galileo42

<p>I usually scan my negs with Nikon Scan 4 and my older Nikon LS 4000 neg scanner. I get good results, but I want to use Vuescan (vers. 8.4), which I think is a bit better and faster than Nikon software. However, I don't because I cannot, for the life of me, get the frames aligned correctly in the preview. They're always off and overlap each other. This drives me crazy. How on earth can you get the scanner to align the frames? Thanks a lot for your help.</p>

<p>My, this place is getting dangerous. What if the guy wants to be reassured he made a good choice? What if he's planning on buying some more lenses? What if he just wants to have a little chat about Zeiss and Leica lenses? Geez!</p>

<p>Sometimes, I question the use of these forums, when I read some reactions.</p>

<p>Ronald:</p>

<p>« Digital Truth has a Massive development chart listing every combination. Lots of work went into it, the only problem is I have to reduce the times by 40%. I avoid this resource unless I have no choice. Others may have better luck.»</p>

<p>Ronald, 40 % seems an awful lot to me, everything else remaining equal (temperature,agitation...) Let's take a classic example: Tri-X at 400 in Xtol 1+1. The MDC recommends 9 min. at 20 C. Y0u really go only 5'40"? I don't know, I have more or less respected the times of the MDC so far (I even contributed one), and I think they work okay. For me, at least. But there may be something I don't see, or that I should obtain and don't. Are your negs overdeveloped when you respect the MDC? What do they look like? I am very curious to know.</p>

<p>If you're talking about the Mamiya 6 and 7 (not clear) I don't think the lenses are interchangeable from one system to the other.</p>

<p>AFAIK, flatbed scanners don't seem to yield good results with 35 mm, though they do with MF (my old Epson 3800 is not bad at all with 120 negatives.) I've been scanning my negs (color and b&w) with an older Nikon LS 4000, and Nikon Scan 4 or Vuescan, for a long time, and it works. I have a very convenient slide-loader (expensive) which allows me to automatically feed and scan up to 50 slides in bulk. I do it overnight. Nice. B&W is more difficult to scan than color, but it can be done, and with good results. And, lately, I've been rediscovering the joys of shooting film.</p>

<p>These are not DSLRs, which means you can't change lenses. But they offer zooms, apart from the Sigma, which has a fixed 28 mm lens. Tle Leica D-Lux 4 and the LX-3 are basically the same camera (lens, sensor...) with different image engines and build. And price. They have VR. It works well in the LX-3, and since if offers a fast lens (f:2) plus a good IQ up to ISO 800, it's a perfect snapshot-reportage camera for almost all circumstances. I put mine on Auto-ISO set at max. 800 and I shoot away.</p>

<p>I guess only someone having shot extensively with all four cameras can really answer your question. Not very likely. So, what you'll probably get is more hearsay than actual experience. All I can say is that my LX-3 is great. And you can perfectly process the Raw files from it in Lightroom, vers. 2.2. You can download this version for free from Adobe's site, if it's not already the version you have (or buy.)</p>

<p>On this other planet called Toronto, Canada, there is this guy, Gerry Smith, at Kinderman, who is no slouch either.</p>

<p>For street, as other have remarked, you will need 400, just to make sure. I have recently discovered the virtues of the new TMX 400. I didn't care much for the old one, but the new one is really good. It gives sharp images, with great tonalities and not much grain (for a 400 film.) I still prefer Tri-X, but it is a bit grainier. Give the new TMX 400 a try.</p>

<p>Albert, I was referring to the new Fuji camera the OP talks about, not the LX-3. I have one, I know it has Raw, and I love this camera.</p>

<p>Winter</p><div></div>

<p>I got mine new in three days about three weeks ago. For around $1,850 USD, all taxes included. Now, B&H sell it at $2,400. I guess I had a hunch. And is the sales tax included in the price, or do you have to add it to the retailer price? Which would make my F6 an even more interesting deal.</p>

<p>An honest eBay seller will always mention specific marks or chips or discoloration or dirt or wear on the outside of a lens. He will post good close-up photos of all these marks. And he will not say «minimum outer wear» when there is a «pea-size chip» of paint showing some grey underneath. Where does this come from? Has the lens been bumped? A Nikon 17-55 doesn't chip just like that.</p>

<p>I never buy, and never will buy, any piece of photo equipment without a good number of good and clear photos of the item from several angles. And the S/N number when possible. Unless there is a serious and long warranty offered. It's good that your seller suggested you return the lens. I would return it, and I would suggest he change the description when he offers it for sale again. There are several used 17-55 on sale on eBay right now.</p>

<p>Thanks again. I only listed the developers I had already. I used to use Xtol (and liked it a lot), but I stopped when they stopped selling 1 liter bags. 5 liters was too much, especially whent I went almost exclusively digital. But now, I'm going back to b&w film more and more (and do I love it!) so maybe 5 liters won't be too much anymore.</p>

