cm1

<p>In the past the question about a DSLR as a scanner was always answered with "forget it".</p>

But today DSLRs like a Canon 5D Mark2 offer a very high resolution, practically no noise and a lot of speed.<br /> <br /> So, it's time for an update, and thanks to Børre this question was opened again. <br /> <br /> Børre, did you (or someone else here) try to capture a 35mm black-and-white negative as a RAW file? Could you do that and show us the result? I am very curious to see that and believe that, perhaps, a dedicated top-notch macro lens might even render better results.

<br />

I might be tempted to sell my Imacon scanner afterwards 8-)<br />

There are two ways how you can transmit photos without a wire:

- a 20$ USB WiFi adaptor

- a 1000$ WTF-E4 from Canon

The only difference I can see is that Canon's device is huge and fits a digital EOS, the USB device is tiny and

doesn't fit.

This is crying out for a 3rd party product, but I only found the Eye-Fi cards that have some major limitations

(slow, short range...).

Is there anything else?

Good black-and-white printers are rare and expensive. The result is that many negatives are never printed because

nobody can afford it.

I saw some prices of labs and scanning companies in India, quite inviting.

Are there any topnotch traditional BW printers in the Mumbai area that know how to bring out the best in a photo

and handle valuable negatives with kid gloves?

If your dog dies wait a while and then get a new dog.

My dog was an M6. I git a new M6 (after a CLA a Leica is new).

If you want a camera almost for free look for one of the less sophisticated Minolta Hi-matic cameras. The Hi-matic 7 and 7s2 are very expensive, but not the Hi-matic F - simple, but a very good lens. On eBay you will get it almost for free, and you need a battery adapter. The Hi-matic 9 and 11 are also real bargains.

http://www.jwhubbers.nl/mug/HiMatic2.html

Lutz,

20 years ago when professional photography was 100% analog nobody gave a penny for a nice 'what's that?'. Sharpness, contrast and lack of distortion, that has always been the essence of lens quality.

Probably "bokeh" is a matter of personal preference and photographic style. But I also expect that "bokeh" is a marketing thing introduced by manufacturers of not-so-sharp lenses. I must admit, I will never understand that.

Lutz, what else than sharpness and contrast are important for street photography?

I set my lens to hyperfocal or similar and I want everything to be really sharp. Period. That's what I am doing with my Leica most times, since many years.

Sorry if I also come across as aggressive and clueless... :-)

I might be outnumbered here because I don't care for "bokeh" or other cabalistic science because sharpness, contrast and absence of distortion are my vital interests. Am I old-fashioned? Maybe.

All those Flickr shots I have seen are not qualified to show sharpness, contrast and absence of distortion. Of course, these night shots are the real world, we all want to shoot at night in the streets with such a lens.

But if you want to show how good or bad a lens really is you need a flat, extremely detailed motif and a tripod. If the motif is something as boring as some newspaper sheets on a wall it will show much more than 'handheld vivid japanese street shots'. You might put some pinup girls in the foreground to see how the bokeh affects skin tones and to liven up the photo, but that is not essential :-)

Lex, what scanner did you use?

Oookay, thanks to all for your help. I put this theme on other forums, too. There are actually these types of answers so far:

- Use XP2 or similar... you are right, these films scan better, but I am not the type of guy that wants to run such a delicate high-temperature process... and never in my life will I give my films out of my hands.

- Use a sharper developer and try a combination of Acros or Tmax 100 with Tmax developer, Microphen, Rodinal (really), SPUR HRX and some other.

- Use a devloper that delivers extra fine grain, like Microdol or Perceptol

- Use a developer like Adox ATM49 oder Adox ADX, Clayton 76 (I have no idea what that is)

- Other film: Adox CHS 25 in Ilfosol

- Many, many people recommend Pyrocat and other staining developers including Coffenol. In Germany - that's where I live - there is actually only one company named Moersch that has this type of soup... well, and Starbucks, of course :-)

This one is a little far away but still in Spain - and they have everything you can imagine, a huge shop. I was in Barcelona often, and bought b/w films and chemistry there many times.

www.arpi.es

La Rambla 40

08002 Barcelona, Spain

+34 933 017 404

Unfortunately I do not have enough space for an enlarger and trays... just

enough for my PC and an Imacon 646 scanner.

I shoot 35mm and 6x7cm, edit the scans in Photoshop and print very large B/W

prints (Epson printer).

My favourite films are Tmax 100 and Tri-X, they are souped in XTol 1:1. These

are good films and a good developer, but there is a disadvantage.

My Imacon works like a condensor enlarger and emphasized the grain. As the grain

becomes very visible I can not sharpen my landscape images as much as I would

like to.

I heard some reports that it might be a better idea to use a developer that

creates sharper negatives from the beginning so that there is not so much

sharpening necessary... or staining developers... other friends tried to

convince me using C-41 films like XP2... but I prefer silver films.

According to your experience, what is a better combination for very high quality

scans for large prints?

