sorry_no_photos

<p>Neither the paper bellows nor the extended wide angle bellows will work for movements when focused at infinity (in general, that is; I'm afraid to rip something by really testing the limits). I picked up the normal wide angle bellows today (ie, the leather/vinyl bellows with only 2 pleats) and found that even they are a bit limited at infinity. (At least with my 80mm lens). With the 2 pleat bellows, shifts are fine. Rises and falls are fine. Downward tilts are fine. Upward tilts have relatively minor limitations. Left and right swings are both severely limited.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Phew! Everything's big on the beast! OK, thanks Philip for your help. I think I may wind up building something that carries the finder separate from the camera. Depends how it will all fit (including the 4 kg berlebach tripod) on my external frame back pack. <br>

I've posted a diagram below, just to make sure we're on the same page.<br>

BTW, whereabout in the rockies are you? (I'm just out in Red Deer). Have you seen Darwin Wiggett's book , How to Photograph the Rockies?</p>

<p>I've got the 80mm lens with the extended WA. I think I can do all the movements at infinity, but I've already got a normal WA bellows on order because I don't want to damage the extended one. I let you know what I find with that one.</p>

<p>I know this is off topic, but further to the nikon/epson issue mentioned above, I thought I'd post a representative image.</p><div></div>

<p>Good luck with the scanner. I've also been comparing scans from my v700 (with scanscience.com and betterscanning.com accessories) with the Nikon 8000 scans from the local photo shop ($15 a pop). The latter is far and away the better choice (except for cash outlay). </p>

<p>Thanks Philip,<br>

That's good to know. Actually, I see now in the owner's manual that Fig. 27 shows a screen with a framing indicator that's much larger than mine.<br>

Evan</p>

<p>Thanks Simon,<br>

As long as there's a valid reason for it, I guess I can live with it. At least I now know that my camera isn't somehow faulty. <br>

Evan</p>

<p >I have a favor to ask.</p>

<p ></p>

<p >I’m going to construct a case for my gx680iii, but I still have an angle finder (non-metered) coming through the mail and then customs. Could someone with this set up please tell me how far behind the film back the angle finder extends? And also how far above the film back the angle finder rises? (I’d like to get started on the project, but who knows when the angle finder might arrive?)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>My apologies if this has been answered already.<br>

On my gx680iii, I always use MLU. But a split second after the leaf shutter has snapped the photo, the mirror goes down and then up again. Is this normal or is there something wrong with my camera? If it is normal, then what's the purpose? Doesn't this extra flip of the mirror use up a lot of battery life? I'm extremely dubious of Fuji's claim that the batteries are good for 3000 shots. For each shot, the batteries have to (1) lift the mirror up, (2) trip the leaf shutter, (3) flip the mirror down, (4) lift the mirror up, and then I have to (5) flip the mirror down again (so I can compose another shot). <br>

(On second thought, I suppose the 3000 figure is based on the user who doesn't use MLU and where only 3 of the 5 steps are used).<br>

I'd be very curious to know what the various readers have found in regards to battery life.<br>

Thanks in advance.<br>

Evan</p>

<p>This initially had me worried. I heard a whole bunch of clatter when I tripped the shutter. But when I put my ear closer to the system, it sounds like the leaf shutter trips first and then the mirror. So I assume photo quality isn't affected by the latter? Does anyone know why Fuji would install this totally redundant and energy wasting feature? (Unless it has something to do with the sensor that tells you if the exposure on the shot was OK?)</p>

<p>Thanks Philip. Maybe that's the problem. You said your frame lines go almost edge to edge on the screen. Mine only go about 1/2 way. <br>

Is there a set of frame lines for 645? If so, maybe that's what I've got. Although I know the camera is taking 6x8 photos, since I had 8 or so exposures finished before it quit taking photos. I guess I'll know for sure when the prints come back.<br>

Evan</p>

<p>Not having got back yet my first prints from the mark iii, I'm assuming that the "frames" in the viewfinder show what actually gets exposed on the film. But for my 80mm lens, the frame only shows a sweep of about 30 degrees. That's not even getting anywhere near to wide angle coverage.<br>

But on my Nagaoka 6x9 field camera, with a 75mm lens, I get a "frame" and film exposure much wider (nearly 60 degrees, I would estimate).<br>

I understand the difference between "angle of coverage" (the light that the lens transmits) and the "angle of view" (the light that hits the film) on a view camera. But I can't see how the wide discrepancy occurs between the Nagaoka and Fuji. And when I extrapolate to the Fuji 50mm lens, I see that even though the official angle (from the Japanese website) is supposed to be 87 degrees, I suspect that the "framed" portion that actually gets printed is closer to 40 or 50 degrees (generally defined as a normal lens). Am I correct in this assumption? <br>

I suspect that there's a variable that I'm leaving out that would explain the difference between the Nagaoka and the Fuji. And just by looking at the two cameras, I'm guessing that it's got something to do with the distance of the lens from the film plane. Is that correct? <br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I think I've got an interim answer anyways. I took the plate off of the ballhead and with a little bit of work with a tap and die set, I was able to mount it directly to the plate on the tripod. Much better. I won't be able to tip the camera above or below 30 degrees, but I'm not sure I'd want to do that with a 10 pound camera anyways.<br>

Thanks for the links, though.</p>

<p>Is there such a thing? I have a berlebach tripod that pemits 30 degrees of swivel to the plate, so I'd rather not introduce the extra weight and flex associated with a head. The plate has a 3/8 inch bolt. (I'm attaching a Fuji Gx680, which weighs almost 4 kg's).<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Thanks Phillip.<br>

