bernard_lazareff

<p>Louis,<br> Congratulations for your pictures, using front/back depth of field and lighting ratio effectively. I have a trivial side question: what is your setup for taking pictures of cameras? (also very nice)<br> B.</p>

<p>@ Larry Dressler:<br> 1) A slip of the keyboard? I guesss the caption of your large photo attachment is "APX100 in <strong>HC-110</strong> dilution B"??<br> 2) What is the size of the negative (or of the scanned portion as shown)<br> 3) Grain really nice. Tonality, looks peculiar but so is the scene; need to try for myself. Time/temperature/agitation?</p>

<p>Read manufacturer specs with a grain of salt.<br> <strong>Dmax</strong>. Manufacturer tends to translate the number of bits of the A/D converter straight to Dmax, as if it were the only limiting factor, following simple equation<br> Dmax = 0.3 x (#bits)<br> and forget flare, etc<br> <strong>dpi</strong>. Ditto. Even when they don't cheat with "interpolated" dpi, they quote as "optical" dpi what is actually the sampling pitch. And what if the PSF (point spread function) has the size of a potato?<br> Note, however, that you can recover some contrast at spatial frequencies near the limit by careful and considerate use of USM.<br> Happy user of a V700. Better scanning holder, AN glass, adjusted focus, optimized USM. Most probably Imacon is technically better. But is the difference visible on a 12x16" from a 645 neg? </p>

<p>See this item currently on sale at Surplus Shed.<br> http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l14550.html<br> Possible solution for these faded RF patches. Hare-brained scheme? Cut replacement plate to size of the old, damaged one. Remove gold plating except on location of RF patch: wax/varnish protection on patch, aqua regia, remove protection. Install, recalibrate RF. I will take no responsibiity for failed attempts. And, aqua regia is strong stuff, use common sense and adequate protection. </p>

<p>You have Autofocus, and automatic advance of film carrier. No IR dust detection, meaning you need to ensure that the film is clean (get a rubber air blower, Giotto or similar). Don't expect too much from "software dust removal". Should be clearly superior to a flatbed scanner for 35mm, although for posting pictures on the web, the difference is not significant; for producing prints 8x10" (or 18x24cm) and up, it does make a difference.<br> Do yourself a favor: get vuescan pro. Learning curve a bit steep, worth the effort. </p>

<p>+1 on Mike Gamill's advice. Run test rolls in parallel in this and a known good camera. Look for flare-inducing situations. Maybe not shooting into the sun, but, say, a scene 50% poorly lit foreground with deep shadows and 50% bright overcast sky. If you can develop BW yourself, the test is not costly: just snip off the film in-camera, without rewinding, in the dark, and the rest of the roll is still usable. It's such a nice camera, it deserves the benefit of doubt until proven faulty. You may need to check the meter accuracy with a silver battery instead of the original mercury battery. Or use sunny 16 (sunny 11 for me). Enjoy.</p>

<p>OP sc registered to PN on 29-Jul (3+ days ago), asked his question same day, then seems to have lost interest. We don't know whether our advice was effective in solving his problem or even whether he/she has read it.</p>

<p>To avoid the kind of color cast seen in your first posted image, and the awkward game of guessing a posteriori what the image should have looked like (or delegating that to some "smart" software), I suggest you devote one frame per film to a picture of a photo-grade gray card, in typical lighting conditions. Then, (assuming you are using vuescan) one right click in the gray area sets the color balance. That is no substitute for prifiilg, but provides 80% of the benefits for 20% of the effort. You may need to repeat if the quality of light changes. But, in the days of slide film, people were happy with the slides reflecting the changes in lighting.</p>

<p>Agree that both frames show Newton's rings. Apparently you use a flatbed scanner where the film is right against the scanner glass.</p> <p><em>Normally</em>, on a flatbed scanner, you should have the emulsion side up to have the image in the proper orientation. <em>But</em>, if you scan with the emulsion down, and since your film holder does not seem to hold the film very tight, you will have actual contact only at film edges (film curl) and you should avoid the Newton's rings. And even if the film would be held flat against the glass, the emulsion side is more "dull" than the backside, and it might still work. You need, of course to "mirror" the image either in the scanner software of in post.</p> <p>Could you please try and report back?</p> <p>Furthermore, the first of your two examples shows a strange shear: the telephone lines or whatever seem "broken" slightly to the left of the middle of the photo. IMHO that is a completely different problem, like poor guiding of the scanner stage. No advice to submit on that one. </p>

