rich815

>>>>I have one of these with a Carl Zeiss lens. Is it worth anything?

 

Sure. You can see some on eBay. Someone has one listed for $250 but it won't sell (as he tried at $285). But generally it depends on condition. If it has issues likely not much more than $20-30 USD. If it's working but not checked or CLA'd recently, maybe $60 or so. If it's been CLA'd and proof can be provided perhaps $100 or so, maybe more if pristine. I got mine for $75 USD.

I've been using Efke 25 in 4x5, no issues you describe.

I use both EpsonScan and Vuescan with my Epson 4990 (and my 2450 before that and my 1200U before that). Both are good and I find often one better than the other depending on the film I'm scanning (I use almost 90% traditional silver B&W films). Usually I'll try Vuescan first and if I do not like the results I'll see what the results are with EpsonScan and go with which is coming out better. I find that with Dust Removal off that the speed of both is comparable. It's when Dust Removal is ON that EpsonScan is VERY slow compared to Vuescan. However this is a moot point because with traditional B&W you should never use Dust Removal. If you find that EpsonScan is very slow you should make sure the Dust Removal is OFF.

 

Another point: if you find Silverfast confusing or with a steep learning curve and you want to avoid that then forget Vuescan. Do not get me wrong, Vuescan is not that difficult but intuitive and user friendly "out of the box" it is not. But for someone willing to spend about 30 minutes or so hands-on experimenting and reading through the Vuescan online manual you will get up to speed and be richly rewarded as it's a wonderful program.

 

Lastly, do not look for perfect results from your scans right out of the scanner. Scanning is for capturing as much info as you can from the neg and then using a more powerful program like Photoshop to do your subtle tonal and contrast tweaks, burning, dodging and masking. What you get from your scanner should be an initial 16-bit file that looks flat and sort of dull and importantly with no highlight or shadow clipping----just perfect for a "raw" file to start your digital darkroom work from there...

I'm considering purchasing a nice used Zeroimage 4x5 pinhole camera and I'm

being given the opportunity from the seller to include (for more $$) a couple

of Polaroid backs (545 Pro and the one that takes the 600 series). Been

reading that Polaroid has stopped making the 55 type and 600 series and pretty

much all their films. Rumor abounds about someone, maybe Fuji, buying the

licensing and continuing to make them but it seems far from certain. The

price for the backs is ok ($245 for both) but I question whether I'll need

them as I plan to shoot mostly Acros or Efke 4x5 sheet film though if there

was a chance of the Polaroid films or a reincarnation of them being available

would want try/use type 55 for negs and the 600 stuff for the emulsion

transfer process. Should I grab the Polaroid backs too or not waste my money?

One guy who fixes TLR's and such warns against buying perfect cameras that are old and never been used. And he's not all that keen on Yashica's either.

 

http://ikonrollieflexrepair.com/page04.html

 

I'd leave this one for a collector who wants to put it on a shelf. Or if the price is good get it and sell it on and then buy a good user.

Yes, at that price I'd return it. If it was something under $80 USD (which I have seen the AE ones go for, and the MM's not too much more) I was going to suggest shooting with it to see if you found the issues had any effect, which you may not. And then it might not have been worth the trouble of the return. I have some lenses which look surprisingly poor and awful when held to the light like that but which perform beautifully. But then again that clearly is NOT mint! Good luck.

What did you pay for it? Is it the AE or MM version?

No doubt you cannot go wrong with a Nikon 9000. I have one and it is a truly phenominal machine. Yes, quirky and fiddly to use but perhaps as best as you can get short of a drum scan (ir if you can find a Leafscan 45). That said though I get tremendous results using my Epson 4990 as well (pre-cursor to the latest V700 and V750). People who categorically state that using a flatbed for your medium format is to get 35mm results are flat wrong. I scan my 35mm with a Nikon 4000 and even with my 4990 my medium format scans have much better tonality and a clear "medium format" look to them.

 

Here are some examples of scans from my Epson 4990 (and with the stock holders too):

 

This one shot with my Fuji GA645 with Fuji Acros:

 

http://www.fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=3829&full=1

 

This one with my Rollei SL66 and 80 Planar lens:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/AlbanymacroBenRolleiSL66180Plana-1.jpg

 

this a 100% crop of the latter one:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/AlbanymacroBenRolleiSL66180PlanarSC.jpg

 

This one, color, taken with my Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar on Fuji Pro 400H:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/BenchinesenewyearparadeSolanoAveAlb.jpg

 

100% crop of the one above:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/BenchinesenewyearparadeSolanoAve-1.jpg

 

All print beautifully up to 12'' wide and should do ok larger too (though I have not tried). The Epson's are easier to use and while perhaps you can squeeze a little more sharpness from the negs using the 9000 with proper post scan sharpening you will get most of the way there.

 

Get a 9000 is money is not such a big deal and you indeed want or need the absolute best. But do not hesitate to consider the Epson flatbeds either as only a slight compromise.

I remember reading somewhere that Ilford did (or maybe still does) suggest NOT to pre-soak due to some kind of chemical on the film that does help in development absorbtion. I often use Barry Thornton's DiXactol Ultra and Exatol Lux developers and in his instructions he would suggest doing a pre-soak particularly if the temperture of the steel reels and canister are colder than the developer temp to be used. I tend to pre-soak when using those developers as they can be prone to streaks or unevenness in development and since pre-soaking have not had that issue. That said I cannot remember pre-soaking my Acros which I mostly develop in D-76 and do not have unevenness problems.