I took my first photos today. I noticed that even with the mirror lock up, there was a fair bit of shake. That may have been partly due to the manfrotto 488rc4 ball head I'm using. I'm going to try and get by without the ball head, I think. I have a berlebach 1042 tripod with a ball that permits 30 degrees of swivel, but I'd like to somehow get a quick release that attaches directly to the plate instead of having the extra weight (and instability) of a head involved.<br>

The camera also froze up on me (the flashing triangle) after less than 10 minutes in -10 celsius temperature (about 15 farhenheit, I'd guess). I had to take it back inside before I was able to take the next shot. Is this normal?</p>

 

<p>Mystery solved. I just wasn't pressing down hard enough on the tab. I've got the back open now. Thanks for your help anyways.</p>

<p>Bill, the dark slide is in the back, but now I'm wondering if there's film in the back (I just bought it second hand, so the previous owner -- a dealer actually -- may have left a roll of film in there). Could that be the cause? Is there any way to determine if film is in the back?<br>

I don't have the manual with me right now. I've tried to use the "film wind" and "multi" function, but it's not working. I guess I could just trip 8 shots or so (that seems to be working) to finish the film if indeed there is film in there. <br>

Henry, you mean that little tab on the back of the back? The little tab to the left of the area where you can write down film info etc? It sure doesn't look like it's rotatable, and I certainly don't want to force anything.<br>

Evan</p>

<p>I'm stumped. I've flicked down the little tab that says "open" (down the two notches), but nothing happens and I don't want to force anything. And I've read through the instructions fairly thoroughly, but still no clues.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Thanks David. I suspected as much. I'll keep an eye out on the auction site.<br>

The camera came in today. I thought I knew what to expect by the weight data and the photos, but as someone else had noted on this site, Fuji doesn't show photos of people holding the beast. It's ginormous!!! But I've got a Berlebach tripod with the single leg extensions, so it'll take anything the Fuji throws at it. Now, I just have to figure out how far afield I'll take it. I've got a little Nagaoka 6x9 field camera, but even with a fresnel lens, interior shots are quite dim on the ground glass. I'm pleased to see that the Fuji viewfinder is very bright. </p>

<p>Does anyone know if other camera brands have shutter releases that work on the gx680iii? (I've got a mark iii arriving in the mail tomorrow without a release and I don't want to search and wait for a fuji brand release on e-bay, etc)<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I started a thread about 3 weeks before you asking the same question (see below in this same category, as well as my thread under the "techniques" category for lots of before and after photos). I bought the scanscience wet mount kit for my v700. I found a bit of improvement in smoothing out the grain clumping, but that was about it. <br>

I just have 645's though. I suspect the main benefits are for large format film, where film flatness is a real issue. Try as I might, I couldn't find any improvements in color or sharpness, etc. BTW I also have the fisher film holder, so that helps a bit too (when it comes to film height above the sensor). </p>

<p>Thanks Derek.<br>

I discovered another hiccup. The flimsy paperboard film holder from scanscience had been buckling a bit, so the nominal 1.6mm height was actually closer to 3 or 4 mm's. So I put a couple of small pieces of foam on top of the holder. That forced it down on to the bed when the lid was lowered. Then I recalibrated and found out that the best height for my machine was 2.7mm's. Luckily, the betterscanning.com film holder can go down to that height. <br>

Anyways, as the figure below shows, that got rid of the chromatic aberration (I think that's what it's called) seen in the photo above. Hopefully, that wasn't just a fluke. If I could be sure to get rid of those red and blue fringes reliably, that might make the wet mount system worth it. <br>

But again, as for sharpness and color saturation, etc, I can't notice any difference. The smoothing effect also helps, but whether it would be noticeable on a print is another matter. <br>

BTW, I checked out your website. Amazing photos! Keep up the good work! "Boots" reminds me of a stretch of fence north of Sylvan Lake, Alberta, where the farmer had nailed an old baseball cap to each fence post. It must stretch for the better part of a mile.</p><div></div>

<p>I've spent all my spare time in the last week trying to improve my scans with the scanscience system. (I'm using Provia 645 exposures with an Epson V700). I've come to the tentative conclusion that some grain clump smoothing is possible with MF sized exposures (see below), but that it's questionable whether that is worth the time and money. (Using scanscience for LF systems is another matter, where perfect film flatness is highly sought after).<br>

So I'd like to ask other MF users of the scanscience system about their experiences. Are you getting any better results than I am? Are you getting the greater dynamic range, contrast, sharpness, and color saturation that Julio asserts is possible? <br>

I think I'm following all the instructions to a tee. But I'm open to suggestions.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p><div></div>

<p>I just realized that the image immediately above compares the wet with a dry image that was scanned a few months ago and thus has had some unsharp masking done. So the smoothing effect attributed to the wet mount is perhaps a bit exaggerated. A better comparison is below (both scans done yesterday and with no refining done afterward). <br>

Some smoothing of the grain clumps is still noticeable (mainly with the background sky). And there's also a slight bit more detail in the dark areas (though perhaps attributable to the fact that the whole wet scan is a bit lighter). On the negative side, there's a bit more of the red and blue fringes with the wet scan (most noticeable near the top of the spire)(is it "chromatic aberration"?). <br>

On the whole, though, I'm not sure that it's anything that could be noticed on the final print. Perhaps the obvious benefits noted by Aaron (above) only apply to large format film, where film flatness is a much bigger problem than with the 645's that I'm dealing with. <br>

So, will I still be wet mounting after a few weeks of trying to squeeze some discernable improvement out of my slides? I don't know. I'd really like to hear from other scanners who have used the system with 645 exposures and the Epson V series.</p><div></div>

<p>Whoops. Wrong image. This is the right one.</p><div></div>