doug_brightwell1

I noticed spots on my 10D sensor. I initially assumed they were dust, but later realized that they were soft, diffused circles, not dust-shaped particles. Then I assumed they were water spots, from where I had no idea. A guy at the camera store told me it's most likely the dry lubricant from the mirror action that comes lose and is distributed throughout the mirror box. He says it's very common. Once the sensor is cleaned, the lubricant will return. He recommended sending to Canon for cleaning so they can also clean the mirror box and reduce the chance of future spotting. If you want to clean it yourself, from my reading on the web the safest and best method for spots that can't simply be blown or brushed off is Photographic Solution's Eclipse Fluid on their Sensor swaps. (Sorry if someone already mentioned that, but previous posts aren't visible while typing a comment.)

Just a couple of suggestions based upon my experience in ordering a screen for my Toyo

vx125b. Turns out there is a fair bit of rocket science to viewing screens, and since this

happened a couple of years back, the details are fuzzy (pun intended). But on this one

view camera, there's something non-standard about the way the Toyo screen is designed

and positioned in the camera. The factory screen accommodates this, but 3rd party

screens don't. As a result Bill's screen didn't seat at the exact film plane as common sense

and physics would normally dictate. It may have had something to do with Toyo putting

the fresnel circles in front of the ground glass instead of behind it, or something along

those lines. Since he had not built a screen specifically for that model before, he assumed

(quite reasonably) that it was designed like the other 99.99% of the view cameras out

there. It wasn't. He offered to make good on it, so I have no complaints there.

Unfortunately, I got busy with non-LF projects and never got back to him. I'm still using

the factory screen for the rare LF shots.

 

My only point is this: be sure to discuss your specific camera with him and ask if he's

made screens for your specific model. If not, you might want to send the camera in to

install the screen and verify the position. (In fact, screens that are highly optimized for

wide angle lenses have to be installed by him.) Or build in some time for returning the

screen and having it redone. I was about to leave on a trip and needed mine right away.

 

Also, I wasn't aware that I was going to get two pieces of glass, compared to Toyo's one: a

ground/fresnel piece and a cover sheet. Not a deal breaker, but I had to get longer screws

machined at a local camera repair shop to hold the thicker assembly.

 

Also, Bill cuts corners. Not in quality, but literally he cut the corners of the screen off.

Some people like that for checking vignetting at really small apertures, and I guess to let

the bellows breathe. I wasn't expecting it was surprised. I prefer to have my corners in

place. To each his own, but it's another detail to discuss with him.

 

Bill's very knowledgeable and you'll hang up having received a good tutorial on viewing

screens. Make sure you have a good long distance pricing plan. He's the ultimate in one-

on-one customer service.

Thanks, Richard for the suggestion. Will check out the waterproof Sony.

" get involved in photography with zero film costs"

 

That's part of what's motivating me. Something she can shoot anything and take tons

of pictures and feel free to experiment, and never feel constrained by the notion that

there are only 12 pictures to the roll, and to shoot more means loading another roll,

and that means money, and it means she can't view the photos herself under her own

initiative. We'd have to take them out to get processed. I want her to have the feeling

of being more in control, and that it's her own little feedback loop where she can

shoot and view, shoot and view, and select some images to email to Grannie, or make

X-mas cards, whatever. I want it to be something that could be a Saturday afternoon

activity for her, complete from shooting to printing. Not a 2-3 day activity while

waiting for prints she can't do anything with.

 

She has a Barbie Polaroid that we got her when she was maybe 4. It takes such crappy

pictures, it can't be exciting to her. It's not that she has the refined visual awareness

of an adult photographer. But she know what the TV looks like, and she knows what

my photos look like, and what her Mom's photos look like. I think her's need to look

on par in order to become excited about it.

 

She somethimes shoots with her mom's camera, which is an APS camera. She's

familiar with the zoom rocker button and can zoom between wide angle and

telephoto. She's got that down.

 

I want to be able to set the iso for her at maybe 800, and ideally keep the flash from

firing at below 1/30th second, and let her go to town.

 

She likes printing out images she creates on some Disney kids site, so I think she'd

like printing out her own photos.

I want to get a digital camera for a child who's seven and in the 2nd grade.

 

Something that's simple to operate, has a large LCD screen, whose zoom goes pretty

wide angle.

