planckstudios

<p>I've used both lenses and love this post. Our answers couldn't be separated from our general take on photography. And of course influenced by our mood...hmmm...which might even be a reflection of the lens we're using. ;)</p>

<p>I think it's a beautiful opinion - but doesn't give Zeiss enough credit. I wish my eyes could see like that. And I second the Holga comment. Maybe the heart tends to view in b/w while our spiritual body senses color.</p>

<p>I'll throw another art vs science perspective in - <a href="http://www.planckstudios.com/news/2008/nov/18/richard-feynman/">Richard Feynman</a> on the beauty of a thing only expanding w/ scientific study.</p>

<p>Cheers - sorry I'm late.</p>

According to <a href="http://personal.cfw.com/~cdwilcox/F_620.html">this source</a> (I'd credit the author more fully if the main page weren't down) neither film nor camera needs modification when using 120 film. Not sure exactly what models were tested. The model they use is a Six20 and the only necessity is a 620 takeup spool. Just hold onto the spool when the film gets developed and use it over w/ each roll.<br><p>

The also illustrate how to modify 120 film so it too can be used as the take up spool. I was lucky enough to get my Six20 w/ a spool included. I'll post a few images after I run a few rolls through.

In a <a href="http://planckstudios.com/news/2007/jun/22/07-holga-portfolio/">portfolio</a> of mine, I compare a cheaply built toy camera to a child's mind/memory. I couldn't find any hard info about Holga numbers anywhere else on the net. I figured this was the place to ask. <p>

In an increasingly disposable world, this comparison seems poignant to me and any numbers would help ground my analogy.

Without serial numbers or the original inventors at the helm now, I'm curious

how would you folks would estimate the number of Holgas (any model) that have

been produced worldwide since 1982.

Any takers? :)

Thanks everyone for your help!

<p>

<b>John</b> - It can't hurt to try it with a test piece...I'm hoping to protect these from physical damage and I've got a hard time believing a hairspray would do that. But who knows - I'll test it. Thanks.

<p>

<b>Kelly</b> -:) To protect the paper from damage I think I'll need more thorough saturation than a spray can offer. A roll-on or a pour-on technique most likely. I like what I'm reading about <a href="http://clearstarcorp.com/clearjet.asp">ClearJet</a> from ClearStar. And supposedly the fumes aren't as strong as other solvent based lacquers.

Hey thanks for your ideas -

<p>

<b>Bruce</b> - good call - I've been reading the posts there. When I stated 'flexible' my intention was that it should not break like glass. Maybe I should specify - shatter proof. These photographs will evolve into mixed media pieces as I gain control over the layers I use to seal and protect them. I will be building more information into the layers and my intention is to protect the photograph as a base layer of information inside a system of clear and semi-opaque layers. Given that path - I'm afraid I could never apply to a museum's definition of archival - and I was probably wrong to use that word. I hope to build a scheme where no damage from light or air reaches the underlying photo.

<p>

<b>Kelly</b> - I've heard similar things - laminates also yellow over time and do very little to protect against scratches. They are not of interest to me.

<p>

<b>John</b> - If you're serious - and should I get the nozzle to stay clog free and spray evenly over 44x44 prints, it'll protect against scratches? What brands have you used - any examples i could check out online?

<p>

<b>Edward</b> - :) you got it. I guess I'm looking for the holy grail. I do enlist specialists who frame with UV/AR glass under the tight constraints you mention - but for smaller prints. Purchasing such glass at sizes above 40x60 is cost prohibitive.

Hi all -

<p>

I've been printing on an Epson 9800 w/ premium luster paper. Some prints are

maxed at 44x44 and aren't cheap to protect with UV-AR glass. I'm trying to

devise a system for resin sealing these prints that would cut the cost of

framing down. My main objectives are:

<ul>

<li>Protection from UV/physical damage</li>

<li>Semi-gloss/matte finish</li>

<li>Archival</li>

<li>Flexible once dry</li>

<li>Clear (no yellowing)</li>

</ul>

<p>

My first inclination is to protect the ink - then protect the paper. I've

experimented with 4 different spray on lacquers that claim inkjet compatibility.

Only one seems to bond to the paper - Lyson Print Guard (I've heard that Print

Guard and Premier Art Print Sheild are the same product, different distributers).

<p>

Now to protect the paper - my research so far points me to pour on resin

coatings - but I'm open to any suggestions that would hit the above 5 points.

<p>

I've searched the forums for such topics, but can't seem to find any chatter.

