david_waugh3

<p>Just one more thought... I think I almost contradicted myself in my last post... I assume the argument is that the work has to be done on Ektar because some of us simply AREN'T scanning Ektar well at all. I might be having a DUH moment, but is it really down to scanners (and their software) just not understanding the orange mask of Ektar? Is that why correction seem to be more extreme? Will new profiles say in SilverFast make any of these arguments obsolete? That's the thing I can't get my head around... gee Ektachrome was easier in that regard ;-)</p>

 

<p>Greg: great colour correction on my image - better than the result I ended up with. I think the point for a lot of people however, is that photos even slightly under or over with Ektar seem to take more work than other films (at the moment). It is EXTREMELY difficult to know exactly how a neg should be scanned (compared to positive of course) but I think people will eventually 'learn' how to scan Ektar - I know I am improving daily. I agree (partially) with your points and do find it extremely interesting... BUT, although I consider myself quite advanced in PS (having taught it for nearly 15 years) - it's something I think most people here don't want to resort to at such extreme levels. Can any film look like any other? Possibly these days, but hardly very fun ;-) </p>

<p>Thanks everyone.  Tommy - the Voigtlander sounds interesting... from memory it's pretty highly regarded?</p>

<p>I have to say I have learned more in the last 24 hours than the previous 6 months - thanks everyone! Didn't expect so much response but that can only be a good thing right!</p>

<p>Yeah I know it seems really stupid, and I don't REALLY mind that much. It's just that I am in need of a couple of lenses and would have made a decision bearing the focus direction in mind. I specifically wondered if the Zeiss lenses were that way... pics on the net seem to show both directions in F mount if I am not mistaken... bit confusing.</p>

<p>Could someone please tell me what lenses are available in Nikon mount that focus the 'other way'? Don't love the ideas of Leica R lenses in use (ie. stop down metering). I love my FM2 and FE2 but am so used to focussing the other way on a Hasselblad. I know this seems very petty and silly, but I just can't seem to come around to it... thanks very much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that most 35mm lenses start to loose sharpness after f8. It is of course a compromise vs DOF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Les - it was the Zeiss Planar 80mm (Blad). I'm sure you're right still about the best f-stop but I'd reckon f16 should still be pretty sharp. I am pre-releasing the mirror on the 500cm but I suspect I am getting too much vibration through the tripod. It's an old Manfrotto 055 which should be OK but the head is quite small. I am thinking of going for a more substantial head to see if there is a difference. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have really wanted to go to Mongolia and Nei Mongol for quite some time. How did you find Mongolia?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mongolia was wonderful - went cycle touring for 3 months for our honeymoon in 2003. As soon as your off the beaten track the people were amazing. Despite the language barrier, it was so easy to communicate. Extremely intelligent and resourceful people... hoping to take our son (who's 3 now) sometime in the next few years. I wasn't 'into' photography then, and our camera was a bit 'crappy' but there are some pics here if you are interested: http://gallery.me.com/davidwaugh#100101&bgcolor=black&view=grid</p>

<p>Joe - interesting about the processing. I will try a different lab next time.</p>

<p>You are all incredible! Thanks for the advice and insights - great learning experience for me. For the time being I will resign myself to more corrections when using Ektar. There are so many questions I'd love to ask but I will save them for future posts as I think I have probably overstayed my welcome on this one :-) If I were to see these films as positives then, I wonder would these differences in colour be visible? Many years ago (late 80's early 90's) I worked as a scan operator, and of course it was all chrome. The differences between Velvia and Ektrachrome never seemed as stark as what I am getting now between Portra and Ektar but then I am probably not seeing true 'raw' scans am I? Never understood that with neg films... I assume a lot is how a scanner reads the orange mask... is there even such a thing as a raw scan from neg? Mmmm... I still have a lot to learn :-)</p>

<p>Thanks Herb and Roger for the colour work - better than what I ended up doing. Roger - I think the neg may be bad also. This is defiantly for another post but I am constantly unhappy with any long exposure shots and I don't know if it's camera shake or poor tripod/head choice. I (kind of) understand the difference between depth of field and depth of focus but nonetheless at f16 with focus at 3 meters away, it should all be pretty sharp! </p>

<p>One thing is for certain - the V700 is a great scanner for the price, but I cannot get scans as sharp as systems I have used before (but then they cost many times more also). Have got the betterscanning holder which is nice but no difference in sharpness despite height adjustment. </p>