<blockquote> <p>how i can know if my background is perfect black</p> </blockquote> <p>There is no such thing. Reflectance 1/100: pretty good. Reflectance 1/1000: exceptional (that's 3+1/3 stops darker than 1/100). Reflectance 1/2500: super black (google: super black nanotubes). And maybe next year 1/10000? Perfect black would be reflectance 0: only a concept. <br> Definitely not something to base your metering upon.</p>

<p>Cory,<br> <br />Congratulations for the pictures. My favorite is the first. But what city is that? <br> About the viewfinder. While of course a collimated finder is more comfortable, the "old" type is not that bad (I speak from Retina IIa experience). Concurring with David: just bring your eye close enough that you can see the fuzzy outline of the frame. Resist the temptation to "peek into corners". Your framing should be OK. </p>

<p>@ all who commented so far: than you for looking and commenting<br> Possibly my lack of enthusiasm for the results was unfair. First, that the programmed auto exposure would work after 40+ years says a lot about the design and construction of that camera. Second APX100+Rodinal was fun but not technically the best choice<br> @ Kent: "<em>I have to wonder how long it took for the average owner to get to frame 72</em>" probably more than it takes their grand-children to fill a 4GB memory card. "<em>I've just shot a test roll in a half frame camera myself. I'll have results (one way or another) in a week</em>" So now you are committed; there is no going back; the crowd is waiting;-)<br> @ Subbarayan: personally I prefer outdoors scenes with a little more "snap". I can't put my finger on the technical reason; it's not a just a matter of contrast, since my scanning software rescales to 0-255 after clipping black/white as instructed (2%/0.5%). <br> @ John: "<em>the thought of making and scanning 72 exposures is a little daunting</em>" Apart from the issue of definition (that is especially important in half-frame) I think I could do it unattended using V700+Vuescan. Anyway, that is unlikely to become my everyday camera. <br> @ Rick: "<em>the rather distinctive glitzy style</em>" Soon I hope I'll post about an even more glitzy half-frame (eh eh). "<em>Does this version have the very good Solinar lens?</em>" Apparently all versions (Optima-Parat, Paramat) have the Solinar, and differ only in the exposure automation. "<em>The quality of the images you posted suggests that this may be the case</em>" A little hard to tell within the limit of 700 pixels for inline pics. To make a fair appraisal of the lens I should use a different film, and also sharpen the scan by just the amount required to restore what can be restored of the scanners's MTF (maybe someday I'll post about that). </p>

<p>Third and last. Looks like a barn, actually a dorm for a summer camp.<br /> Pictures are OK, but I'm not enthused. Maybe would be nice for keeping a record during a trip (72 exp!), but a d*****l camera does that better. Possibly I'll repeat a test with FP4/D76. Or Silvermax. </p><div></div>

<p>Second pic</p><div></div>

<p>Now for the results of the test film. I have to confess that despite being very interesting in some lighting situations, APX-100 is not my favorite for oudoors scenery. Anyway... some banal snapshots during a Saturday afternoon stroll.</p><div></div>

<p>But before proceedings with the results of the test film; I remembered that about 3 months ago, there was a remark that CMC posts lacked in quantitative content. So I made a scientific evaluation of the substantiality(??) of the Paramat. From which I conclude that the Paramat is more substantial than at least five (5) disposable cameras. </p><div></div>

<p>Realized that my <del>collection</del> equipment did not include any half-frame camera. Found an Agfa Optima-Parat for a very reasonable price ("don't know if camera works, sold as-is"); minimum offer; sole bidder. Cosmetics OK apart from small metal plate on shutter release. <br /> That is the model with auto programmed aperture and speed, all that from a Se photocell cell (no battery), and a 2.8/30 Solinar. Shutter clicks; aperture seems to react to light level; looks good. Appearance reminiscent of a 50's electric bread toaster. <br /> Still not 100% sure it actually works, I'll do a short test of 1/2 dozen exposures. With what? With APX-100 developed in Rodinal (1+50, 15'@20°C); what else for an Agfa camera?<br> [<strong>edit</strong>] <em>Figure caption erroneously mentions Paramat instead of Optima-Parat; can't seem to be able change it.</em> </p><div></div>

<p>Another pic, open</p><div></div>

<p>Earlier in that thread I voted RetinaII. But I second paul wheatland's recommendation for the VitoII. I have a Vito IIa, and despite its lower "specs" (no rangefinder, slower lens) I find that it has something I can only describe as "class". </p> <div></div>

<p>Can't claim to have seen them all, but for me the Retina IIa (50/2.0 Xenon) is top.</p>

<p>Certainly the optimum exposure is shorter with TriX than with PlusX.<br> BUT there must have been something else. Remember, Ted stated: "The film was blank." Not consistent with overxposure. Plus, we all know TX can tolerate enormous (I mean much more than 4x) overexposure and still show a decent image. See experiments by David Vestal in "The craft of phtography"; TriX down to 5ASA or maybe even further (too lazy to go down the stairs and look at the book). </p>