<p>

Incidentally - I just got a piece back from an autobody shop - had high hopes

after reading about <a

href="http://www.performancecoatings.dupont.com/dpc/en/us/html/prodinfo/sh/2004_TDS/permacron_semi_gloss_elastic_clear_coat_8070_04.pdf">Permacron

Semi-gloss Elastic Clear Coat</a>. The finish is outstanding - thin, flexible,

and you'd hardly know it was there - except for the thousands of tiny air

bubbles and light cyans that turned green.

These machines can be prima donnas, eh Scott? No change in USB ports lately.

I did install the scanner on a 2nd machine and experienced the same lag in scanning. 1st can took 1.5 hrs. The 2nd one I cut off after 2 hours - it wasn't half way done yet.

I have to wait till Monday before following through on hardware repairs. So if there's a potential fix out there, I hope I find it before then.

Thanks to everyone for your help in this.

Hey Gene, good call.

I did unplug the scanner's AC power and I do turn it off when not in use. I've also tried to recalibrate the scanner using the NikonScan software. Still molasses.

I'll report back after I've tried it on a different computer.

Thanks for the suggestions. I've uninstalled the NikonScan software, cleaned the registry w/ the utility provided on the CD. Rebooted, then tried again. Same results.

Next shot is to try out the scanner on another computer. I'm thinking it's not a software problem as I was getting roughly the same speeds between VueScan and NikonScan. I'll let you know what the results are. Fingers crossed.

Should I have to send it back, I've got a 3 year warranty w/ the scanner (not manufacturer).

Thanks Edward - I'd love for this to be a software fix. I didn't know about that shortcut to temp. Cleared the folder, rebooted and attempted to use the scanner fresh. I got the same results.

In addition to carrying out the commands slowly, the scanner is taking longer than normal to recognize the commands (load thumbnail, preview, scan) - it pauses for a few seconds prior.

With these tests it's developed a hic-up that fades in and out - maybe the sound of something misplaced among the moving parts? Broken tooth of a gear maybe? A few days ago, I did pull the tray out a second before it was done ejecting. Are the internals that finicky? I didn't think it was violent enough to cause damage. Just plastic on plastic for a second.

Another software angle - comparing NikonView software to Vuescan:

I've attempted to scan w/ VueScan v8.4.06 (I could not find settings for 8/16-bit, Standard/Fine or Sampling) a 6x6 negative at 4000dpi (9k x 9k) image - took 7:26 sec. Nikon Scan v4.0.2 w/ 8-bit, Standard and 1x Sampling at the same res took 7:10sec.

I will post a speed test for the NikonView at 4x, Super Fine, 16-bit, 4000dpi 6x6 later tonite.

No one's had anything like this happen to their Nikon 5000/8000/9000?

I probably broke the thing w/ that tug, didn't I?

I'm scanning 4000dpi 16-bit 6x6 negs/transparencies at 4x Multi-sampling w/

Super Fine on. Software is Nikon Scan 4.0.2 and holder is the optional glass

slide holder for 120 film (non-rotating). Color settings are calibrated RGB w/

no extra processing (ie ICE, GEM, ROC, etc).

Here's how it started - the other night a scan completed, but when I looked at

the file w/in the Nikon Scan window, only the very top section of the image was

visible - the rest was white. I closed the image without saving and started to

rescan the image using the same settings. Now, if you've heard the caffeinated

heartbeat sound of this scanner - it's now a long, slow pulse and everything I

scan is taking 10x as long. The problem seems to be relative - now 1x 8-bit

non-super fine scan takes longer than a 4x 16-bit Superfine image would take

before (but not nearly as long as it's taking now - I'm talking over 2 hours for

a scan).

Any ideas on what's going on?

jj

Michael - I don't follow you exactly on the process for stitching a 6x17 scan together from 2 6x9 captures.

Why must you flip the negative 180 degrees? Why can't you just adjust for the edge overlap on the 2nd frame of the Nikon Scan preview and scan again? Removing the slide holder and physically moving the film introduces all kinds of problems.

I shoot HDR architecture on 6x6 slide film and would like to start shooting 6x17 - this is a pretty big hurdle to get past since I can't have any misaligned frames.

thanks -

jj

I'm scanning 120 negs and positives at 4000dpi and pulling HDR from multiple exposures. Sometimes 6. It's daunting to capture and align the different shots. I've had to streamline my process in areas I'd never considered before. Like, I can't use the digital ICE because given the overlap of information, I would lose detail to blur very quickly. In the end, I've not found another way to get as much information in shadows/highlights as this.

http://flickr.com/photos/planckstudios/sets/72157594294109563/<div></div>