lightminer

<p>http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html#_1</p>

<p>I'm struggling with this on a 3008wfp - very similar. I did Spyder3 and all is wonderful, perfect, within photoshop, but then on the web and sending files to other people things go haywire. I think the above post shows exactly what I'm seeing.</p>

<p>Hey - did you guys change RGB settings to do the profile? I'm not sure if that is involved in some of these issues, but I know going from SoftProof/WindowsRGB to MonitorRGB will show an A/B of the problem.</p>

<p>Yeah - you want Lithium. I've done tons of shooting with the Mamiya 645afd in snowy conditions. I even bring it cross country skiing to get deep in the woods shots. Beyond the Lithium batteries, yeah, you do need to be careful where you put it and where you keep it. I keep it folded inside my jacket when possible (lense cap on, of course), and actually bought a soft-side ice-cooler at REI that is about 200% the size of the camera to keep it in inside my backpack. So, when using it, I have a great place to keep it on the snow along with a lense or two. <br>

<br /> With some precautions, it should work completely fine. I think I've been down to 10 F or so? And again, I'm talking 6 hrs or so away from the car.</p>

<p>Some places rent the Flextight Scanner - this is a great way to go. And if they rent it by the hour, you can, in an extremely economical way, get scans above all the scanners mentioned in this thread so far in quality (okay, I didn't read the whole thread, but most of the ones mentioned). And, as you are a student, this will be more rare, but I would recommend drum scanning at least 1 or 2 images a year at least just to see what happens. Its amazing.<br>

I do 3 levels, when I develop my film for an extra $20 a roll (so 220 is better than 120 as they don't change the price with number of images) I get a CD with a 3 - 5 MB jpg for each image - this gives me some idea of what I'm dealing with. Then, I use the Flextight for ones that seemed to go well, and lastly I drum scan the ones I want to print large.<br>

Of course, I print big, that is part of my thing, the drum scans of 645 printed on a Lightjet at 6 feet by 4.5 feet look awesome at 1 foot away. You can definitely see grain from a few inches, but even at 1 or 2 feet it is smooth again.</p>

<p>Anyone shooting Ektar 100 at 50 for more shadow detail? I've heard it is minus two and plus five in latitude, so going to 50 may not hurt highlights very much (unless that is the nature of the image you are taking) but may help a bit with shadow detail. I have heard from 2 people that shooting at +1 or +2 in non high dynamic range environments results in nearly identical prints.</p>

<p>Yeah - if its just one shot go through the drum scan process (won't kill your budget for one image), you might find it interesting for the other stuff you do. Take your time and do the absolute best you can with the V700 (wet mount perhaps?) and then get it drum scanned to see the difference. Night and day! A lot of film vs digital discussion are based on Nikon or similar dedicated film scanners for the film, which is good, but not in same league as drum scanning and therefore the discussions are flawed (unless you define the problem as a large number of images per year and a fixed budget that eliminates drum scanning).<br>

9 feet in one direction is fine, its the 2nd direction that will be tough. You might consider doing 2 or more prints and joining them (LightJet goes pretty wide) when you add backing or however it will be mounted. You should know how it will be mounted before printing. You might also call some trade show printing places - they are a different kind of printer that do lower quality and larger printing as their mainstay. It will be far lower quality - but at 9 feet by 9 feet do you need photographic paper quality? Who is going to be within 1 or 2 feet of that kind of print? So - trade show printing is probably going to be your process here.</p>

<p>160C is supposed to be more saturated and higher contrast than 160S. I've read a few places that said, contrary to conventional wisdom, that both have the same dynamic range. Usually higher contrast comes at the expense of dynamic range/latitude.<br>

Does anyone know the actual stops for the 2 films that they can attain?</p>

<p>My wife just got it (I'm a photoshop person) and on the cover of the box there is a green sticker that says "Includes Bonus Training Software" - and I can't find exactly what that is referring to. It does come with on-one stuff for free and some have said that is what the sticker refers to, but that isn't training, that is free plugins. Anyone know what they are referring to?<br>

Thanks!</p>

Tried to attach image to previous response, didn't work - so attached here!<div></div>

Hmm... Given that this is heavier equipment, I'd suggest that it works really really well for wildlife! There is the 300

and 500 and the 2x extenders (the glass is supposed to be better for the N 2x extender - so that means get the AF,

not ProTL, but if budget doesn't allow then you'll still be great) and the exotic 300 and 500 (with lower max aperture)

which aren't sooo slow after adding the 2X.

 

As long as you know ahead of time about the weight and size, I'd definitely say go ahead with the Mamiya stuff for

wildlife. Now - I do agree that 35mm is better for wildlife for 3 reasons - 1) size/portability, bounteous choices for

very long lenses (500mm+), and - and this is important too - very very good Autofocus. It is very hard on an

autofocus to track flying birds and all that. Mamiya doesn't do so well at that in real time.

