lilserenity

<p>I'd recommend a Minolta Autocord, it's a TLR. Sharp lens and on the whole well made, just be careful for some with broken focusing levers. I find the lever focusing more intuitive and easier than the knob on other TLRs. I love using my Autocord for street work.</p>

<p>Glad to see you got it up and running, the Coolscan III/LS30 is an old scanner now but it can still turn out really good results! The main limitation is the 8bit per RGB channel but that only really causes problems when scanning Velvia containing lots of purples, magentas and reds in my experience.</p>

<p>I had the same thing and cleaning the mirror helped but you've already done that and sorted it :)</p>

<p>Hiya,</p>

<p>I couldn't find a colour darkroom printing section so I hope this is OK, it's the closest I could find.</p>

<p>I have been given a PCA2060 and I have an Axomat 5 with colour head, will the analyser work with this enlarger or only the Philips additive enlargers?</p>

<p>I followed the instructions for the unknown negative basically the 3 colour labelled dials were set to 0 so I put the diffuser in place, set my enlarger lens to f/8 and clicked the the cyan button and moved the probe until it deflected the balance needle to the far right. Then bringing down the the exposure time the needle eventually aligned on zero. Next step, yellow. So I clicked the yellow button, the needle deflected to the far left, and without moving the probe I can't get it to get anywhere away from the left.<br>

<br /> I tried opening up the lens to f/5.6 which helped but by the time I went through cyan, yellow, magenta and then clicked cyan again as it says to, the cyan setting had the needle off of the zero mark again!<br>

<br /> Does anyone know if this analyser is suitable, and if so, what the devil is going on? The instructions aren't very clear (well to a silly sausage like me they're not :)</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

Vicky</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I love Portra too, and will continue to use it. But Ektar still has a wonder all of its own which i find utterly compelling.</p>

<p>160VC: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4078354069/in/set-72157618590943732/<br>

Ektar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4079331114/</p>

<p>Everything from the Ektar photo above to the most recent on my Flickr pages is Ektar and I didn't warm to it right away in December but now I think I like Ektar more than anything else at this speed. It also appears you want to have it processed by a well seasoned lab, or you may get slight colour shifts.<br>

It's not for everyone and I can see you reasoning for liking Portra but Ektar in the right light is stunning, even in lowly 35mm format. Did some RA4s at the weekend (couple of 12x16s) and they look wonderful on the wall.<br>

Correct exposure is the key (ie: I can manually expose other C41 fine but with Ektar I really need the light meter)<br>

Vicky</p>

<p>This could have been a lovely thread with Velvia pictures and that was it.<br>

Now it's the same old beaten to death debate with the flinging of the proverbial at each other, which I can go down to the zoo and see if I wanted.<br>

Vincent -- good luck with the new camera and hope you enjoy it, your reasons are valid and sensible by the sounds of it.<br>

I only shoot film but all this bitching that happens ahhh what's the use; that's why I don't use this forum much.<br>

<br /> No one slapped your mum, they just use or are switching to something different to your choice. Anyone want to start a thread with just Velvia pictures for what they are? Or are we going to bang on about lp/mm's and other stuff that doesn't really matter when we're viewing good photos because they're good photos?<br>

Vicky</p>

<p>Hi Paul, Thanks. I have now done that and knowing the LKM's aren't suitable I'm now able to pick out what is and isn't suitable. There's not a lot of info out there for someone who's never used a Pradovit before!<br>

It does have a Colorplan lens, built like a tank and seems to work just fine. Picked it up locally for song :)<br>

I will look out for a 50 magazine or two. I can't wait to sit back and look at some Kodachromes I've just shot on this baby!</p>

<p>Wow, thanks for the very fast response. Do you have any idea where I might find one of these? I've been offered a Pradovit 250 Colour (AF) but it has no slide tray. I'm just really not sure of what to tap into Google to get the right result!</p>

<p>Hiya,<br>

I was wondering what type of slide trays/magazines this model of Leitz prokector takes?<br>

Do they take the LKM trays?<br>

Many thanks,<br>

Vicky</p>

<p>Very busy at the moment but will reply properly later.<br>

But just wanted to say (also being English and having spent a good amount of time in the USA, about half a year in all) that I have done some of the exact route you've picked out there. Could give you some inside knowledge on great places along the way (though South Dakota's slogan of Great Faces, Great Places is true, give or take the many miles beween anywhere.)<br>

Will reply properly later!</p>

<p>A really big fan of my C330F too.<br>

The results are just great and the square picture format does give a different way of looking at the world.<br>

