joshua daniels

While I do not have a Mac, I have seen this with my PC and 8750. First, in PS, your source space should be RGB, even though you're going to print a grayscale image. Then, in the Print Preview dialog, use your standard profile. In the HP driver, select "color management." Try printing both with color and grayscale only selected in the driver. This will give you some variation in tone (grayscale only uses only the gray / black cart).

How about a burner from digital to film? Yes, these exist, but they are specialized, high-end products and do not have enough DPI to rival an original film image. But the instability and long-term storage doubts about digital information can be addressed by the ability to burn to film (esp. Kodachrome).

You cannot use a lens without a leaf shutter on the Bronica, which rules out adapting most other lenses. In theory, Hasselblad and Rollei lenses would work, but you have to figure out how to fire the shutter independently of the camera, as there's no mechanical or electrical coupling between Bronica and third party lens.

 

You can use large format lenses with a separate release and a helical tube such as those from Zork (which also supports the Bronica mount with adapters for tilt and shift with large format lenses).

Great comments here! I found this interesting since I shoot both digital and film (Fuji S2, Nikon and Contax G film), and I think both digital and film have a place. The home scanner, if it's a good one (I have a Minolta Multi Pro, but have also used a Nikon V with similar results), can produce wonderful scans capable of producing excellent, large prints (12x18 range). The digital and film images have a different, and distinct look: digital is smoother, 'cleaner,' but not as finely detailed (look closely--there is more actual detail, albeit with more noise, in film). The film images need less sharpening, whereas the digital images gives the impression of sharpness only when acutance is boosted via unsharp mask. But in a way, there is no 'there' there, esp. larger than about 8x12 (from 6 MP).

 

Yes, digital has a huge convenience / immediate gratification advantage, and as a digital workflow it is a better fit to the computer and printer side of the equation. But don't right off a hybrid workflow -- it can be wonderful and produce distinctive, high quality results.

I heartily echo Tom's sentiments, particularly in light of the glut and excess that has come to characterize the life-style of many Americans (myself included). Thoreau would turn in his grave to see how acquisitive and materialistic we have become as a culture / nation.

 

With that said, I see little harm in holding an old film camera such as a Nikkormat, esp. given the pleasure and enlightenment that can come from using it(as opposed to collecting). This should be the test: is it being used? If not, then sell it to someone who will use it. Keep in mind that even occaassional use of a simple, straightforward camera can very much help refresh one's perspective on this high-tech, and ever more consumable equipment that presents itself to us in the digital age.

From some preliminary samples of high ISO, the D200 looks noisier than Canon. Nikon has also consistently lagged Canon in DSLR development. But perhaps the D200 has the attributes (or enough of them) that matter.

CCD or CMOS have nothing whatsoever to do with synch speed. As I understand it, it has to do with the way the dedicated flash and the focal plane shutter synchronize, so that the flash blasts multiple times at speeds above that at which the shuuter opens and closes fully. In effect, the high synch speeds involve flashing for each segment of the sensor that the shutter exposes (focal plane shutters expose a section at a time above the full open / close speeds).

My Fuji S2 does much better at ISO 1600. Disappointing, if representative.

I would say that the extreme over exposure of the lights draws attention to the limitations of the sensor -- which would be true with any digital camera. I would consider exposing more for the highlights (much shorter exposure) and then bringing shadow detail back up in curves. I'd also go for a lower ISO, as this will tend to give you overall better image quality and allow you to 'rebalance' the exposure in post. This kind of lighting, because of the extreme contrast, requires a more highlight-biased exposure, otherwise you will get the blown out highlights you see here. Since you're on a tripod with an inanimate subject, you may also want to consider two separate exposures, one for the highlights, other for the shadows, then use layer masks to 'paint back' detail.

I'm considering purchasing an Apple, and am leaning towards a

notebook. However, I'm also aware of the relatively rarity of really

good LCD screens - at least ones suitable for image editing. I'm not

completely determined to go Mac and so would also like to know of PC

notebooks with truly top notch screen. Please advise!

