bought TriX as a bulk roll), I'm out of my original stock of Rodinal, and I want to learn how to use my rangefinder with no on-board meter.

 

I think with the very good advice so far, I've got a good shot at getting good results.

You'll see why it gets more murky...

 

"1. Rangefinder (Canonet QL17) vs Canon AE-1 SLR"

Provided both cameras are working withing spec and your exposures are correct, this should not be a real problem. The Canonet QL17 has a pretty decent lens. Mine usually delivers the goods quite nicely, but I don't often trust the meter. It's not bad if you can get hold of the correct 1.3 volt battery. The 1.5 volt alkaline button batteries will read high when new and drop as the battery ages. If you know about this you can compensate for it by measuring it against a good hand held meter. You don't say which lens you're using on the AE-1.

 

AE-1, I use a 50mm with f/1.8, the QL is f1.7 I think, so probably close enough.

On the QL17, I just guesstimate the exposure with a chart and past experience. I'm pretty decent at this and haven't had problems in the past.

 

"2. Switched to homemade Rodinal, although my homemade rodinal worked well when I tested it on EFKE 25."

 

Of course it's a possibility, but not a likely one. The developer works well with another film with the same timings that you used for the store bought variety? If so, that's not your problem. You didn't mention dilution ratio or the time you used. Ten to 20 minutes is a really big spread.

 

I used the Rodinal-like dev at 1:50 and 1:100. When I test my Rodinal vs original Rodinal on EFKE, I didn't see a problem. (I didn't compare both developers on TriX though).

 

 

"3. Bad fix"

 

If the fix were bad the film would be opaque to a degree. If the fixer will clear an undeveloped film leader in 3 minutes or so, it's still good.

 

I didn't check this time, which was only the second time I used this fix, but the first time for fixative the film cleared in 1-1.5 minutes. I did 5 minute fix both times.

 

"4. Time is off - I'm going by the Massive Development Chart"

 

They're not perfect, but as departure points the data in this chart are pretty good. Again, we'd need more specific details about the dilution ratio and development times you used when you got these bad results.

 

So it was 1:100 Rodinal on TriX for 12 minutes at 20C. (If you INCREASE the time of developer past what is recommended, then if anything you get MORE contrast?)

 

"5. Too little agitation?"

 

>Can't comment. No details about your agitation technique.

 

 

For first 30 secs continuous

 

@2 minutes

 

then at 5 minutes

 

No more.

 

What does too little agitation result in generally? Or can one make such a general statement?

 

 

"6. I start out at 20C, but with 10-20 minute development incubations, the temperature drops enough so that it is underdeveloped."

 

You may be on to something there. If the temperature is dropping considerably during development, the process will slow down. Keep your tank in a large tub of water between 1/2 and 1 degree F. above processing temperature between agitation cycles to stabilize that.

 

EXCELLENT IDEA!

 

"7. My Dimage Scan Dual IV is not working properly (although by eye the negatives just don't look that contrasty)"

 

Easy enough to tell. Use a known good negative and see what you get. If that's good, it's not your scanner.

 

ANOTHER EXCELLENT IDEA.

 

Attached is a picture of what I'm talking about. In real life the walls in this

About a month ago, I actually shot a roll of TriX at 400 (usually I

push it to 1600 and develop in TMax developer), and I really liked

the results. I'm pretty sure I developed it in Rodinal*

 

However, since then I've gotten really 'GREY' results. Very little

contrast. And a big problem I have is that I've changed about a

million things at once, so my troubleshooting menu is quite long.

I've read this forum enough to know that someone with a ton of

experience might point me in the right direction.

 

My short list

1. Rangefinder (Canonet QL17) vs Canon AE-1 SLR

 

2. Switched to homemade Rodinal, although my homemade rodinal worked

well when I tested it on EFKE 25.

 

3. Bad fix

 

4. Time is off - I'm going by the Massive Development Chart

 

5. Too little agitation?

 

6. I start out at 20C, but with 10-20 minute development

incubations, the temperature drops enough so that it is

underdeveloped.

 

7. My Dimage Scan Dual IV is not working properly (although by eye

the negatives just don't look that contrasty)

In a recent thread, I asked what lenses would have been found on a

1951 Leica IIIf. In addition to the Leica lenses, someone posted:

 

"However it was acknowledged at the time by professionals that the

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 in Leica thread-mount was in fact superior to any

of the Leitz offerings of the day, and was their overwhelming

choice."

 

I'm now fairly well versed on where to find Summars, Elmars,

Summitars, Summa-etc, but I don't know much about Nikkor screw

mounts, and I haven't been able to find much on the web. Or at

least, I do not know the notation of the different Nikkors (I gather

that not all are for screw mounts).

 

Can someone in the know point me to resources for

sellers/notation/serial number sequences for Nikkors from early

1950's that will work on a Leica IIIf?

 

Here is the little I have found:

Nikkor 5cm f/1.4

also sometimes listed as 50mm

And there appear to be "SC" and "C" versions.

 

Sincerely,

Andrew Albright

Terrence,

 

Let my clarify, I scan all my negatives with my digital scanner as a replacement for printing contact sheets. I think this is a faster way to view images, and anyway, I have limited darkroom time.

