gale

Lots of good info here. I have this scanner and love it. Seldom do I use Digital ice when scanning as it just doesn't work that well for me, often confusing tones, textures and suble colors of delicate slide films. It works a bit better with print films like Reala. I find Kodak UC 400 (what I shoot people with) to scan very nice and responds to digital ice.

For most films and all slide films, however, I do noise and grain reduction and all dust and small scratch removal later in photoshop.

Also, I try not to get a perfect image right out of the scanner. You will just wear it out trying differnt things. Once I get my Analog Gain set (pretty well neutral for me works best) I try to scan slightly flat in contrast and and flat in color saturations (I set my colors right down the middle)...but just a slight suble bit and make sure no tone or highlight is blown out. I fix these later in photoshop as well. Like Digital cameras shooting in RAW, I try to get an image that will be easy to work with later also like Digital, all images must go through photoshop anyway.

Have fun. That scanner is awesome.

I know there must have been lots of threads on this type a question but I need

some quick advice and shooting tips on shooting a wedding where both the bride

and groom are....sort of large framed and plus sized.

I am not a profesional photographer though I have spent much of my life

shooting photos. I typically don't shoot weddings except for family and

friends. I've never had complaints and enjoy it alot. The last wedding I shot

the bride and groom was rather slender particularly the bride allowing lots of

room for expermenting. I burned up 20 rolls of film and we had a ball.

This time I am up against a challenge and I know nobody wants to see a photo

where everyone looks amplified as the camera does, espesially the bride and

groom. I understand the tips of never shoot from below, shoot for angle shots

and utilize structure as props for the plus sized subjects to hide behind of

hide next to and always be positive about their beauty with plenty of positive

comments.

Anything else? My wife is going to help as she is good and seeing things I

might miss through the lens and on the lookout for new settings and

oppertunties.

I already looked over the church the wedding will be held at looking at both

indoor and outdoor (late afternoon to evening) and burned up some film using my

kids as subjects to see if my settings are on.

Final note, here in Idaho, the snow will still be lingering on this early March

wedding day. There will be some out door shots in the snow. I hope for some

clouds but I might have to utilize the shady side of the church for location.

I shoot nothing but Kodak 400 UC when I shoot these kind of assignments.

Thx in advance.

thx for your kind words. All shots but the fall aspens were Glacier Park. The Falls is Running Eagle Falls near East Glacier. The small falls were shot on the south boundry road.

Velvia 50 is decently easy to scan on my Nikon 5000. Sometimes one has to do a bit of photoshop work to get the shot close to the slide...which is perfect.

All these were shot with my F-1. I also shoot Velvia thru my A-1 which has an accurate meter.

Thx again for your kind words.

The post below got me to thinking how much I love my Vivitar Series 1 28-90. I

seldom shoot a filter on it, but rather let the lens capture the nice warm

colors the way it can.

Here are some shots showing how well the lens holds up with out filters:<div></div>

I use this lens a lot. I never use a hood on it, rather I just hold my ball cap on the 'up light' side of the lens.

I find the lens to be not as sharp as a good FD Prime but sometimes I think it is a mistake to shoot for total sharpness. Some Landscapes and peple shots lend themselves to some degree of 'softness'...very suble but soft.

I find the lens to be rich on color, maybe ricer than some primes and the the contrast is moderate. I shoot it alot.

The best thing that ever happened to film was the invent of digital cameras. Thanks to digital cameras and their ease of use, many have got into photography who might not have ever ventured into the new hobby. Many of those have thus played the photography field, if you will, including film.

New technologies have sure helped my photography habit. I have long since abandoned the dark room for no other reason than lack of time. Now a scanner, computer and photoshop help me keep my old cameras alive.

Terry, I own a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and it is a fine piece of equipment. Contrary to what some said, I find slides easy to scan and they produce a nice digital image. Provia scans pretty easy. Veliva a bit more difficult but oh, the rewards when it all comes together.