I have the older Tokina AT-X 28-70, which I consider one of my best lens (bought it after selling a 35-70/2.8 Nikkor). It's not tack sharp at 2.8, esp. at 70, but I haven't used a zoom in this range that is (the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor is very good wide open, but it doesn't go wide to tele). I recently used a brand new Tokina AT-X 28-70/2.8 SVX (? - it seems there are more than one version of this lens, and maybe this is NOT the top of the line, I don't know). I used it to shoot a wedding with my Fuji S2 pro. I wasn't so delighted with the results -- at first -- but upon further examination I realized that I was using fairly low shutter speeds with flash (for ambient fill), and I was also using pretty big apertures (though careful not to use 2.8). My feeling is that the Tokina AT-X is a top notch lens, as good as the best, for less money, but as with most zooms, and more so with price-point lenses, sample variation can be a huge factor in the performance of individual examples.

I can certainly understand the pessimism here re the state and future of medium format scanners, but does this really reflect the reality and actual opportunities?

 

Medium format, like all film formats, has some true advantages over digital, acutance, archival stability, and continuity with tradition. Sure, it's not instant and per shot it is more expensive than digital. On the other hand, you do not need an infrastructure of computer and battery technology to get film cameras to work. On the basis of technological complexity to actual results, film has it!

 

So, one has to ask, WHY has development of scanning technology come to an end? I believe much has to do with the defeatist mentality of camera and film manufacturers. Surely, film could be improved and made much more compatible with digital output. The opportunity is huge to better mesh film with scanning and digital output. Manufacturers have done relatively little to seize this opportunity.

 

Scanners could be greatly improved, both in terms of consistency with the current and potentially improved films. They could be made much faster, more accurate, and better quality. Say Hasselblad, Mamiya, or Pentax developed and produced a medium format scanner that could scan a full frame image in less than 1 minute and cost under $1500. It might breathe new life into the film vs. digital calculus. What if Kodak or Fuji developed films that could be developed in simplified, more temperature tolerent chemistries, with low environmental impact (digital may appear more ecologically sound than film, but consider the massive production infrastructure and huge impact of silicon technology - kind of like the myth of the zero emission electric car: you just don't see the damage so close to home).

 

And what if the film manufacturers themselves invested in better scanning technology at a more competitive price point? Surely, film sales would benefit if the convenience / cost factor could be improved.

 

Medium and large format still produce a certain "look" that digital cameras (or 35mm) will not be able to produce, and certainly (and even with the high megapixel backs) medium format digital will not be able to produce for some time at a reasonable price point. That look has to do with focal length, geometric perspective, and field of view relative to format size. There are also great uncertainties about the long term prospects of digital images; film has already proved itself a viable long term medium. Perhaps the manufacturers could market their wares - film, cameras, and scanners - specifically for their strengths and show up some of the potential weaknesses of digital.

 

I don't see an inherent dead end to medium format scanner development; only a failure of interest on the part of manufacturers to develop film technology further, and in response to the challenges of the digital age.

Another way to go is with a shift adapter and medium format lens. This gives you a big image circle, and less possibility of running out of edge resolution. You also have up to 20mm of shift, instead of 8-10 with a PC lens (16mm is needed to give you a full second frame's worth of image). Of course, you'd have to stitch two or more frames together to get the full angle of view, but with lenses as wide as 35mm (Pentax and Mamiya each have one), you'd be able to get moderately wide and have the ability to double the field of view (or more) by stitching. See http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/zork.shtml or www.zoerk.com.

I am betting that the Contax N digital camera and its lenses will not produce the kinds of fall off exhibited here from some of the Canon lenses. Why? Because (I'm given to understand) Contax opted for a thorough redesign of the lens mount and optics to go with their FF digital. It would be very interesting to see some comparisons, esp. with the wides.

Peter -

 

I think it may be helpful for you at least to see what those who feel some success with digital would produce from one of your files on their printer of choice. Perhaps some in this forum with the latest / greatest Epson could volunteer to take one of your files, print it, and send it to you.

 

I have an HP 8750 and would be glad to make you a print. If you contact me off line, we can arrange for you to send the file.

 

Then you can determine whether your disappointment is strictly with the technology or perhaps in part owing to your technique.

Jan -

 

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with some of the other posters: based on your sample, I'd say send the lens back and try another sample. I would be disappointed if a lens of this caliber (and cost) performed as yours does. Nikkor zooms do have some sample variation, and I've seen some substantial differences among even some of the most famous (80-200/2.8).