A very professional solution is called FotoStation Pro, made by Fotoware. It handles IPTC and XMP. In general, the metadata (information about the image) is inside the image file and can be read by other systems, too. The exception are RAW files that need a sidecar file.

You can choose which fields are shown alongside an image, together with your logo, if you like.

I use that method, too, see the example.<div></div>

Great idea!

Today, most young people have no clue what all this is about, this is how they can learn it again - school TV.

Thank you very much, maybe I will adopt that idea for the german language, with a little help from some friends.

PS: wrong reel, man... :-)

Mendel,

in fact, I have an extra backup HD and burn on DVD also. What's better than one backup is two backups on very different media :-)

After two years with an Imacon 646 I find that my large hard disks are full once

again, and I need to upgrade my PC once again. This time I will have to go for

about 2 Terabyte disk space (SATA II plus a costly eSATA backup) ... maybe it's

time to talk about file formats.

First of all, I scan images that are printed very large, 16x20" often enough, in

exhibition quality. So, I scan in full resolution. In order to get the most out

of my b/w negatives I have two choices:

1. the proprietary Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight "3F" file format

2. 16-bit TIFF

Each scan in full resolution has between 80 and 200 Megabytes. Saving as a

compressed TIFF does not save much space.

Unforunately, JPEG is absolutely no choice because JPEG is limited to 8 bit and

therefore not so nice, at least not for b/w images where I love the

uncompressed, unlimited tones of an analog image that does not reduce reality to

256 tones. Playing with contrasts, dodging and burning a lot in the images and

other Photoshop tricks are extremely limited in a b/w image with 8 bit. Yes, I

tried it.

Are there other file formats that allow 16 bit and create smaller files? I found

nothing about it.

If I find a solution for this I might invest into hard disks later and buy them

when they are even cheaper... and then my next question will be, how can I speed

up an Imacon 646 without selling it on eBay and buying a new Hasselblad X2? :-)

Ilkka, I expect that a historic archive contains traditional silver-halogenide b/w negatives. ICE is absolutely useless with traditional b/w films.

I have the same problem with my negatives, as 95% of them are traditional b/w emulsions, only 5% are slides and color negs.

The extra problem that occurs is that scanners from Nikon, for example, do not allow to catch the full range of such negatives, the highlights are so dense that the scanners lose a lot of details: faces often look like gypsum, tones are often awful. As an addition, the lamps in these scanners produce a kind of light that overemphasize the film grain.

Because of all that I purchased an Imacon 646 scanner, a very costly machine as you know. But I haven't lost hope that there are better possibilities - maybe I can sell of that precious masterpiece then.

Is there someone here that uses the last top model digital EOS as a film scanner?

If yes, how do you use it? Bellows, macro lens etc.?

Can you show us some examples of the quality thatcan be achieved?

Just to clean up... I had not explained a few things properly:

- She will not take the TLR with her. A TLR and SLR are simply too big and heavy, a handheld lightmeter is extra weight and therefor not the best solution.

- The first target is Costa Rica - is that central or middle america?

- It is not sure that there will be electricity available everywhere, that's why shooting digital is no option.

- She is not very experienced, so the "mini equipment" must be very easy to use.

- I read the words "Olympus mju II" and "Yashica T3" - small, lightweight, weatherproof, good lenses - in other threads. Is that an option? Are these cameras solid enough for such a tour?

Sometimes it is wise to be poor... especially on a backpacking tour through

middle america. My daughter and her boyfriend will leave in a few weeks, and she

will leave her little digital toy camera here and asked her father for advice.

Well, my knowledge is limited, but I think a lightweight rangefinder from the

70s will be a good choice - inexpensive, rangefinder, sharp, fixed lens,

lightmeter, no AF, no motor.

What camera would you choose if you would have to carry it and that is reliable

enough for tropical weather and a backpacking tour?

I still remember some very good cameras... Yashica electro, Minolta Hi-Matic G2,

Canonet... probably many of them are still available, but some age better than

others, and reliablity is a major issue.

What do you suggest?

As I like large monitors for my large pictures, I am looking for one of these

huge monsters... 27" and 30" is actually a nice monitor size for my purposes...

Of course, these are no bargains, but still in the middle-end Eizo price range -

who owns one of them and can tell me about accuracy and reliability, I did not

find reviews yet.

Well, I know, this film has its flaws, but for one portrait project I need a

very large amount of 120 roll films, and I will be able to cope with a

not-so-good anti-halation layer.

Even in the Massive Dev Chart I did not find times for Lucky SHD 100 in XTol 1:1

(which is my favorite developer since years). Lucky's website does not offer

these times as well.

Any idea?

Ken,

are these gel filters really thin or as thick as the Cokin filters?

Here comes a question...

My Canon 15mm Fisheye only allows only filters behind the lens... I have to cut

something like one of those old fashioned Kodak gelatin filters to fit it to the

rear lens.

Are there infrared filters available that are not made of glass or other thick

material? I did not find a supplier..