 

But your results will be awesome assuming that things are in focus and that you can carry the camera. If you have

the intention of becoming a wildlife photographer, I might go 35mm. If you want to include wildlife as a part of your

photog experience, then go MF no problem at all.

 

All the traditional benefits will apply - incredible amazing enlargement potential and some would suggest that MF

glass is better than 35mm in very slight subtle ways (I've heard microcontrast, '3d' look/feel, wide angle lenses are

better). I don't want to get into that as that is a topic people will argue endlessly, but suffice it to say, you will

benefit from all the MF perks if using it for wildlife.

Here is one image from that day. This is the 4.5 manually focused. You can see all the branches that kept it from

being able to focus automatically. Note I have another at a lower f-stop, and you don't always want everything out of

focus. Another thing to think about for the big one, 2.8 may be too small for many images.<div></div>

This is along the lines of what I was looking for:

 

A more real concern is a problem with the way in which mirror lock-up works. When set to the MLU position the first press of the shutter release (button or via electronic cable release) moves the mirror up, and the second actuates the shutter. What I quickly discovered is that if you press the shutter button the second time for a fraction of a second too long, the mirror will pop up again after the exposure rather than simply return to the viewing position. This must have happened to me 20 times in one week, so it's clearly more than just an occasional issue. According to Phase One this problem was missed during initial testing and will be corrected as production of the camera ramps up.

 

I was also a bit frustrated by how the MLU and self timer work in combination. One turns on the self time and selects the duration, from 2 seconds to 60 seconds. So far, so good. But then to take a shot with MLU one needs to press the shutter release to raise the mirror, and then press it again to activate the self timer. Once I understood how it worked, it worked, but it was annoying to have to remember to press the release a second time, unlike any other camera with which I am familiar, all of which only require one press.

 

 

from a review of the P1 here:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase645.shtml

Bogdan,

 

I wonder if the 2x extender for the Pro TL is not quite as good as the newer one? Maybe the 'c' version won't degrade things as much... Not sure. The manual, if it warns you, is probably warning you about the Pro TL version. Just a hopeful idea.... (that the new 2x won't cause as much degradation :) ).

I just rented the 300mm 4.5 (not 5.6, that is mistake) and the autofocus was useless! It is true I was trying to take a picture of an animal with branches around it, but each time I was ready, it would start zooming from one end to the other (hunting) and not settle down and never take a picture. In disgust, I set it to manual, and missed the main picture I wanted, but got some great other ones. I'll post when they get back (yes, I still shoot film!). Didn't get a chance to try with birds - which if they are flying in clear blue sky won't have tons of elements in front and behind to confuse the autofocus. But I have to say the manual focus was awesome and easy to use - much easier than the 80 or other lenses I've used (perhaps because of the short depth of field it is really obvious when you are out or in focus?). But, anyhow, this alleviated my fear of long-lens manual focus, and I am know a manual focus fan.

 

That makes the 2.8 very tempting........

True 35mm is an 8X12 not an 8X10. Most people don't know this. Ask for a 'full frame' print and you'll see - most labs are cropping you at 8X10. 'Full Frame' developing is the key.

 

8X12 is 2X3 or 0.6666.

 

MF is 6X45, or 12X9, so 9X12 vs 8X12. 9X12 is 3X4 or 0.75.

 

So the difference in aspect ratio is 0.09. I don't think that is much of a difference. Just find the lens mm that matches what you used in 35mm. My 45mm lense in MF is equal to a 28mm in 35mm for example.

Just by way of sharing data to this discussion, I can do a drum scan of my Mamiya 645 film to get 80 megapixels - and at 100% looks pretty darn good, I wouldn't say mush or bad at all (neither is it crisp), and with drum scans relatively expensive the other still-high-end option is renting a Flextight 5 for $55/hr at local store - more and more places are doing this, and those scans come out at 40 mega pixels, and also seem quite nice at 100%, although of course not as sharp as at 80% or whatever.

Cool. Yeah - I thought so, you can see the letters MLU on the button in the photos of the new camera when you enlarge them. I wonder if it auto-engages AEL, or if you still have to hit the AEL recessed button? I understand the AEL need, but it would be nice to be able to just move it into MLU mode, shoot, and go back to S. I guess we'll find out the exact workflow in a month or so!

 

 

BTW, I had a moon image the other night bracketed at -6 and still didn't get clear moon. Should have gone to -9 or -12...

 

Here are 2 shots also taken that night with a blooming moon (rather than cut, precise moon - although it this case not necessarily better to have the -9/-12 version - the bloom might be considered nice):

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7102262&size=lg

 

and

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7102171&size=lg

Rich, you may be interested in the 'info' image on my images. It is a lot of image sharpness data from various lense tests I could find including the ones you reference. I incorrectly labelled the 35 as 30, but other than that the info is correct. You'll notice this data confirms the f11 diffraction sharpness falloff that many argue about.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=759901

 

As far as the 300/500 go, I understand that the APO versions are amazing, with the non-apo versions as you describe them.