 

I would also consider doing some other tests - maybe with a full width textured subject, so you can determine more exactly what to expect, how far out to the edges, and the effects of stopping down.

 

In my experience, the pro level Nikkor zooms should be quite usable at 2.8, though some softness at the edges is to be expected (but not as much as your sample seems to produce).

 

I would a/b/c at least three samples, and then compare the results.

 

Good luck!

I have two scanners - the Minolta Multi Pro (very similar to 5400, but max dpi 4800) and the Coolscan V.

 

After extensive experimenting with the Nikon and various of the driver setting, and with Vuescan, I got best BW results (low grain, long dynamic range), but scanning bw negs as color negs with GEM set to "2." It's a simple workflow, and based on my many hours of playing with the scanners, settings, and software, produces the best overall result from various types of bw film (Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford). Of course, your milage may vary. The results from the Minolta, without Scanhancer, are grainier, with or without their grain dissolver.

I was recently at a number of camera stores in Tokyo looking for a used F4 for a friend, and I did note the F5 prices. Connie is correct: Nikon (and most) equipment is usually higher in Japan, BUT you can also find some good deals. I noticed F5s in excellent to mind condition were in the 140,000-160,000 range (I did see a few fairly used looking ones for under 100,000). Nevertheless, I picked up an excellent F4 with MB20 grip, for Y42,500. Figure about a 10% discount on these prices due to exchange rate.

You should NOT have any light leak issues. I used mine for a year or more without a motordrive cap - no fogging or other issues. But probably best to replace it (as I have) for keeping out dirt / dust.

I don't know WHY the Gretag target is in sRGB space, but it is. If I open it, I'm asked whether I want to convert to my (Adobe RGB) working space. If I say, "no" and just open the file, then look at the properties, the target is in sRGB.

 

Does anyone have this target who might be able to confirm my findings?

The image coming into PS is in sRGB (from my Fuji S2), for example, and I'm not having it converted to the working space, which is Adobe 1998.

Thanks for your response. Yes, you are correct, strictly speaking: accurate is accurate, so one cannot complain! But what I meant to say was that the colors themselves are accurate, but not as rich as on screen - which would concur with your comment about color space. Since I'm looking at the image on screen in sRGB, this difference may owe more to the difference between reflective and transparent media.

 

You made one comment that I'm puzzled by:

 

"...what is likely is that the profile was created to be used with the printer driver set to sRGB (I know EPSONs have such an option). If so, this does not mean your images have to be in sRGB; just that you have to use the sRGB mode in the driver (for consistency's sake)."

 

I don't understand your comment: profiles are used in lieu of printer driver color management. Typically, one goes into PS and selects Print with Preview, and then from the drop menu, the color profile. In the printer driver, color management is turned off.

 

So, I'm not getting your point here.

I have working on a color management workflow for my HP 7960 and 8750

printers for some time, and recently had a custom profile made using

Eye One. The Gretag reference file is in sRGB color space. The

profiling work flow requires that you make no changes to the native

space and turn off color management in the printer driver.

Essentially, you get an sRGB output as a flow through from the sRGB

source. The remapping that Gretag performs is, therefore, based on sRGB.

 

I'm interested in gettins some perspectives how or whether one should

work in an sRGB space using this profile, or else start in Adobe RGB

and let the profile work its magic.

 

In the tests I've run, the profile on the HP produces a very accurate

match to the screen, especially if I soft proof using the custom profile.

 

The printed colors are quite accurate, if a bit muted (which I prefer

to intensified / saturated), but overall the color is a tad less than

vibrant.

 

I'm curious to hear other people's workflows with a G-M profile

compare to mine, esp. with regards to working color space and results.

The 8750 is an excellent printer but it really requires a custom profile for accurate skin tones. Also, the consumables are fairly expensive.

I'm glad that you've corrected your problem, but according to HP you should NOT manually select the profile in the Windows printer properties, but rather use Print with Preview in Photoshop, then select the profile for Print Space from there. In the HP 8700 driver you should select Managed by Application, under the Color tab. You may have other inconsistencies if you've manually selected the profile in the Windows printer / color management area.

 

Joshua