Final note, get a good 300-400 Gig external hard drive to store your TIFF files which will run from 50-100 MEG depending on the color bit res you scan in. I just scan in 16 color bit which produces a 50 meg file off a 35mm image. Yes. it is better to scan to TIFF as it is easy to work with in Photoshop.

One final note, I seldom use Digital Ice as it seems to soften the shot some and with slide film, the soft tones and color can bet lost in Digital Ice. You will have to spend time in photoshop removing dust flicks and minor hiccups which happens in scanning.

Have fun.

In my portfolio, all my images are from a wide variety of film (slide, print and B&W) and all scanned from a Nikon Coolscan 5000

Congrates on the find. I've been looing for another clean F-1 as my 1984 model F-1's meter went bad. I have thought I might shoot it anyway and just meter with my old A-1 as it's meter is right on. I like the positive shutter and clean finder on the F-1.

I've been browsing through *bay's F-1s and noticed clean, LN or LNIB or NIB moedels are bringing more than they did new. It has been depressing.

Have fun and share some photos.

Edward, At first, I didn't want to respond to your comments that 35mm film can print 11X14 photos while DLSR's can go bigger but I must. I have had printed many 24x36 prints from my 50+mg Tiff files scanned from 35mm slides or negs from my Nikon Coolscan 5000. It has more to do with lens, exposure, scanner and printer than film or Digital mediums. Some TIFF files I have I beleive would print just nice 30X40 and turn out wonderful. Some file I have I wouldn't take bigger than 11x16. It had more to do with things other than because it was from film.

Sorry. Let's not put things in a box.

Buy a scanner. It is the only way to continue to enjoy film. I own one you mentioned the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I love it. I've been able to archive into a digital file (different in my opinion than digital files from a DSLR) everything from old Kodachrome and kodacolor slides and negs to modern E6 and C-41 images to even handprocess B&W 100 to 3200 ASA film negs.

If you wish to shoot film, this is the best way. Get a good external drive where you can store your files. You will needs lots of storage space as you will have 50+mg TIFF files and compressed Jpeg files too and lots of them. Get a good software program because the scanner just can't reproduce the glorious slide image perfect from the getgo. Photoshop is no discrace to photography and with practice you can get that image pretty close to the same image you see in the slide.

Next, get a good printer. I am pretty much done sending files to others for prints, unless I get a call for a large print. However, most prints I enjoy in my home I can print from my old Epson 2200 printer which is old but still wonderful. I can print 4x6 to 13X19 or wider is I use roll paper. I can use different papers for different effects and I take total control or the result.

I get enough side business for art prints of my own to customer prints to pay for paper and ink.

The new Epson printers are even better I hear. Many of my photography friends do likewise, even digital shooters as most still shoot some film. To tell the truth, such new technologies are keeping film alive and simple. You will no regret the Nikon 5000 Scanner and Epson printer.

FD is all I own for photography equipment.

I plan on a Winter trip to the Grand Tetons (100 miles away from my house) sometime this month if the haze would clear out.

I also plan another run to Glacier Park. I go every year as it is 5.5 hours away. I didn't make it this year as I was busy working overtime as Contruction is my occupation.

Other than that, it will be local shooting around the area.<div></div>

I hear about many instances where it is perferable to use a mild telephoto lens

for a landscape shot. I prefer FD Primes for much of my shooting so i was

wondering which FD Prime telephoto lenses are best for sharpness and

packability for landsscapes.

I've been thinking of adding a 85mm f/1.8 and a 100 f/2.8 as they are relativly

small for packability. Could these also double for some portrait shots? I

have a 135 FL 3.5 which is mildly slow but really sharp. It is light and I do

use it for some outdoor shots.

My current FD Primes I use for landscape are a FD 24mm f/2.8, a FD 28mm f/2.8

and my standard 50mm f/1.4

A few shots from one of the most common lenses bundled w/ FD Canon bodies. I

think for the money, it is one of the sharpest lenses out there....anywhere.

They are everywhere and well under 100 bucks for even the cleanest samples.<div></div>