They can also be a cheap roiute into the medium format game. My C330F with an 80mm and 55mm lens set me back only £120. It was a bit beat but the glass was clean and 100% mechnically sound, also 12 months warranty!<br>

I wrote three part in depth review on my blog recently:<br>

http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/mamiya-c330f-review-part-1/</p>

<p>Returning to the original question, as a film shooter who is very aware of the results from digital RAW (in general) yes there is a difference.<br>

I'm not going to go into this grain and resolution discussion but the difference I find varies depending on what you've shot with regard to film. Is it print or slide film? If it's print, I can't really describe the difference except that the colours have a slightly more earthy appearance and the shadows seem to have a little more detail which at first appearance makes the scan look rather dark, even underexposed! With slide, I find the colours just pop out in the area of focus, there's a very 3D look to them. Slides (K14 or E6) scan best, C41 next and I would honestly say that B&W scans are just not as good as wet prints. The scans on B+W seem to emphasise the grain compared to a wet print.<br>

The best way? Well I don't know. Send it somewhere reputable, e.g. here in the UK I'd use Peak Imaging if I needed a crucial shot digitised, I often don't bother with mini labs as they save in JPEG rather than TIFF. Also I find minilabs don't always look after their scanners and I have had cases where consistency just isn't there.<br>

Overall your result is going to depend a lot on the film originally used.<br>

In any instance, I still use 35mm and 120 (for 6x6) film, C41, B&W and E6 and when scanned, it can look very good. I still maintain the best way to view a photo is projected or printed (be that digitally or traditionally.)<br>

I'm not even going to get into the megapixels and resolution, sharpness and whateverness as really, day to day, if you're a good photographer you'll get the results you want if you have a half decent digital or film camera.</p>

<p>I think the thing that bugs me most is not the film + digital thing (I couldn't care a less, I use film -- but use whatever you want, it's a free country) - but it's the thread crapping.<br>

This <em>was</em> a thread about Ektar 100 now being available soon in 120 format.<br>

Now it's a thread about dynamic range, the EOS 40D DSLR versus other films and some graphs which I personally have never encountered and am not interested in personally, especially what was a discussion about the nice news that a very good C41 film will be released in 120 format.<br>

Would I be out of order to suggest that the conversation about graphs and maths and stuff like that was moved into a new thread which is devoted to that discussion.<br>

Or do the interesting threads have to all be crapped on eventually with some other discussion to suit the most dominant voice that shouts the loudest?</p>

<p>Awesome news! I've been using Pro 160C and Reala 100 as my main C41 film in my Mamiya C330, but this is just brilliant news given how much I have enjoyed using this film so far.<br>

Hopefully it'll be in the UK by May then :)</p>

<p>Thank you Robert, that is a very interest website link, I will read that tonight.</p>

<p>As for Rollei IR820/400 and Super Pan 200, I will have to look harder, the usual places I go don't seem to have it but the Efke IR820 I can find readily.</p>

<p>I have ordered the SFX 200 (local shop only had it in 35mm at the moment, I'm lucky I have a shop 3/4 mile away that sells it at all!) and a Cokin A 89b filter. I'm aware the Rollei IR820 is not as grainy in some instances from some images but given I pretty much only aim to shoot it in 120 format to start with, this is a bit of a non issue.</p>

<p>Thank you again, I'm very excited about finally getting into some IR alike/IR photography!</p>

<p>This has all been incredibly helpful and maybe I need to also look into an 88A filter if I find the effect isn't strong enough.</p>

<p>I have ordered some SFX200 (in 120 format) to shoot this weekend as the weather promises to be bright and will process that. My plan is to essentially meter at ISO 6 and bracket where I feel a bit of dillgence is required and then process in Ilford DDX (as that's what I have about at the moment and I quite like it) -- the TLR I use doesn't have any form of TTL so I don't need to worry about setting it to ISO 200 and then reducing the shutter speed by 5-6 stops, just meter it right off the bat at ISO-6/12.</p>

<p>I may also look into Efke IR820 in 120 format too, as that looks quite good, not HIE by good all the same. I was hoping to try some Rollei IR400 but I can't find it anywhere (www.retrophotographic.com have it listed but no cart button) so it might be discontinued. If I have good success on the 120 side of things, I shall look into 35mm as well for shooting in my Leica and if using SFX200, my EOS 3 as well.</p>

<p>Many many thanks, I hope to share some results soon, I'm itching already to get out there and shoot!</p>

<p>Vicky</p>

<p>I must admit I'm surprised I'm even going to reply to this but the way I look at it is that there is <em>just</em> photography, not film photography and digital photography, just photography.<br>

