andyorr1982

<p>Thanks for all of the thoughts. As I understand it, almost all (if not all) split-image screens do have ground glass on the exterior of the image circle. So, if you do need to focus on a point that's outside of your image circle you can still do the GG approach without aiming the SI circle at the subject then recomposing?</p>

<p>So far I've been very unhappy with my focusing abilities and that's why I'm contemplating the SI screen. This weekend I did a portrait shoot and found the subject to be out of focus on nearly every frame. Bummer.</p>

<p>It's too bad I can't switch out the focus screens myself on the 500C. I should have considered spending the extra money to get the 500CM!</p>

<p>Take care,<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>I'm curious on everyone's opinion here. I have an etched glass focus screen in my 500C Hassie right now and I've contemplated putting a split image focusing screen in there instead. I was curious if anyone thinks that'd be a good idea or not?</p>

<p>To me, it sounds like it would make it much easier to get a solid focus on the subject. Right now I find myself struggling to focus on the person or object I'm shooting.<br /><br>

Are there any disadvantages to a split-image screen? I only have a 80mm f/2.8 lens right now so shooting with too slow of lens isn't a problem (ie the lack of light that becomes a problem with slow glass on a split-image screen).<br /><br />Thanks much for your opinions!<br />-Andy </p>

<p>Thanks for the idea on finding the focal point for the scanner.</p>

<p>I just had a thought...<br>

I put a series of four or five plastic wallet-sized cards on the scanner glass. I staggered them so I could see the edge of each and some text. From here I selected the "reflected" option for scanning in the epson software so I could have the lower light turn on. I scanned this and tried to see which of these plastic card edges was in focus. There's a slight problem though. They get more blurry as they progress away from the glass. Only the one on glass is in focus. Does the Epson use a different lens when in "Reflected" light mode so that it can focus on the pane of glass?</p>

<p>I've figured I can probably determine when I've found the proper focal distance when you can see grains in the film. does this sound about right? This scanner should be able to scan well enough to pick out some grains, right?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help...In the mean time I'm waiting for my Doug Fisher tray. :-)</p>

<p>-Andy</p>

<p>Hello Louis,<br>

Thanks for the post. Those are coming out much cleaner than mine have been so far. I'd be very happy if I was seeing those results. I'll place an order for the holder right away. :-)</p>

<p>Take care,<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>Thanks for all your answers/opinions. It seems one of the Doug Fisher film holders is worth the extra xx dollars. <br>

Oddly, I made a custom foamboard holder for pressing the negative against the glass and it worked better than the film holder. This leads me to believe my focus point might be between the glass and 2mm. Any thoughts there? Does the Doug Fisher holder get closer to the glass than the Epson holder? I've also thought that film curl may be the culprit. I like the idea of having the braces between frames that the betterscanner holder has.</p>

<p>Is the ANR glass worth the investment for Doug's holders? I'm thinking it might be worthwhile. On closer reading his site, I see that the ANR glass is a replacement of the "T" holders. Neat. Which is the best way to go?</p>

<p>Thanks for all your help/opinions!</p>

<p>Hello Everyone,<br>

I just bought an Epson V700 to scan Medium format 120 film. I have done quite a bit of reading and almost everyone says this scanner has good quality for a flatbed scanning negatives. I'm not happy with my results at all so far and I wanted to get some feedback to see if I should send the unit back. I've tried scanning 120 film on the MF holder and on the glass surface itself. Both times I haven't had good results. I've also tried the height adjustment spacers for the film holder and they don't seem to make much difference.</p>

<p>I have uploaded a sharpness comparison between the local lab's scan and my scan.<br>

http://www.aretephotograph.com/ComparisonSharpness.jpg</p>

<p>I don't know what scanner they're using but they refuse to scan it more than 2078x2078 pixels and for a roll of 120 film they charge 15 USD! That's the main reason I bought the scanner...to obtain larger res. scans.<br /><br />To me, this lack of sharpness in the Epson is not tolerable. In this example the Unharpen Mask is turned to High and ICE and dust removal are turned off. Grain Reduction is also off.</p>

<p>Should I worry about sending the unit back or do you think this is as good as I'll get out of the Epson V700 in general?</p>

<p>Thanks much,<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>Thanks for the opinions. I just spoke with the guy who did the appraisal and he said it wasn't worth the dough unless they gave it to me for a fraction of what they're asking. </p>

<p>That means I'm back to looking at Hassie bodies trying to figure out what to buy. :-)</p>

<p>-Andy</p>

<p>Thank you for the name, Bill. I appreciate it.</p>

<p>-Andy</p>

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I am hoping to buy a friend's 500C Hassie with a set of two or three Carl Zeiss lenses. The lenses and camera have been appraised and a price for the camera was offered to me. However, the appraisal came back saying there was fungus on some of the camera and lenses. I have not seen the camera myself, but I'm curious if anyone knows much about the habits of fungus growth on lenses and how possible is it to clean by ones self?<br>