 

I'd like it to be capable of shooting available light in low light levels -- not night

scenes, but normally lit rooms in the house -- so that the feeling of a scene isn't

automatically obliterated by the flash unless it's really necessary. Ideally, I'd love a

feature where the flash wouldn't fire until the shutter speed drops below 1/30th

second.

 

Most important, the camera can't be as brain-dead as my Nikon CoolPix 990. If it has

as much trouble auto-focusing as the 990, and builds in such a long and

unpredictable delay, the child will only experience frustration, and learn to associate

taking pictures with failure.

 

Ideally, it'd have a dock or base station to drop the camera into for downloading into

iPhoto on her Mac computer, but she can also plug in a USB cable. However it's

connected to her Mac, seamless integration with Mac OS X and iPhoto is essential. I

don't want to have to deal with some camera manufacturer's software.

 

Naturally, if the camera were physically kid proof and could survive being tossed into

her backpack or falling on the floor of the car, etc., that'd be a plus.

 

Cost is a factor, but not the primary concern. I'm hoping to not have to spend over

$300.

 

Any ideas?

Sorry to but in again so soon, but I just read the article about the upcoming Epson

4870 on www.photo-i.co.uk. Might be of interest for people who can want until

January 2004.

I was in the same quandary about whether to buy the 3200 or the 9900f. At the time, I

had a very specific application, and the Canon won out because the CanoScan Toolbox

supports multi-pages scans direct to PDF. That was the deal maker for me. The Epson

did not allow that. Also, if memory serves, the Epson drivers were not yet OS X native,

but I can't be sure about that.

 

Having had the 9900f for a while, it worked about as expected for my primary

application, which was scanning multi-page documents into PDF files.

 

Recently, I've started scanning photos. The Canon driver is very basic. But I have to

say I have not experienced unpredictable results of the kind mentioned by a previous

poster. What I see in the preview is what I get in the final scan. (That was often not the

case with LinoColor-Hell software, which many consider to be very good, on my Ultra

Saphir II.)

 

I just set the preferences to the scanner's factory supplied ColorSync profile, and don't

bother to make scan-by-scan color corrections. I'm going through old family photos

and scanning them to preserve them. There is no precise color to capture accurately

and fuss over since the originals are drugstore processed snapshots. But to my eyes,

using ColorSync, the results are pretty close. I'm fully satisfied with the color capture

considering that I don't have time to tweak each scan. My issue now is volume. I need

to set it and forget it and get something reasonably close that can later be edited and

further corrected in PhotoShop.

 

Regarding sharpness, my only observation is that the scanner can resolved surface

dust on prints that I can't see just by looking. I haven't been using the dust and

scratch removal feature, and might explore it. I pretty much wanted to reserve all

options for PhotoShop, figuring that except for huge color and brightness corrections

that trash the histogram, I'm better off making changes with PS tools, not Canon

tools.

 

However, for my own photos that I would like to take more care with at the scanning

stage, the Canon software is definitely feature poor. I was surprised and disappointed

to learn that Hamrick and Lasersoft don't support the 9900f, for understandable

reasons. That makes me annoyed at Canon.

 

The other disappointment is the speed of the scanner. If speed is an issue for you, be

aware that Canon's specs are designed to be totally misleading. Canon make public

only the time it takes the preview or scan to complete ONCE THE SCAN HEAD IN IN

MOTION... which is the minority of the time. They leave out the much lengthier

calibration and pre-preview and pre-scan time where the scanner is thinking about

making a scan, which is at least three times or more the actual time required once the

device is actually making the scan. Naturally, they fail to draw that distinction in their

marketing materials.

 

Another annoying thing about Canon is they don't make TWAIN drivers for OS X,

which prevents the scanners from being used directly in Acrobat. Since buying the

9900f, I think I read that TWAIN drivers were released for the 3200, which might have

solved my primary direct to PDF requirement, and would have left me with a faster

scanner that can be used with Silverfast and VueScan.

 

On the other hand, I live and die by my LiDE 30 scanner for simple document scans.

But the timesaving features in the CanoScan Toolbox that enable one click scanning

aren't available at the higher resolutions above 300dpi. For those, you're forced to use

the actual driver, which forces you to open the scan in a user defined application

afterwards. So one might as well make the scan within PhotoShop to begin with.

Besides the ToolBox can't tell that PhotoShop CS is an application, not a folder, and

always tried to launch PhotoShop 7 in Classic Mode instead of OS X.