Now I happen to shoot film between my 35mm EOS 3 and Leica M2, and 120 in my Mamiya C330F and I'll keep right on doing that until I can't buy it any more. I'm not an oracle and I don't know when that will be but I'm not going to worry about it. I'll carry on shooting, getting prints (isn't it odd that prints just don't seem to be appreciated as much, I find computer screens so inferior to gathering around and looking at photos, maybe that's my gregacious nature!) and working in my darkroom.<br>

When that death knell tolls, then I'll figure it out from there but really, I'm just going to enjoy photography and cross that bridge when it comes to it. Who knows what will happen, if I do become an oracle, mystic or likewise I'll be sure to let you know when the death will happen ;)</p>

<p>Hi Bethe,<br>

I did have this funny feeling I was thinking this through too much!<br>

Hopefully this answers your question some what John too.<br>

In which case I will order the filter and a roll of 120 SFX, and meter (externally) and apply a 5 and 6 stop factor to that, and then dev at ISO 200. I had this funny feeling that's what was needed, I just couldn't think it through clearly on my lunch break!<br>

It really was a blonde thing to ask!<br>

Many thanks!<br>

Vicky</p>

<p>Hiyam I'm very much interested in trying out SFX 200 and using Cokin's very deep red filter (A007) -- I have a Cokin A adapter system for my Mamiya C330F, it's also possibly to use in my Canon EOS 3 and Leica M2 if I decide to use it in 35mm too.<br>

I do my own development and printing at home and have not yet tried IR or IR-alike films like SFX.<br>

I understand with the Cokin filter I need to essentially reduce the exposure time by 5-6 stops, no problem, I can meter at ISO 6/12 and so forth.<br>

My question is development time. I'm probably going bonkers but I have not got a clue really what development times to use if say I have rated the film at ISO 6 rather than 200.<br>

I have checked http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html and all I can see is times for ISO 100-800 -- for all developers, I tend to use DDX and that only shows details for ISO 200.<br>

Now am I missing something (probably having a masisve blonde moment) but what would the development time at ISO 6/12/25 be for SFX 200 as I won't have shot it at ISO 200 with the very deep red filter on.<br>

I have tried searching but have not found anything concrete (except to generally expose 5/6 stops less than the box speed which all makes sense to me.)<br>

Yours, probably very densely :),<br>

Vicky</p>

I've been using Vista now for quite some time on a new PC and haven't had a single complaint. I find using XP at work a bit of a chore, the only down-side is the slightly jumbly control panel but apart from that I think it's great. I probably enjoy using it more than my Mac (which is running 10.4 Tiger still after no end of troubles with Leopard when it came out, though those may now have been resolved with subsequent fixes) -- I also use OpenSUSE (linux) 11 on my notebook (what I'm using now) which I find is fine for the things I want out of it.

 

Personally I don't see what the fuss with Vista is, my machine boots incredibly quickly and it's nothing outrageous, just a bottom end Core2Duo with a couple of gigs of RAM and a basic hard disk.

 

For Photoshop it really doesn't matter what you use, Mac or Windows.

 

I recommend trying each in person yourself and making your own decision from that.

This is an interesting thread and a good experiment indeed.

 

That said, I'm really not too fussed one way or another - I mean I like shooting black and white film and the odd slide but that doesn't mean everyone should. I'm not more right than the next person. There again I love the processing + printing bit in the darkroom but again it's not for everybody and the thing I applaud most is a good photo whatever it was taken on. The point is if you have an eye for it, you'll get it no matter what you use, including camera-phone; which I too use from time to time.

 

All I want to see is people enjoying their photography and the results, and two hoots to how they got there :) There again I use Macs and PCs in equal measure and like both so you know, I'm quite weird. I don't know why I don't just go and get two religions whilst I'm at it to follow :))

Unfortunately I think there has been a lot of information here that isn't accurate.

 

The comment(s) regarding Windows running on top of DOS or being a DOS shell is no longer the case and hasn't been since Windows NT became the prevalent version of Windows on the desktop (e.g. with Windows 2000, XP and Vista) -- yes the basic interface is the command/text interface but it is on Mac OS X too, it's just hidden out of the way unless you hold s on startup so the whole Mac OS X is designed out the box to be a GUI is a moot point. (As Mac OS X is based on a BSD system, UNIX in other words)

 

I say this as both a Windows and Mac user myself.

 

For bang for buck and value, a PC is a better choice than an iMac but will likely lack the aesthetic. Also with a PC you can upgrade it over time which would be much more limited on the iMac. If the screen dies, you either replace it or you replace the iMac (assuming it's out of warranty.) Photoshop CS4 runs in 64bit on Windows (assuming you have a 64bit version of Windows installed) whereas this isn't the case on OS X, that's coming in CS5.