Am I better off paying someone to go through the camera and clean it or should I attempt to do it myself first?<br>

And, what fungus cleaners should I look at for doing this task if I attempt it myself?</p>

<p>Once the camera arrives I'll know for sure the extent of the fungus buildup but for now I'm under the impression that it isn't too bad. </p>

<p>Thanks much for your opinions.<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for all of your help! I'm new here but already am finding a wealth of information.</p>

<p><b>Thank you.</b></p>

<p>Thanks again for everyone's kind replies. I appreciate you taking the time to offer an opinion and suggestions.<br>

I'm still waiting to hear on the final quote for the Hassy so once I obtain it I'll have really have to figure out what to do next. :-)</p>

<p>Take care,<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>Thanks for the suggestions. I've been reading a bit about the Epson V700 today. It seems this may be the method to choose. It looks like a good affordable method.<br>

Thanks everyone,<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments, Edward. I see your point and agree. I've been a bit of a hypocrite in my post. The approach I am taking to medium format is similar to the way I entered photography to begin with...6 or 7 years ago. I purchased a 35 mm Nikon FM and tried to find an economical way of getting the photos onto a computer. However, those intentions were to edit the photos in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Now, 7 years later, and after playing with a digital camera and buying equipment for it since then, I want to go back to film in a new medium (medium format). As I get more acquainted with mf I'll likely feel more comfortable investing in a quality scanner. In the mean time, I do feel I need to be somewhat conservative with my purchases and so I am looking for an economical way to transfer negatives to a computer as described in my posts above. I don't like wasting money, so I feel strongly that you should start out with a camera that is of quality rather than growing from a camera you aren't happy with and always wishing you had spent the extra funds to go with the more expensive system. I've taken that approach to buying lenses for my digital camera. If you're going to invest in a lens, buy the lens that has the quality and craftsmanship that you will want in the future and don't waste your time/money in the mean time with sub-quality lenses.</p>

<p>I am still very new to photography and I love exploring it. I might have weird ideologies concerning photography and the way I spend my money with it...but I suppose we all make our own choices concerning this.<br>

I may be take the steps to learning photography in somewhat of a convoluted way. But I'm okay with that.</p>

<p>Thanks again for your posts. I know we're drifting away from the main focus of this post...but I'm fine with that as long as the moderaters are. It's just nice having a conversation regarding photography. :-)</p>

<p>Take care,<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>Thanks for all the comments.<br>

I'm sorry this has turned into a film/digital argument for some people. Of course those were not my intentions. </p>

<p>Sounds like I'll probably end up going with a Epson V700 if I decide to buy a scanner. We'll see. :-)<br>

In the mean time, I need to concentrate on getting the Hassie. :-)</p>

<p>Take care,<br>

-Andy</p>

<p>Thanks for your replies! Steve, I hear what you're saying and totally agree. I didn't state this, but these are my actual intentions: I want to be able to put photographs up on a website for critique and general comments people may want to make about my photos. When I take a photograph that I really like and would like to have it enlarged I'll have it done the proper way...not through scanning and printing from computers.</p>

<p>So, actually, maybe I've answered my own question. I can have the enlargements made of photos I like...and scan those on a flatbed for the internet.</p>

<p>Another comment you ask, Steve: why spend money on a high quality camera when I'm just going to loose quality to scanning. (Already kind of answered that above, but here's another reason I have). I'm tired of buying a digital camera and have it loose value every day. If you buy an older camera today it will have already undergone any degrading in value that it will do. What I pay today I can get for it down the road—should I choose to sell it. And I may be obtaining the hassie I'm looking at for a very good deal from a friend's parents.</p>

<p>So, I hope that explains my reasoning a little bit. Perhaps you still look at me as being foolish.<br>

I also have a fascination with medium format...so I really want to shoot more of it. </p>

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I think this is my first time posting in the photo.net forums but I hope it'll be a new, ongoing thing for me!<br>

I have a question which may seem pretty basic for most of you, but I hope you'll help me out with some helpful replies.<br>

I am hoping to acquire my first Hasselblad soon and I'm curious what process you use for getting the developed negatives onto the computer for posting on websites. Obviously, there are a few ways one can do this (from what I've thought of so far)<br>

1- Scan the negatives in a medium-format capable scanner (not within my price range at all...and I don't know anyone with access to one).<br>

2- Have the local photo lab where my film is being developed do it. Not ideal because they charge way too much for their 'high res' scans and it's a total rip off unless it's my only option!<br>

3- Have a flatbed scanner scan the negatives. I guess this isn't ideal, either, because of the negatives' size and the resolution of the scanner.<br>

4- Something method I haven't heard of yet.</p>

<p>So, basically, what do you guys do? And what would be the best idea on a limited budget or with limited costs?</p>

<p>Thanks much,<br>

-Andy</p>