 

Doug

Have you tried Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto: www.kspphoto.com? Maybe they have a

used one they'd let you rent or test. FWIW, they have Mamiya 7's listed in their rental

catalog. I believe they also do rentals by "mail" to out of town photographers.

I found some of the description language potentially misleading, "The large sensor

has a 3:2 aspect ratio to give you the familiar compositional feel and classic image

proportions of a 35mm camera."

 

As a marketing writer, I'm not sure that's the language I'd use to make it clear that

the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame and imposes a 1.6x magnification.

 

Their specifications also omits the 1.6 magnification found in the specs on Canon's

web site.

 

No, I don't expect to get a full-size sensor for under $1K... yet.

I got that same error message when I first started using my 9900f. In my case, I had

not installed both the Canoscan Toolbox and the scanner driver (can't remember what

the software is called) for the 9900f. I had been using a LiDE 30 scanner previously,

and the 9900f started looking for its version of those same apps, and found the LiDE

30 version instead. I made sure I installed the most reccent 9900f version from

Canon's website, and edited the application names to indicate which was for the

9900f and which is for the LiDE 30. After that, everything's run just fine. I'm running

10.2.6 with all the Apple software updates. If you're not, I'd recommend updating

your system, but am not sure at which version number it really makes a difference for

the Canon.

 

In case you overlooked it, an instruction sheet comes with the scanner that has all

sorts of dire warnings about what can go wrong when using FireWire. As I recall, I

recommends against connecting it to a Firewire daisy chain or hub. I haven't tried

running the scanner from the back of one of my FW HDs, and don't know how

realistic or conservative their warning is. Don't know if this is typical of any scanner

over FW, or if Canon just has a poor implimentation. But if you're not already, try

running the FW directly out of your Mac. But, then you likely don't have a FW drive or

other device, otherwise that in itself would be evidence your Mac's FW is working just

fine.

 

Also, zapping the PRAM might make a difference if all else fails.

Calypso is a well known lab, and does a lot of LightJect work. I used to use them for

120/220 color negative until I got a roll back that had undeveloped areas on it. I

asked for an explaination, and they told me that in their dip and dunk tank, they

attach both ends of 220 film to clips and let the looped middle hang down. With 120,

they attach one end to the clips and let the entire roll dangle straight down into the

solution. The tanks aren't deep enough to do that with 220. The result is that

sometimes, the doubled over 220 film comes in contect with itself and sticks

together, preventing chemicals from reaching those areas and causing blotches. It

doesn't happen often, but the deal breaker for me was that they seemed to think it

was no big deal. They didn't seem sufficiently horrified that they had screwed up a

roll of my film, and that their method was prone to that kind of problem. They

seemed too matter of fact about it. Like it was partly the fault of how thin 220 film is.

(Not sure there's any difference in actualy thickness of the stock.)

 

Bottomline, they knew their development method sometimes causes splotches, and

that wasn't sufficient reason to change it or pre-warn customers. So I looked

elsewhere for processing. Wouldn't think twice about using their Lightject or other

digital services though.

Sergio...

 

Your posting sounds like it should have links to photos, but I'm not seeing any in my browser. Did I get the wrong idea?

Oh, so now Rollei USA has it's own repair facility that's separate from Marflex? Didn't know that. Glad you posted that. I had always thought that Marflex functioned as Rollei USA's warranty repair facility under contract. But now there's a different set of guys sitting in a different building with a Rollei USA sign out front, and they're ones who do any and all 600x service?

Rollei service... Do you mean hassles with Marflex in the USA? Or sending it back to Rollei Germany? Marflex's good reputation was the one thing that made me feel safe about buying a 6008i given the pitiful USA distributor and dealer support. Just curious if things have change.

 

Anyway, regarding hand holding... I think the camera is wonderful to hand hold. I considered a Hasselblad, Contax 645 and the 6008i. I probably wouldn't rave about the hand grip to the extent some do. It's not perfect. But overall, I really love the feel of the camera in my hand using the 45-degree prism. If one were going for hand holding feel as the prime issue, and were willing to go down to 645, the Mamiya 645 is probably the most ergonomic design of all. But in the 6x6 realm, I don't think the 6008 can be beat.