 

 

 

I'm still wondering if the 2.8 300 is sharper than the 5.6, or is the difference just that it opens to 2.8? And how does the 2.8 compare at 2.8 versus 5.6? I agree with Rich above that the other lenses are best at 5.6 in general, and that is what I'm wondering - is this particular one better at 2.8? Because the only reason to build it is if it is stellar at 2.8 itselt.

Ah, it explains it here. It increases distance between film and lense, so it is harder (impossible) to focus at infinity.

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=90f08a9fa26259790bc6fc1c6e7118bd&showtopic=22834&st=20

The new Alpa 12 seems it will tilt as well as shift up/down and left/right.

 

The brochure says "ALPA?s new ALPA 0? to 6? continouously

adjustable tilt adapter. This new tilt adapter is usable

with all lenses made by Schneider-Kreuznach of

80mm focal length and longer in their new ?short

barrel? versions - 80, 90, 100, 120, 150, 180, 210 and

250mm."

 

Anyone know what would happen if I try to tilt with, say, the APO Digitar 47?

 

Why wouldn't it work?

Oh, and Igor - it seems that Nikon makes a 300 for the Mamiya camera! (unless I'm reading it wrong?) f2.0 - larger than the Mamiya one, f2.8. Also very expensive, of course. There is a used one on auction site for 14k!

Okay, cool, this is exactly the kind of stuff I'm trying to figure out before buying anything! Thanks!

 

Is there anyone out there with photos on photo.net with images from either of these lenses?

I've played with it - that works great. On any of them. The main reason it works well is you get the +1/+2 etc. in the window, that actually makes the braketing thing really easy.

 

Anyone with afdIII know how mirror lock up works?

Bogdan - small note - I'll be using the Mamiya adapter, not 3rd party, so it is supposed to be really good (and is quite expensive!) so hopefully that will help, but that is good to know that potentially the 2x adapter will bring down the quality.

 

For Mamiya MF if you want long shots you have to do this, they have 300mm lenses - and the 2.8 in particular says it was made to be used with the 2x adapter, they also have 500mm lenses - I don't know anyone who has ever seen or used it, its super expensive, and still only turns into 310mm in 35-mm speak. That is quite a monster with the 2x, though, turning into a 620mm in 35-mm speak! And that one starts at 4.5 to be clear.

 

Looking at a lot of images of birds/hawks/eagles, etc. in 35mm it looks like you have to get to 300/400 to really get them well. So that means either using the 500mm straight or the 300 with the 2x adapter. The 300 alone is only 182, which is not enough. You end up cropping the negative and might as well be using a 35mm neg.

 

I am aware that this range is really the purvue of 35mm - this super long range stuff, but the MF guys have the lenses, so I want to give it a try!

 

Igor - thanks for the comments. I can imagine that doubled it is harder! You said a few things that are exactly what I want to know, that the difference between final f-stops of f11 and f5.6 do make enough difference in shutter speed shooting with slow film (which is exactly what I do) to lean in that direction.

A lot of shops are renting Hasselblad/Imacon Flextight 5 scans at very reasonable per/hr rates. Depends on number of pictures you take per year. I use the Mamiya film and do most everything on the Flextight, and drum scan, say 10 per year. Those drum scans are pretty unbeatable... If I took even 500 images a year, I'd want to go digital, however. If I was a pro and had deadlines I'd probably go digital as well. Oh - and of course it goes without saying that with Mamiya they have a 6/7k back you can upgrade to after a couple of years to spread out costs, then you have best of both worlds.

 

Note that the Mamiya and its 120mm macro lense is considered extremely good for protraits. That lense is hard to beat by any company! You are in Hasselblad/Zeiss range with that one lense.

If I want to use one of the two 300mm lenses with the 2x adapter for 600mm, is

there any reason to get the 2.8 vs the 5.6? I know that after the 2x adapter

the one becomes a 5.6 and the other an 11, but the 2.8 is manual focus. I've

heard with telephoto you really really want autofocus because the depth of

field is so extreme, and I've also heard that if birds or whatever are flying

around most autofocuses aren't fast enough anyway, so you end up with manual

focusing in the end anyhow.

 

So, I realize that the main thing is that you can use a faster shutter speed,

but how important is autofocus? Also, in order to take advantage of the speed

aspect, I'd be shooting it wide open, and most lenses are very poor when wide

open - Mamiya knew they were developing this lense for use with the 2x

extender, so they intend it to be used wide open so I can only hope it is

optically optimized for wide-open use - anyone have any experience with this?

 

Anyone use it and also own the 5.6 that can comment on sharpness when at a

common aperture?

 

Thanks!