<p>BTW Les - I wish my rainforest shots looked like your samples! :-) Here's one of mine... aaaggghhh.<br /> <img src="http://www.wirliyajarrayi.com/images/ektar2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Vicky - stunning sample pic and yes... that Ektar one is particularly good. It's those kind of pics that got me excited about Ektar in the first place!<br>

Chrise - just looked at your folio too. Very, very nice and certainly more like what I have been trying to achieve. Out of interest, could you share your scanning method please?</p>

<p>Sincere apologies to Les and others for not answering your question: I have been scanning the negs on a V700. I realize it's not a professional level scanner, but in the conditions I am living (central Australian desert at the moment) it's the best I can justify. Interestingly, I stopped using lab scans a while ago because I was getting similar weird colour results using Reala.</p>

<p>Les - I have been looking at your site and the comments re: V700 are very interesting. It's just that the Portra seems so easy to scan and I seem to get predictable results. BTW I am using Epson scan, 48 bit colour @ 2400 dpi. Small bit of PS and then a convert to 8bit. Tried Silverfast - kind of liked it but found the app unstable on my Mac (the only thing that has ever crashed on me!)</p>

<p>Unfortunately I don't have the scanner setup at the moment (packed up due to a 3 day dust storm!) but here is a sample here. I already did a bit of colour work on this image but I am sure you can still see the problems. Weird skin tones, awful sky... more than just a green cast I think (although my colour isn't too crash hot).</p>

<p>I wish I had something similar in Portra on file - sorry. I did also shoot 3 rolls of Ektar in a rainforest a few weeks ago and the results were woeful but definatley my fault - about 1-1.5 stops under and nothing is salvageable. Shadows all blue as people have commented. </p>

<p>Mr Burke - your take on colour I find informative and completely understand. Perhaps it is just something I am not used to. The only thing that bothers me is that I can't seem to correct the Ektar scans easily. Now I am just an enthusiast with little real photographic technical experience, but I am a graphic designer who holds Adobe accreditation in most apps. I know PS pretty well and have worked as a high-end retoucher but I am still fighting these scans. I'm not making out that I am a guru (I'm certainly NOT one) - it's just that I should be finding these colour corrections easier :-)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.wirliyajarrayi.com/images/ektar.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Very interesting - thanks for the replies everyone. Looking at my negs I think I have committed the big Ektar sin and am under exposing a little! :-) Good learning nonetheless. I will give another few rolls a go and be more careful this time around. Whether it replaces or complements the 160VC... not sure. I also have a roll of 35mm which will go into the Konica S2 today. </p>

<p>I know there 's been a lot of talk about Ektar, but I wanted to share my 2c worth.  I've heard people call it "the 'new' chrome" and boy they aren't wrong!  No latitude at all!  Here in Australia there is no Ektar so I ordered a 5 pack in120 from the US.  Very excited to finally try it out, but I have to say I am disappointed with my results.  The colour seems sooo off and there's a sort of harshness to it.  I absolutely LOVE Portra and perhaps in a way I was just expecting a finer-grained, more saturated version of that.</p>

 

<p>So what do you think - have other people warmed to it immediately, or is it an acquired taste?  Does it get better of time as you get used to it?  Perhaps I need to rethink exposures - be more exact and never go over...  I want to love it :-)</p>

Thanks for the replies.  I actually spent a little bit of time this evening 'practicing' focusing without the magnifier... I think I

need to trust it more :-)  Certainly where I am focussing closer, then I think I will do as Kris does and just compose using

the magnifier also.  With a large neg, I shouldn't be afraid of cropping some corners if required.  

 

It's confidence also (still very new to this Hasselblad thing). I need to be snappier - less time between focusing and

composing. I also shortened my strap tonight and I think that might help.  Closer view and less movement from when I use

the magnifier.

 

Thanks again everyone.  