As I see, there are two separate issues you need to sort out:

 

One is whether or not your eye can focus on the screen. Even if the camera lens is dramatically out of focus, you should be able to clearly see the concentric rings that cover the viewing screen, or the boundaries of the split image or some other screen architecture. The features of the screen itself should appear sharp. I never realized that my viewing screen had concentric circles enscribed on it over it's entire surface until I got the right diopter from Rollei. I went to my optomitrist and he determined what the right power diopter would be for me and I gave that info to Marflex. Marflex will gladly exchange diopters if you try one and discover it's the wrong power. As an interrim measure, you can try pressing down in the magnifier. Depending upon which way your correction needs to be, that may bring the screen itself into focus. That's what I did until I go the diopter situation resolved. Of course, unless you have three hands, it only works when shooting on a tripod.

 

Second, is the issue of "popping" into focus. Anyone who's ever called and talked to Bill Maxwell has gotten an in depth tutorial on more than you ever wanted to know about focusing screen technology. Don't remember all the details, but I believe a bright screen achieves it's overall brightness and evenness of illimination at the expense of the physical characteristics needed to achieve that popping in and out effect. Also, wider focal length lenses are harder to focus than longer lenses.

 

You may find that a different type of screen, or a different manufacturer's screen would more obviously indicate correct focus. If I were you, I'd call Bill Maxwell and see what he recommends. This is right up his alley and he's happy to talk about it: (404) 244-0095. I bought one of his screens and prefer it to the Hi-D.

 

Doug

I'm glad to see this update on what films people think are the current best of

the crop. I alway wonder about this.

 

Although my question is similar, it's different enough that I don't want to derail

this discussion. If I should create a new topic, my apologies. Lemme know.

 

But if it's of interest to anyone else, here my variation to the original question:

What are the 2-3 top 120/220 color films for landscapes and scanning?

 

I want to shoot landscapes when the sun is very low in the sky, and at dusk. I

sometimes shoot color film during the last 10 minutes before the sun goes

down, with a polarizing filer at f16-f22 at exposures of 2-16 seconds.

Brightness range is always wide, often 9-10 stops.

 

Usualy I shot 120/220 Fuji Reala because of greater latitude and smooth

tonalities. I scan them on a FlexTight Precision II (Believing that color negs

and an Imacon scanner are a good match.)

 

I then manipulate the hell out of the color saturation, curves, lightness/

darkness, hue, etc. I never go for an "accurate" rendition of the original scene.

Quite the oppositie.

 

Given that, does it really matter what film I shoot? Aren't most of the

discussions on photo.net about "best" films geared more towards photogs

who have their film printed at professional labs, where the inherent

characteristics of the emulsions are more determining factors than with digital

manipulation.

 

In other words, I think the only issues I need to worry about is:

 

- fine grain & sharpness

- transparency versus negative

- wide latitude (to capture as much "data" at the time of the shot)

- ISO if faster shutter speeds are every an issue

 

Otherwise, how much red is in the rocks, or what type of blue is in the sky is

immaterial to me. I can change those parameters anyway to taste, and often

do in rather substantial increments.

 

I do want to avoid overall color casts, and have personally always found

Provia 100f to be way, way blue. Not just in the shadows. But I supose I could

always correct for that if I wanted to shoot transparencies.

 

Just wondering if my assessment makes sense, or if I was missing something

about film selection when the shots are destined to a scanner.

 

Thanks,

Dooug

"I also have a Rolleiflex...any reviews out there on it's 30mm

lens? Should I invest my money into this lens, rather than look

for another body and lens? "

 

There pros and cons to both dedicated panorama camera and

to using regular cameras and sticthing multiple shots. FWIW, i

have shot tests of a 360-degree pano using the 30mm fisheye

on a 6008i, and stitching it using Helmut Dersch's PanoTools

software. If you have a lot of time to tackle the steep learning

curve, the result is panos with no fisheye distortion -- the

software proceedure removes it. Of course, you get the normal

distortion inherent in panos. But with the 30mm, what you get is

a very wide _vertical_ angle of view. More than a camera like the

Noblex. That means you can get closer to your subject and

include more of the foreground. Gives the pano a greater feeling

of depth and immersion. This would not be relevant to smeone

who primarily wants to shoot normal distance scenes..

 

The lens itself is very sharp and tremendously corrected for flare.

You can have the sun in the frame with acceptable flare.

 

Of course, stitching multiple 6x6 shots is a more complicated

approach to pano photography. You gotta like putzing on

computers.

<<If the ambient temperature is below zero>>

 

Is that zero farenheit or celcius?