 

And as a Mac user since 1993 and Photoshop since v3 in 1995, I have to say I do prefer working in Photoshop on Windows, not sure I can sum up why but it just seems to work better for me but it's identical really from one to the other.

 

I personally would prefer to spend some decent money on a quad core PC and a decent monitor and still come in at less than a 24" iMac. You'll be doing the same things but with a different GUI (ie: Windows instead of OS X)

 

Don't get me wrong, Macs are great and OS X is good, but I also use Vista and have not had a single problem with it and my experience is that it runs faster than XP - maybe I'm the only one! But for value, you will get a better PC with an excellent screen for less money. (Say around £650 in GBP, i.e. £400 for the PC and £250 for the monitor.)

 

If you do want to use a Mac though, a Mac is your only option legally. But like cameras, what you use in the process won't make you better, nobody will look at a print or a image and say "That looks like it came from a Mac" or "That looks like it came from a Windows machine."

I don't really know why it pervades (and this goes on in many circles of where a dichotomy of choices exist, PC or Mac, XP or Vista, vinyl or CD etc.) but I'm always confused if not amused that time is spent on the matter of either someone having to talk up something that is diminishing in overall popularity (e.g. film is having a resurgence) OR people who have moved to the now more popular medium who have to state the obvious (e.g. film use has declined and is no longer the popular choice) and peg down the value of user's using the old/alternative way.

 

It makes no sense.

 

All that matters is that you as an individual enjoys what you do. Does it matter what the world does around you? Perhaps it does if you're a fashionista.

 

I think the thing is most people are more interested in capturing the moment and most people so long as their camera works and they get what they want, they probably don't think much about it either being digital or film. The only time I see this reliably happen with people who really are happy snappers is where someone with a film camera visits someone who has a digital camera, and in their terms the volume one can take becomes an attractive thing and so then the seed to perhaps buy a digital camera is planted. But other than that, most people don't care too much to think about it -- until: If their camera breaks then clearly in this climate the vast majority will get a digital point and shoot. In the UK we have a chain called Argos and they're a big catalogue store, thousands of items and in 8 years I've seen film 35mm compacts go from maybe 15 odd pages of cameras, to ONE film camera. The rest is digital and one would expect that, most people don't care to demand that their camera is film so the market produces what it will make the most money from and also what people want.

 

But this is only considering those who casually take photos on holiday or when visiting attractions.

 

I'm not a casual user, and I'm old enough, kind of wise enough and hopefully not that ugly enough to know that film is not having a resurgence (a lot of people start using it, but we're not talking about notable gains at all) -- but I also don't actually care because I still use film because it gives me the results I want and a process that I am absolutely thrilled to do every time - namely shoot, process and print without a computer. Nobody has ever said to me "You could do that much better with digital", or "This would be better with digital" -- likewise nobody has ever said including me, "That photo would be better shot in film", or "You could shoot better in film", what you do hear is technique suggestions e.g. "That would have been nice if you brought it in tighter to their faces" or, "This would have been brilliant in colour" (one I always hear!) and "If you had the sun behind you it'd been really nicely lit" etc.

 

So to me, I'm not bothered about film sales declining because a core market exists, companies that made x profit from film, now make y profit from film and digital. Kodak isn't loosing money on film, the revenue is going down but the shrinkage of the margin made by film is being replaced by digital. Same with Fuji, Ilford/Harman etc. Those who establish a niche and grow the business carefully will reside in a profitable niche for sure. The smaller players have suffered e.g. Agfa and 3 years ago Ilford but they have either had their products taken on my a smaller manufacturer with lower overheads (e.g. Agfa with their papers, developers and hopefully soon their APX100/400 film) or been bought out by a larger entity that has cash flow through other channels to support a smaller but profitable company (e.g. Ilford with Harman.)

 

You've only got to buy a magazine like Black & White Photography to see that if film is now dead, we're burying a body alive! But at the same point, I know digital is the mainstream future and it's here now, but so what -- all I care about is people enjoying their photos, seeing a smile when they see what they've taken and the wonder of sharing a moment because by the time that happens, the process (film/digital) becomes irrelevant. I could write a good book on my Mac, but it doesn't make my book any better because it was written on a Mac, the end product is all that matters then, the process fades into insignificance.

 

Film isn't going anywhere, it's going to be harder to see visibly but it'll be there, just like those with plate cameras, and when something is invented to replace digital (it'll happen, nanotechnology for example) will those who love their digital cameras in a 'die hard' fashion be out in the cold? No - because a core niche will exist that will embrace someone for solely the reasons that only that niche can understand why they stay with the 'old' or 'replaced' method.