I have a Nikon 9000 and am very pleased overall with it. I have heard

numerous times though that for B&W work the leafscan's diffuser and scanning

does an excellent job for dmax, smoothness of tonality and lack of grain

issues (which can be problematic for the 9000). I have someone locally

selling an entire Leafscan 45, Mac G3 and monitor package for a pretty

attractive price. Most threads on the Leafscan here are pretty old. Anyone

compared directly the results of B&W scans from the Leafscan 45 vs. the Nikon

9000? Since I do about 95% B&W work I'm thinking I might not only be satisfied

with the Leafscan for my MF B&W scans but maybe even more than what the 9000

can give? Any experiences or thoughts on this? Thanks....

"talking to a professional photographer, he's mentioned that within 3-5 years film products will cease to exist and we'll be stuck with digital. "

 

People have been saying that same thing on this site for about 4-5 years now....

Hello all,

 

I'm posting here hoping a member in Beijing might reply. I used to live in

Beijing from 1998-2001 and knew all the little hide-away photo shops where one

could get the better films and darkroom supplies. But with all the changes in

China recently I fear that many shops may no longer be there. My wife is in

Beijing now visiting her sister and she's looking to pick-up some ERA B&W 35mm

rolls and some GP3 120 for me on the cheap. When I lived there there was a

decent shop north of the Wangfujing main shopping district that was in a small

alley behind a large bookstore about 1 block north of the west end of the

Longfu shopping alley. It had good developing service, pro Fuji and Kodak

films and then some (There was also a tiny large-format supply store a few

stores east of it). I remember them also carrying Fuji 100SS, Shantou ERA and

GP3 at good prices.

 

Anyway, the wife is there for another week and she's going to hopefully load up

her carry-on for me. Last I remember ERA and GP3 could be had for something

like 6 RMB (0.80 cents USD).

 

Sources for film in Beijing has been discussed on this site in the past but as

mentioned things are changing so fast over there that I'm wondering if the

place I mention is still the best shop to go for this, or does anyone have any

recent experience of a place that might be either cheaper or a better place to

buy in Beijing? Thanks much.

Thanks guys. From process of elimination I've found it is Fomapan 400

as I have found a couple of them in the batch of Fomapan 200 I bought

(out of their packages, nothing but plain white wrappers.

 

Charles, I did think of that too, and guess what? The leader info is

the SAME as the end tape info(!)

 

I developed it using times for Fomapan 400 in D-76 stock and it came

out fine. All the edges say though is U L T R A and 4 0 0 and 0 0 3 8.<div></div>

Thanks Jiri. Yeah, the curl. I get that severely from Fortepan and Bergger films too. Too bad they are such nice films!

Thanks. I have some Fortepan 400 which has some similar markings but clear shows it to be Fortepan 400. Got 4 rolls of Fomapan 200 in a mixed batch lately but for the life of me cannot remember getting a roll of Fomapan 400 and have no others I can find. But by virture of process of elimination, and comments here, I guess it must be Fomapan 400. Thanks.

I've been buying a number of odd lots of film lately and put this roll into one

of my Rolleiflexes a few weeks ago. Other than setting the dial to 400 to

remember how to expose it I did not make any other notes as to exactly which

film it was. Now I've finished the roll and have discovered no identification

as to which film it is, other than, as you can see, B&W Pan 400. Anyone

recognize it and can ID it for me?<div></div>

If 1:2 at 24C degrees is for 16 minutes then 1:3 will be for even longer! Who wants to sit around and wait for that? Is there a reason you MUST do 1:3? Is there a reason you must do Perceptol? Don't get me wrong, I really like Perceptol but have found the Acros in D-76 is quite nice. It's even good in Rodinal. Either way I'd not "experiment" with your travel photos on a dilution and time that certainly does not seem to have been widely worked with...

Gorgeous shot Christopher.

But did you compensate for reciprocity failure? I would have added at least a stop, maybe 1 1/2 for exposures that long with that film, and that's after making sure bright lights were not over-influencing the camera's meter.

All my Rollei 2.8E Planar shots here:

 

Unless the parking lot was very bright you're going to be way under-exposed at f/11-22 for only 2-8 seconds.

Well, mine still does it (batch scans), all six, at full resolution. Just did it. The way I described above.

"if it works, why not. it isn't exactly rocket science."

 

I never thought making an accurate fresnel was all that easy!

Rollei 35

 

Olympus XA

 

Vivitar 35EM or 35EE

 

Balda 35 CS

 

I have all four and get wonderful images from them all.

This is an amazingly subjective thing. We can all give opinions but in the end it's what you desire in the look you want from your B&W portraits. Some people, for example, love Tmax, I personally do not. I really like HP5+, FP4+, Plus-X, Delta 100 and Tri-X. But for different reasons. I happen to think Tri-X and Delta 100 can both look great for portraits but they have a very different look. Best you shoot some of each, experiment with different developers and see what you get and what you like. It's part of the fun, and part of evolvoing as a B&W photographer.

 

(my only suggestion to forget HP5+ in Rodinal, some like it, I certainly do not; but love Tri-X, FP4+ and Plus-X in Rodinal! And I love Delta 100 in D-76; have not been able to get myself to really like Delta 400 much in anything but have a few shots that look ok with it....see? Too much subjective opinion let alone differences in developers, techniques (development and exposure), lighting, subject matter, etc.)