ted_norris

<p>Thanks. I'm in the US, but the Microtek online help (which I believe is international) says they do no support any repairs, parts are not available, and they can't recommend anyone outside. Barring completely ridiculous shipping fees, it would be worth it to me to send it nearly anywhere...</p>

<p>Perhaps cross-posting is frowned upon (this is also posted in Digital Darkroom), but I think the community of people on this forum is most likely to be of potential help here.<br>

The autofocus on my Artixscan 120tf seems to be broken. Microtek no longer supports the scanner and will not help, and PrecisionCamera does not do repairs on this model either. Does anyone know who might be able to perform repairs on this (previously wonderful) scanner??</p>

<p>The autofocus on my Artixscan 120tf seems to be broken. Microtek no longer supports the scanner and will not help, and PrecisionCamera does not do repairs on this model either. Does anyone know who might be able to perform repairs on this (previously wonderful) scanner??</p>

<p>Huron Camera in Dexter (about 1 hour west of Detroit).</p>

<p>Suggestion: think very hard about what you gain with a 7ii relative to a 7 and if it is really worth the extra. (And I seem to have read that the light shield closing lever is more robust on the 7.) I have gotten a 7 and the 80 and 65 lenses from Jacks Camera (jackscamera.com) all in perfect condition for a fraction of the numbers quoted above.</p>

<p>The curvature is observable, but it is small so it's hard for me to advise. Another strategy is: if one of the slides is lousy and thus disposable, take it out of its mount and lay it on a flat surface. Does it lie dead flat, or have enough curl in it so it sits on its edges ? I did this test with my recent Provia film and found it lies perfectly flat. So, when projecting the flat film with a curved-field lens, the corners were *really* out of focus.</p>

<p>John-<br>

I used to shoot almost exclusively Kodachrome. When those slides are mounted in the cardboard mounts, they have a small curvature (easily seen if you look at the reflection of a light off the surface). When in the projector under illumination, the slide heats up due to the lamp, and the slide actually "pops" after a second or two so that it has a well-defined curvature. (Your projector may even have a vent to use heat from the lamp to pre-heat slides before they get to the viewing slot.) A curved-field lens is designed so that it images that curved surface onto a flat screen; that's the way you could get reasonable center-to-edge sharpness without having to use a glass slide mount (not quite as sharp, but usually pretty good). A glass slide carrier holds the slide perfectly flat, so then you need a flat-field lens.<br>

Now, all my slides from the 70's up until about 2000 or shortly thereafter work this way, so I use the curved-field lens when looking at older slides. In the past few years, though, I have been shooting mostly Provia for 35-mm projection, and for some reason those slides seem to stay flat in either cardboard or plastic mounts, so I had to find a flat-field lens to view those. I have found recent Provia (or Velvia) slides to be unviewable with a curved-field lens.<br>

I am actually quite curious if anyone can tell me how the current Ektachrome films behave in this regard. I've been very happy with Ektachrome I've been shooting in 120, but I haven't tried it in 35 mm. I would prefer if it had the curvature - I think it usually gives a slightly sharper projected image.</p>

<p>The most important factor is the lens speed. The standard Kodak lenses I have are f4; I found some f2.8 lenses (Golden Navitar for curved field, Schneider for flat field), and the difference in image brightness is enormous. Those lenses are also considerably sharper with better contrast. They can be hard to find, but if you can, they often come at a quite reasonable price, and I think the extra investment is very well worth it.</p>

<p>I have used Silverfast for scanning Ektar in 120, initially trying all the various NegaFix profiles with each image, and usually going with the Portra 160VC. However, I have found I get much better results now simply ignoring all the canned profiles and going to default/standard. Then I open up the Global Color Correction window and move the cursor around until the color balance looks right. It does vary somewhat for each image- you can't just set it and forget it. Nevertheless, I have found that it gives quite pleasing results. For some reason I don't understand, after the scan I find in PP I often wind up pulling the red curve down JUST a smidge (for entertainment I did the same thing on the first image you posted, and to my eye the balance improved noticeably). Next time I scan Ektar I will try doing that within Silverfast and see if that works as well.</p>