<p>John,<br> No question that the "expensive Nikon scanner" (LS-4000, LS-5000, LS-9000??) is distinctly better than a V500. And, you did the right thing with the A/B comparison. At least you have a clear reference. Still, three points:<br> > You need to be certain that your V500 is operating in the best conditions. See my previous post. Focus + USM done just right.<br> > No need to operate your V500 at "high resolution". As you have noted, that is just fictitious resolution, and big files. A <em><strong>true</strong></em> 1600dpi is (would) already something, producing files approx 1500x2250 pixels, more than enough to display on-screen at 1:1 and peep pixels, or to print 8x12 inches at 180dpi (typical of outsourced digital-to-RA4). But, as I suspect, the "various old family prints" are 4x6 inch, and your scans are worse, then your scanner should do better.<br> "I scan with 6400 resolution, and when I tried a higher one(...)". 3200 would be the absolute maximum on that scanner, already quite limited by the <em>optical</em> resolution. And, if it were me, I'd downsample to 2400 before storing.<br> > A decent scanner for 35mm film need not be expensive. I paid 250€ for my LS-2000; the downside is having to deal with the SCSI interface; set up once, forget and use. Mine still works OK under Win7 (32bit) with XP drivers. An alternate way would be to install XP dual boot. Or some Linux dual boot.</p>

<p>Hi John,<br> I'll try to answer your specific questions. My answers are based on using Vuescan software with Epson V700 and a Nikon LS2000, but the advice itself is not tied to a specific scanner model.</p> <ul> <li>(...)So depending on where I move my exposure frame in the preview window (that is, upon which area the exposure is to based), the images goes either redder, yellower, bluer or greener. Is that supposed to happen? How do I know the original colour of the frame?</li> </ul> <p>The scanner has no way to know, either, without extra information. So it makes one of several educated guesses, called auto white balance, auto contrast, or whatever. As guesses, they have a good chance of being wrong.<br> On each color film I try to take one frame of a photo grade gray card. I use Vuescan's so-called "advanced workflow". Essentially, you start by "showing" the scanner an inter-frame gap that has received no light, and tell it: that should be black. Next I do a gray balance on the pic of the gray card, and tell it: that should be neutral gray, <em>no more fiddling with colors, </em>only adjust the dynamic range (black and white points). Then proceed with the "normal" frames. Of course, the quality of light varies; sun, shade, etc... I'm just giving the general idea.</p> <ul> <li>The second specific problem, is the colourful noise in the dark places</li> </ul> <p>Film itself is intrinsically noisy in dark parts (low exposure). Really dark parts of the pic should render a black: no noise to be seen there. If there is also noise in mid-dark parts, maybe you underexposed your film. Negative film can tolerate a lot of overexp, only a little under. With slide film, the issues would be different, plus dark parts would also be challenging for the scanner.</p> <ul> <li>c) Lastly, it is the general quality and detailedness.</li> </ul> <p>As stated above, I use a V700. Can't imagine the V500 would be <em>much</em> worse. What I learned using the V700 is one needs to pay attention to get optimum results.<br> i) Focusing and film height. These flatbed scanners have no autofocus. And the OEM film holders are flimsy, barely adequate. Plus, film curvature alone is enough to degrade focus and sharpness. Assuming you have a curved piece of film at hand, try scanning it with curvature up then down; mirror one of the images and compare sharpness side by side at 100% screen display. Is one sharper than the other? If you want to go further, PM me; too long story for one post.<br> ii) Intrinsic limits of the scanner optics. Assuming focusing is correct, some extra sharpness can be squeezed out at spatial frequencies (line pairs per mm) where the performance of the scanner's optical system has dropped somewhat, but not down to zero. Short version: try USM radius=1, 100%; watch for appearance of edge effects; if the sharpening effects jumps at you, then it's overdone: decrease %. Long version: PM me.<br> Plus, I second the advice of JDMvW on Vuescan. There is a learning curve; the documentation might be better, but in the end there is no way I would go back to the Epson (or Nikon) software.<br> In your last response: "(...)<em>I'll continue scanning with my V500</em> (...) <em>as well as improve my skills in general"</em> I think you made the right decisions. Scanning takes skills and is not just a matter of money.</p>

<p>Sequel to the flare issue of the MjuII. Bought a second one at the charity. Tested night shots with bare light sources included. NO flare. Go figure. Maybe at some point in the production Fuji realized one ring or lens edge must be blacked our?</p>