 

At what temperature does one have to really consider the battery

extension cord?

 

If the battery "dies" due to the cold, does it come to life again

when warmed up? I haven't yet shot in cold weather, but I have

three batteries and figured I would just rotate them. As the one in

the camera got cold and drained, I figured I'd rotate it with one

that had been kept warm in an inner pocket, and so forth.

 

Perhaps this shows how little attention I paid in high school

physics class, but when a battery "looses" a charge due to cold,

is it just temporarily disabled, or is the charge actually erased?

 

Doug

I've also excellent results from two other companies:

 

- Nancy Scans in NY state: www.nancyscans.com

 

- Color Folio in Sebastopol, CA: www.colorfolio.com

 

Color Folio specializes in the fine arts market. Does a lot of work

with Galen Rowell.

 

Nancy Scans is, I'm guessing, a higher volume operation that

probably caters to the NYC commercial trade. Their scans are

cheaper, and they have the Lino software to do 16-bit/channel

output. When I had them make large scans of 3-4x5 color

negatives that comprised a single panoramic images, both of

those were advantages.

 

Both have been very professional and responsive.

 

Doug

"But my understanding is that conventional b&w films don�t scan

as well as chromogenics or color films (if it matters, these will

be drum scans)."

 

I've never heard that. Would be interested in understanding why,

if it's true.

 

I do know that some photographers like shooting color for B&W

because they can adjust the relative percentage each RGB

channel contributes to the image in PhotoShop, which is like

having an infinitely tuneable full range of B&W filters that can be

selected after the fact. But that's not a scanning issue.

 

Doug

FWIW, if you have a 6008 and are annoyed by those light pipes,

you can just break them off (per Marflex). They break off easily

and cleanly.

 

Doug

BTW, I still hoping someone will explain the physics of how

adding weight to a tripod will dampen vibrations, despite the fact

that the materials and structure of the tripod haven't changed,

and that the weight hasn't specifically been applied to where the

vibrations may likely occur... in the legs themselves.

 

I don't dispute it, just want to better understand it.

 

Doug

Another quickie method to detect vibration... I bought a small

clear plastic box that came in two halves, like a lid and a bottom.

Tap plastic has them. About one inch wide. I filled it about one

third full with water and glued the two halves together.

 

When I'm concerned about wind vibration, I place the box on top

of my 6008i and watch the surface reflection on the water. The

slightest vibration will show up as a disturbance in the surface

reflection, even when the volume of water itself doesn't look like

it's moving. I wait until the surface reflection is still, then fire the

shutter.

 

This procedure has made me wonder how anybody has been

able to take large format landscape photos of the American West

and have them turn out sharp... due to wind. Maybe it's possible

with wooden cameras and tripods?

 

Anyway, it also allowed me to see that even after pre-releasing

the mirror, which I do all the time, there is still a vibration from the

electronic shutter release... hopefully after the shutter has

closed.

 

It's also demonstrated that, at least on my aluminum Gitzo tripod,

the automatic 2-second mirror pre-release built into the

10-second self timer is not time enough to allow the vibrations to

subside before the shutter is released. Once I saw that, I made a

point of using the electonic cable release and waiting several

seconds after the mirror was up before taking the shot.

I'd like to know more about the suggestions to add mass to the

tripod. I use on a Gitzo 410 tripod. There is no center post, and

because of the leveling head I have installed, there is no center

hook. I can however wrap small 10lb Mathews "boa" sand bags

around the area where the legs attach.

 

Will this eliminate/reduce the vibrations that people say are so

characteristic of the aluminum legs? Will it eliminate/reduce

vibrations due to wind? (I'm invaribaly shooting landscape in

windy places.)

 

I'm intrgued by the notion that even though the construction and

materials are the same, simply adding weight dampens

vibrations.

 

Doug

"split rings and collars, while giving the appearance of easy

focus, are not really very accurate"

 

Roger...

 

Can you say more about this. I bought a Mazwell screen for my

6008i that has a split image and a microprism collar specifically

because I was having trouble focusing. Is what you say also true

of the Maxwell screens?

 

Are you saying that if you get the microprisms to look "clear" that

you could actually be focusing on a different point than you think?

Or, just that you have to be careful to really get the microprisms

to read clear?

 

I too find the split image to be a little too loosey-goosey for my

tastes.

 

Thanks,

Doug