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments. I just got some test film back, and though this thread is getting old, perhaps someone might be

interested in the results. The answer is - the tape measure is actually pretty accurate. The difference between the rangefinder and the lens

distance setting is very large for object distances less than 50 feet (e.g. for an object at 25 feet, using the rangefinder to focus, the actual

plane of focus was at about 33 feet). If I set the lens to infinity, the rangefinder images ALMOST align, but not quite (very small difference)

- but apparently this difference is enough to make the mid-range calibration totally off. I don't really suspect the rangefinder since I get

dead-on focussing on every image I've ever taken with the 80 mm (and of course the 43 mm, which probably gives me the sharpest

images I've ever seen). I guess I'll just have to stick to stopped-down images until I can get the system recalibrated (any hints on who can

reliably do a top job of that would be welcome).

Q: how reliable/accurate are the distance indications on the 150 mm lens ?

 

The context: I was checking the Mamiya 7 rangefinder against a tape measure with the 150 mm lens, and found a pretty large discrepancy.

I've always gotten excellent focus accuracy with the 80 mm, but on the 150, I found for example that when the object distance was 30 feet,

the lens indicated nearly 50 feet when using the rangefinder. I don't have time to send the camera & lens in for a calibration before my next

trip, so my plan is as follows. Since I will have a DSLR along as well, I can slap a 180 mm lens on it and focus with that, read off the

distance setting, and set the Mamiya 150 mm to the same. Should be pretty quick, and since most of the shots this trip are likely to be

large-DOF scenics with objects at 30 feet to infinity, the lens will be stopped down reasonably far and I should be OK. The question is, if I

want to open up a bit, how much do you think I can rely on those distance markings ? I also recall seeing somewhere that the 150 focuses

beyond infinity, but I have trouble believing it since the indicator is right on infinity with the lens racked all the way in.

Another vote for the MIcrotek 120t. When scanning with fluid mount (e.g. scanscience)

you get a grain-sharp scan over the whole frame and the dust is greatly reduced with

the wet mount (you still get some, and you have to be real careful with mounting, but

you don't need ICE with this approach). What I like mostly about fluid mounting is the

improved brilliance of the colors straight from the film.

I'll second the vote for Danny Burk - great drum scans.

And if you want the ultimate, do a wet scan on the 9000 ! (The Scanscience system works

very well). The biggest difference between a drum scan and the film scanners is wet vs dry -

a fluid-mounted scan on the 9000 will be very close indeed to a drum scan.

I will add a vote for the Microtek Artixscan 120tf. When used with the Scanscience fluid

mounting system, it produces scans which are very close indeed to what I get from

professional drum scans. It does not have ICE, so you do have to spend some time spotting,

which is annoying, but the results are superb.

Lots of good advice above, but I'll add just one thing. Portra 400 is not the problem - it's a

very sharp film and holds loads of detail. The key is to extract what's on the film and not

exacerbate the grain. The biggest difference in scanning in my experience is to fluid mount

(the Scanscience system works extremely well). With fluid mounting and 4000 dpi scans, your

images should be grain sharp, which is the ideal. If you're blowing up to beyond 20x24 so

that you start to see grain in the final print, then use of smart noise reduction software like

Nik Dfine will let you manage it.

Take some rolls of Portra 800 and don't be afraid to shoot hand-held ! If you get a drum scan

(or other fluid-mounted film scan), you can easily enlarge to 16x20 and the grain will be

invisible except maybe in skies, and that is very easily dealt with in post-processing. Of

course if you want to get "all" the camera can do or you're shooting in dim light, you need a

tripod, but I find I can get grain-sharp pictures above 1/125 and nearly so at 1/60 on a

Mamiya 7 hand-held, and the grain on the new Portra 800 is only slightly larger than that on

either 160VC or 400VC. (Attached photo: Portra 800 shot at 1/60 f16, Mamiya7 + 43 mm

lens - after careful PP the grain may be visible on a monitor at 100%, but is invisible in a