<p>To make sure, here is my workflow (works for me): download files with a card reader - «Import» the folder in LR2 - Adjusts the Nef files to taste - (Prepare a batch by selecting several files and «Sync» with the first adjustments + last minute adjustments to individual files in the batch if need be) - «Export» to Tif in another folder - Last retouching in PS3 (this where I will apply USM, if need be, plus different parameters) - (Resize to 8x12) - Convert to 8 bits - Save as jpeg, or Tif.</p>

<p>Chris, it's funny because one day I made this same comment regarding the inability of NX to do decent batch jobs, and I said it was a real blunder by Nikon. Then somebody said Nik was the culprit, not Nikon. From then on I stopped criticizing Nikon for their bad programs. Now, you tell me they are still at it? Have you ever seen a good Nikon program? Nikon View was a joke. View NX is the same joke, only worse, Capture NX... So, I'll say it again, Nikon should leave software programming to competent people and stick with what they do so well: camera and lenses.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, guys. Jim, maybe they just try to sell more :)</p>

<p>Am I right in assuming that diluting standard developers like D-76 or Xtol 1+1 will give a bit more sharpness and a bit more grain than using stock?</p>

<p>The only thing I'm sure of is that it'll be twice cheaper :)</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>No Raw? For me, this alone is a deal killer. Didn't Canon make that terminal blunder with the G7 already? And they had to quickly come up with the G9, and Raw.</p>

<p>The more things go, the more I like my LX-3.</p>

<p>My pleasure, Greg. Now, of course, as they say, YMMV. Some people will tell you they swear by NX2 because it gives you all the original settings of the Nef file. But a Raw file is supposed to be just this, a... Raw file, ie an image exactly as captured by the sensor, with no in-camera adjustments. So, what do you get with NX that other converters can't give you? Some will say Active D-lighting. Big deal. One of the advantages of shooting Raw is precisely that it lets you add all these special effect yourself, in post processing, not let the camera do it, like shooting jpeg. And if the Nef file looks a bit «off» to start with, this is exactly why you shoot Raw in the first place.</p>

<p>Personally, I feel the invisible benefits (to my eyes, at least) don't make up for the sluggishness of NX and its useless batch function. Again, NX2 may be different, but I doubt it.</p>

<p>Darn it, why can't you upload a photo in «Edit» mode when you goofed the first time without posting twice?</p><div></div>

<p>Cold? We know that up here.</p>

<p>For batch? Okay, here is how I use Lightroom 2 for batch (let's say 15 files): I pick one, make all the the necessary adjustments (mostly profile, WB, exposure and color, never sharpness or NR), then I select the 14 others and I «Sync» the adjustments. THEN - and this is where I find Capture NX totally worthless - I finalize the adjutmentst in each individual file if need be. Most of the time, the exposure will be slightly different, like in studio shots where the model may have moved a bit towards an already close strobe light and the exposure is on the verge of clipping. And only then, do I launch the batch («Export» to Tif before CS3.)</p>

<p>The problem with NX (and I think NX2, unless I'm told the contrary) is that you cannot do that. As soon as you apply adjustments to a batch, the process starts, leaving you no chance to make last minute individual adjustments. I've said it numerous times, in my opinion, this is the ultimate no-no from Nik software.</p>

<p>Preserving the original details in the Nef file with NX (or I guess, NX2) isn't worth the hassle and aggravation of using Nikon's software in my book. It is slow as mollasses (on my first generation Power Mac G5 with 2 gig Ram and OS 10.4), convoluted and complicated, user-unfriendly (Nik have apparently never heard of «less is more») and, above all, it does not allow you to make last minute changes to individual files in a batch before launching the batch (the ulimate no-no, if I may). I gave it as many chances as I could, but no, sorry, for me NX is a PIA. As for control points, Lightroom 2's local adjustments win by a big margin.</p>

<p>For me, it's Lightroom 2 and CS3 all the way.</p>

<p>The basic kit for developing: two-reel Paterson tank, changing bag and one liter bag of Xtol powder. The ceremonial that surrounds the act of photography in b&w, from chosing the film to hanging the neg to dry, both made me feel like I was doing the real thing, and humbled me. And even more so now that I'm slowly returning back to it, after a long digital hiatus. I just scanned and retouched a few Tri-X shots tonight, and there is really nothing that compares to it. I've had, and still have, the cream of the crop in terms of digital equipment, but it never gives me the same joy as b&w film. Convenient, beautilful, at times spectacular, but never really moving. B&w makes me feel I'm a much better photographer than I actually am :)</p>

<p>If you're worried that the on-board flash will affect the photo, when you put it in Commander mode, set it to «--» in the CM menu. The light won't show.</p>