<p>Just wondering how people generally focus and compose with a WLF handheld using a WLF.</p>

<p>Assuming the subject isn't moving and there's time, I will generally focus using the magnifier, and then fold it back down to compose normally. I love the WLF - having that extra bit of interaction with the subject rather than being 'stuck in a viewfinder'. My only problem is that I love to shoot at fairly wide apertures and unfortunately I tend move enough after focusing with the magnifier to alter the distance to my subject (despite being careful) and my hit rate suffers. Critical focus isn't crucial to me (and of course I can't expect that handheld), but obviously I don't have a huge DOF using say f5.6 on my 150 at 3 meters.... do most people use a prism in this case, or do they also compose with the magnifier in place?</p>

<p>Do you think with practice, I could master the focussing not using the magnifier? I do have a split screen Acute Matte but I find still find it difficult to focus without it.</p>

<p>I understand the physics - DOF and DO focus etc, but hoping to get a better handle on 'best practice' when using the WLF.</p>

<p>Many thanks,</p>

<p>David</p>

<p>That's great - thanks very much. That's a good starting point to work from.</p>

<p>I have just spent a few hours researching "120 B&W developing" and although I have learned a lot, I am even more confused :-) Sorry to have to ask another "which developer" question, but I'd appreciate some straight advice.</p>

 

<p>Being over 400k's from the nearest town and about 2500k's from anywhere that processes film, I knew the day would come when I would want to develop my own!  I am planning to use Neopan 100 almost exclusively and would like any recommendations on a simple, straight-forward system.   </p>

 

<p>I understand it must be a very personal thing, but is there a general consensus on a recommended developer and fixer?  Unfortunately I am also living in a desert so dust is a bit of problem - I will do everything to eliminate it but if there is anything I can do in that regard, I'd love to know.  For the time being, I'll be scanning on a V700 and understand my negs will be living underneath books for a while before scanning :-)</p>

 

<p>Thank you very much in advance.</p>

 

<p>David</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. Very helpful. I will arrange coffee breaks to coincide with scanning ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks David. Will definitely purchase the Betterscanning holder at some point. Have been wondering about Vuescan v Silverfast. I know this has been discussed here many times, but what do you see as the major 'selling point' of Vuescan? I guess either yields better results for most people than the Epson software.</p>

<p>Just about to purchase a V700 but was wondering how a 6x6 neg is scanned using the standard Epson 120 holder. Can you fit two 6x6 negs in the 6x12 holder? </p>

<p>Thank you very much.</p>

<p>Yeah I wondered if that was the going price in the US ;-)</p>

<p>I am no expert, but I have used the Nikon 8000 extensively and have outsourced scans to the X1 (and 646).  I have never scanned one neg on both, but I feel confident to say the X1 is a class above.  IMHO I would jump at the opportunity - a better scanner at a cheaper price!  Quantifiable difference in DR and overall just easier to use (from my limited time actually seeing the X1's workflow).  I have always loved Nikon gear, but their scanning software has always seemed clunky to me.  </p>

 

<p>Take this with a grain or two - I haven't used the 9000 so it may be a whole lot better :-)</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

I am only chiming in here because the responses so far (whilst valid of course) seem a little extreme. Whilst I am sure the advice is from accomplished photographers, not everything needs to be 'pin sharp' all the time (depending a bit on subject matter of course). Using a tripod is ALWAYS an advantage, regardless of what camera system you are talking about (even despite VR or the like). <br>

I think a little too much is placed on the 'Blad mirror slap'. Sure on an 80mm anything longer than 125th is difficult, but your 501cm is perfect for hand holding. The only thing I do is get the right length for my strap allowing me to us it as an extra counter-weight. Apart from that it's just like anything else... relax, breath-out and squeeze the 'trigger' gently :-)<br>

The Hassy is great handheld IMO!</p>

 

<p>Carlos.  I am no expert, but I to have asked the same questions a few times in different forums.  The answer seems to be "no".  For me it was interesting because I could make the investment into the V system without breaking the bank initially.  The way prices have come down (at least here in Australia), I doesn't matter that much anymore.  The quality of the lenses at the current prices seem like bargains.  Of course, if you already have a massive investment in another system it's a different story.  </p>

 

<p>I still just use an 80mm but am looking to buy a 150 in the near future. Prices here for example are about AU$700 for an ex condition CF.  No small investment, but better than anything else I could get for the money :-)</p>

 

<p>There's seems to be a few Hassy to other mount adapters (like Nikon) but not the other way around.<br>

 <br>

 </p>

<p>I know it's a 'fake' but I love 400CN. If you ultimately scan your negs, I really believe 400CN is vastly superior to any real B&W film I have used (TMAX, TriX). Of course, wet printing is another matter entirely :-)<br>

If you do scan, give it a try - I really think you'll be impressed. </p>