 

So there you have it, another ramble on primate pecking orders. :)

No one can quibble that cameras like Nikon's excellent D3 and D700 have better high iso-low noise performance and for someone like me who has never liked using flash, I can see the definite benefit there.

 

But... the thing is I don't like low noise shots, I like a bit of grit in the subject as it suits what I'm shooting usually in low light, handheld which is gigs (jazz bands etc.) and urban street photography. If I'm doing night exposures I will have the tripod on me and a slower film so I can get the definition with a hint of grit. It works for me, but I appreciate not for everyone else. If I made my crust from professional potraiture I could see myself 'needing' a D700/D3 for work for the flattering low noise shots -- though my instinct would be to do the gritty shots but then you can't tell your customer what to like. So don't get me wrong -- I'm no luddite, I'm a web developer by profession :)

 

One thing about 35mm however is that by and large I don't find scanning does it the best justice, prints (be they digital or wet-prints - I prefer the latter) can still churn out some real crackers at larger than 11x14. Of course this tends to be with the slower speed (ISO 100 or slower) films on a tripod with a sharp lens. A lot of PanF I have shot at box speed (50) on a tripod has been still very sharp and low grain up to 16x12 e.g.:

 

 

That scan does no justice, seems to have washed out the finer tonal graduations and emphasised the grain. I haven't fiddled with the image at all in Photoshop, maybe I should... Even so I did a print of that last at 16x12 and instantly it's the centre piece of my front room for me. 35mm film is an amateur format and landscapes do by and large thrive on MF shots but sometimes the results from 35mm can be suprising for such a small bit of film!

This is an enjoyable thread, less focussed on what's better, what's not, just based on what people enjoy :)

 

I have had almost for as long as I have been taking photos a passion for black and white and I have got some fairly alright shots with a digital camera in black and white but my first passion will always be choosing the right film for the job. E.g out shooting landscapes whilst hiking, I'd probably use HP5+ or Tri-X, for finer more considered landscapes on a more relaxed walk I'd go for FP4+ or PanF maybe, gritty urban shots? I like Delta 100's contrast and tonality for that and for long exposures I've had most success at night with XP2. Portraiture, well the world's your oyster... Gig photography? Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200.

 

I bought a MF camera a few months back, my first ever after years and years of 35mm which is great but the size of it does remind you abhout the versatility of the 35mm form.

 

I have been developing all of my own 35mm b+w at home now, and since last week I picked up virtually a whole darkroom bar the chemicals for £60 so I'm starting to do my own prints at home and it is just ridiculously good fun and very very creative. I can see why so many swear by processing+printing themselves, the control over the process can result in a very different print from those you might get with say Ilford's process+print service. (Which is very good.)

 

I do shoot colour print and slide as well but not quite as much, I just enjoy black and white too much. It's great to do something that involves no computer as well and it really makes me feel so in touch and involved with the process, knowing that every step of the way I have been able to really influence what has been captured and printed and aside from a mechnical failure I should never have a problem (except with the EOS 3 which is very electronic and the enlarger bulb!)

 

In terms of quality, I've printed shots up to 16x12, the best of those were from Delta 100, PanF and FP4+ -- I'm not going to say they're so sharp you cut yourself looking at them but the quality is most certainly excellent, but for most things I print anywhere between 6x4/5x7 to 8x10 which is perfectly practical to store, hang and seems a nice sweet spot for print sizes. The only ones I do larger tend to be landscapes, heads bigger than me hanging on the wall doesn't do it for me :)

 

With the MF camera which can churn out fantastic definition and quality, I will be shooting film by the looks of it for years to come, particularly 35mm. :)

A fun anecdote:

 

I've had to knock in tent pegs in once with my EOS 3 when hiking....

 

Not ideal but it worked. The look on everyone else's faces though was amusing to say the least.

 

In terms of build quality I've handled the EOS 30D and 40D (not the 50D), as well as the 5D and 1DMkII and the

EOS 3 has felt every bit comparable to me, but then I don't know exactly how the latter digitals would fare

everyday (not owning them) but the EOS 3 of mine has taken a good deal of beating and use with barely a blemish

on it.

 

I would say the EOS 5D/5DII are close but the closest in function and build (weathersealing etc.) would be

something like a 1D series. Although a 40D would be fine, but the wide lenses you have would become only fairly

wide-normal.

 

I'll buy a spare EOS 3 next year, they're that good. (I do mostly b+w so the processing and printing is done by

me and that makes it good value)