I grade any halfway decent images with a grade of B- or better.

 

I then print the original film negatives using a traditional darkroom on images with an "A" or better grade. Depending on any film/lens/exposure contrast issues, I can usually solve any problems with different enlarger filters.

Thank you for the excellent responses!

 

I shoot 100% black and white film, develop myself, scan negatives, and then print a few on polycontrast paper with appropriate filters.

 

I appreciate the advice on the contrast/coated issues as they will help in shotting/film/printing decisions.

 

For low contrast/older looking pictures, I think ultimately, I'd like to get a 1930's Leica body to go with the uncoated Elmar I have and add an uncoated 50mm lens. But for now, for my IIIf, I'll start looking for the lens mentioned here.

 

Thanks again for your help!

 

Sincerely,

Andrew Albright

I have a user IIIf that looks pretty nice. (The serial number

546,xxx indicates that it is a IIIF)

 

When I bought this body about 2 yrs ago, I was undecided on a lens

and some kind person on this list sent me a 1939 90mm Elmar, which

is the only lens I've used so far with this body.

 

I'd like to buy a lens from 1951 that Leica would have sold with

this body. However, it dawned on me that perhaps at the time Leica

just sold the bodies to people and they selected a lens separately?

 

From what I've seen on Ebay, Elmars, Summars, Summitars are my

choices? In 1951, if someone bought my IIIF, what would be the most

likely lens that would have been used?

Over Xmas, instead of losing my 3rd Leatherman with it's knife, I stupidly put 5-6 rolls of film in my suitcase. (Usually I just take it through security, and even if it goes through the belt xray'er, it is fine.)

 

Let me tell you all that YES, the new Xray machines nuke the hell out of film. When I get done using all the rolls of film and compare it to sister films developed at the same time, I'll post the comparisons. Interestingly, I had everything from EFKE 25 to Ilford 3200.

 

Also, equally interesting, was that it actually doesn't kill the film..it is still useable. What you get out looks like that horrible TMax film with a heavily colored background.

Word. I love the old Tri-X look.

 

I shoot Tri-X at 1600 more than I shoot it at 400.

I think that on a really bright day you are just going to have a hard time shooting "really wide open" on a fast lens with 1/1000th of a second....just like it is hard to shoot Tech-Pan inside at night with f16.

 

There are already some interesting ideas posted WRT to developing, but have you also considered filter combinations? A heavy red filter definitely reduces the amount of light coming in, but takes out your greys.

 

Also, I'm not sure if you print, but you might be able to overexpose at 800 and develop normally, but then try to pull out contrast with a more contrasty paper or use of filters. Digitally..there is always photoshop.

 

Lastly, to me, the Ye Old Tri-x look has some sort of slight toning, which I dont know much about (selenium, half-a-sepia).

 

Great thread!

Anthony Brookes:

 

I like the look of your pictures, they don't seem to be straight black and white, more "old" looking. However, they don't seem to be quite "sepia". Are you toning them?

I think that composition is huge in "the perfect portrait".

 

My opinions:

 

1. It is always better to have a "prop" in the photo. Coming to mind are the portrait of Ansel Adams outside of his darkroom. HCB's photos of Faulkner with his two dogs or the one of the actor with cig and jacket collar turned up.

 

2. Off-center. It seems like a dumb composition rule, but if you look at the photos above, all the ones with a single person that are offcenter are the best. The exception being the NO picture, but the subject there is taken off-center.

 

3. Depth of field. I think usually you are better off with a wide-open apeture in order to make the background at least a little bit blurry so that it doesn't distract.

 

It is so tempting just to put the person in the middle of the frame....it always seems like the "right" thing to do.

So I'm halfway across the country and I found a store that had

excess Rodinal in stock. I bought 3x500ml bottles of said Rodinal.

 

Now I have to get it and myself home. I'm flying back tomorrow and

I see three choices.

 

1. Check it in my suitcase.

2. Send it to myself via USPS or UPS.

3. Wait until I can drive it home.

 

Notes:

1. http://www.myregs.com/dotrspa/goto.asp?

ref=CFR49_I_C_175_A_25&shopos=no

 

This would seem to indicate that ANY hazardous materials are not

allowable on airplanes, either checked or on person.

 

 

2. I can find nothing at all that prohibits sending properly

packaged hazardous material in small quantity. I have the original

packaging that has all chemical information on the shipping box.

Surely I can ship this via ground? I seem to recall people buying

Rodinal and getting it shipped to them in the mail?

 

 

3. Longer option.

Josiah,

 

I just started reading about the uncoated lens and the "signatures". The only readily-avaiable scan of a negative from this camera/lens is my self-portrait shot with the camera's back to a bright/low sun.

http://www.photo.net/shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=1891327

 

(Clearly my arm isn't long enough for an in focus self-portrait, but I'm not sure about flare).

 

I'll dig through my negatives from this camera/lens and see if I see any "signature". When I get a Summar in the next few weeks, I can do some better comparisons to my Canon AE-1 and its 50mm lens.