16x20 print).<div></div>

One of the few things I like in Silverfast's HDR software which came with my scanner is the dust & scratch

removal. I generally get my best results from fluid mounted scans using the Scanwizard Pro software on

my Microtek 120tf, but generally still need some clean-up after the scan. The problem is that I cannot

seem to open a tiff file in Siverfast and have it do ONLY the dust & scratch removal - it always seems to do

some sort of auto contrast (I usually get the overall contrast very close to what I want it during the original

scan, so I don't want to be doing global corrections in PP when all I want is to clean things up). I cannot

find any auto correction turned on, and all the profiles should be right, but the fact that Silverfast is doing

something is immediately obvious when I open a file - an image that looks perfect in Photoshop has

contrast and saturation altered by Silverfast. Any ideas what I can check ?

 

Alternative - is there a Photoshop plug-in out there that works as nicely as the Silverfast dust removal ? I

find the one that's in PS to be useless...

Kip-

That was exactly what I was hoping to see ! Many thanks for the tip - the prices look

reasonable too, if I am reading correctly. It would be great if you could put up a post once

you've had a chance to try it.

Cheers.

Nothing a little post-processing couldn't fix. The prints from color negatives I get back from

the lab I always treat as just proofs to see if I got the shot. With a good-quality scan the film

really starts to shine, and you can adjust the saturation and contrast to whatever your taste

is.

I've never had a problem with x-rays, always using an x-ray protection pouch. I've also had

hand inspections done, but then they insist on opening the foil on all unexposed rolls, which

is annoying. Even my Portra 800 seems to be unaffected (they can see through the pouch if it

lies flat through the scanner, but the attenuation seems to be enough to protect the film).

I've had pretty good luck with the Coolscan V/NikonScan4 and Provia (although as you do, I

have an easier time with negatives, in my case Portra). Many of my scans do seem to have

slight color casts, but I've almost always been able to remove them using the "remove color

cast" or "adjust color for skin tone" (for people) in Photoshop Elements. There is the

occasional pathological case I can't seem to fix, but those two operations usually let me get

what I want. The alternative you might consider is to buy a color calibration target and scan

that.

I'm looking at the Microtek Artixscan 120tf for scanning 120 film, and the consensus in past posts seems

to be that the glass film holder is necessary for really sharp scans. The problem is that no place seems to

have them in stock (backordered everywhere). Does anyone know if there is a thrid-party manufacturor

that makes one ? Even better - does anyone make a fluid mount ? (Kami has one for the Nikon 9000, but

apparently not for the Microtek).

Just my two cents, for whatever it's worth: One of my favorite lenses in 35 mm is a

Nikkor 85mm. In MF, I use the 80mm on a Mamiya 7. I would say my general

impression is that if I shoot this at 1/60 s with a Nikon (35 mm film or DSLR), I will get

an acceptably sharp image for an 8x10 inch print much of the time (at 1/125 s, it will be

almost all the time, and at 1/250 s it will usually be impossible to distinguish hand-held

from tripod except perhaps by careful pixel-peeping on a monitor). The Mamiya will give

me at least the same sharpness in a 16x20 inch

print (actually I think it's somewhat better, but as others have suggested that might be due

to the very quiet leaf shutter). So, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with the

previous poster: my feeling is that you usually get about the same sharpness at

the same degree of enlargement, but you usually win by going to MF at the same print

size.

This is just an impression based on experience, and is not the result of any controlled

experiment.

(Of course the field of view and the depth of field are different in the comparison above,

but I'm just talking about sharpness in the plane of focus.)

My old shoulder bag has the distinct advantage of looking a bit ratty, thus not advertising quite so

blatantly that there's up to 5k worth of stuff in there. But, it's getting a bit too old. Does anyone know of a

good photo shoulder bag that doesn't LOOK like one ? I'd like to travel with a bag that cuts a lower profile

than the high-tech super-bags I see at the camera stores...