roman_iazovitch
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by roman_iazovitch
-
-
<p>take the lens in one hand while the lens is facing up and you are holding it by the adapter mount you want to take off.<br />with the other hand start to turn the lock-ring counter-clock-wise. this way you are not actually touching the lens itself but the adapter and the ring.<br />at some point of the ring movement (about 50 degrees) the lens will become free to lift it up and away. it is intended to happen when ring cannot go further.<br />this ring is actually a huge nut sitting on the adapter. there are screw threads between them. maybe they are busted or dented or whatever.<br />that tiny screw you mentioned will not help you at all.</p>
-
<p>Francisco, thanks for the contribution. It's not late, it is still relevant for me. Your scan looks good, however, it is hard to judge the sharpness looking at downsized version. Is it 6 by 4.5 or 6 by 9? Also i did not understand your method. Can you describe it once again step by step?</p>
-
<p>Greg, when i use those 6x6 holders that came along with the scanner (5.3x5.3 actually), the bundled software crops the image to 5.2x5.2 which is frustrating and not acceptable for me. also in the software menus i just choose wether i want to scan 6x6 or 6x9 or other sizes, so i am pretty sure the scanner doesn't guess the holder size or type, but the program chooses the crop area according to the supposed holder placement and the size chosen by you in the menu. so, i use vuescan software, that overrides all that and gives me the whole transparent scan area for manual cropping. it only prooves my previous words. then the focusing issue... why bother with most intricate mechanism, that is failure-prone, if you can make the scanner focus only on the glass surface and then bring all the subjects into that plane? or, as Patrick said, go for a wider depth of field. and i am sure, that's what they do, especially considering 4490's and v700's modest price. but that depth apparently isn't sufficient for that 3mm high 6x6 holder.<br />you can experiment with this. i've read that v700 is built over 4490 with some modifications. but not such drastical.</p>
-
<p>Hm, Greg, how does the scanner know if i am using a holder? And why do i get better focus when i put the negative on the glass w/o the holder?</p>
-
<p>Helen, yes, the sampling frequency is not involved here. I will conduct an experiment while laying the negative emulsion down and up, than see what happens. Hmm, i thought here it was facing down, but now i am not shure.<br />Lex, i'll try that too. Thanks!</p>
-
<p>Patrick, you are right ofcourse. I did not tell you, I am an electronics engineer. So, I know, what is sampling and familliar with aliasing and interference issues. But i don't think going to 1200dpi will help it. Maybe I'll not see those rings, but the scan will suffer even more. On the contrary, it is better to higher the sampling resolution and then downsize it using "bicubic" in photoeditor. I believe, it is in parallel with using a wider bandwidth amplifier if we go with your example.<br>
Donald, I tried that. And was very disappointed with the result. IMHO, you absolutely have to put the negative to the focal plane of the scanner optical system if you want a scan to be in focus. So you put it onto the glass just like you put a sheet of paper during reflective scanning. I scanned it like that and it was much better. Try it. The only issue with it are those Newtonian rings brought by the negative being too close to the very flat glass. Also, when you scan a big format sheets, you do not notice the lack of sharpness as you do with 6x6 or 135 wich is even worse.<br>
John, thanks for the link. Maybe eventually I'll go for it. But only if I am unable to find another way around.<br>
I think I'll try putting another glass on top of the negative. When I find one, that is...</p>
-
well, what i do is place the epson's 6 by 9 frame on top of the negative, which allready appears as flat to the eye as it can get... but apparently, it is not sufficient : (
-
thanks people. i know the physics now. Larry, using the epson's holder is not an option for me as i am after the optimal sharpness. so, i have to figure out how to bring the negative higher above the glass for just a fraction of milimeter. that's a tough one : ) how do you do that?
-
strike the former. i just read the article Lex provided (thanks!).
i dont know about a magical "ANR" glass, but if i got it right, a simple glass above the negative which flatens it considerably should work just fine, doesn't it?
-
ooo! thanks, people! is there anyone familiar with the physics behind this? if i bring a negative a little higher above the glass, would it eliminate the thing without bying one more thing for the collection? how is this scanner supposed to be for negative scanning if it ruins every negative? there must be some other way around this besides throwing money, dont you think?
-
hi all. just got an Epson 4490. as i am trying to scan a few 6x6 delta400, i get concentric spots of something that
looks like a moire pattern. as i remember reading about this, i cannot recall what it was about. help, anyone? how to
beat this?
some info: i scan, by laying the negatives straight onto the glass emulsion down. the focus of the resulting image is
as good as it gets. the negatives are reasonably flat. no uneven spaces between them and the glass. i go with 2400
dpi. but there are those curves, that look like the height-lines on a map. it really distracts the eye...<div>
</div> -
ok. if i got it correctly, 1:39 against 1:19 should dobble the dev time. so, if i developed delta400 for 4.5 minutes in 1:19, your calculations sugest, that PAN400 is exactly like Delta400.
anyway, i'll try that. thanks alot!
-
Thanks for the fast response! Nice of you to go through your lists : )
However, I have a problem deriving times needed for the PAN based on your info.
1:39 has to be quite weak of a solution. is it the fine grain you were after?
and how PAN compares to FP4?
i actually developed Delta 400 in 1:19 solution for about 4 minutes at 22C and it turned out fine for my taste.
how do i move to PAN 400 from there?
-
i got a liter of Champion surol paper and film developer.
The only info i got is in the massive dev chart.
Alot is missing.
Does anyone work with it?
Is there any famous developer that is close to it?
I cannot find any chart or figures...
How do i develop ilford pan 400 in it for example? Any help would be appreciated.
-
Nice advice there : ) That's exactly what i am gonna do for the next 2 weeks : )
I'll stick to gettin that yashica TLR for now
-
Dave, I would consider your proposition, but I plan to use that Biometar for non-portrait stuff myself : )
-
Bueh B, well, the shot you presented doesn't have the effect I discribed. Nice bokeh though : )
If those lights were stronger, then perhaps we would see it draw that light-fog I like so much.
-
IMHO, it isn't a flare or blown highlights. I am talking about the "fog" that surrounds it. I think it has to do with coatings and/or the special lens design or material.
I think, my Zeiss Ikon gives a similar fog while catching direct light, but I am not sure, as I shot very little with it.
I see how all things you said here are right. However, I cannot come by any example of such an effect with other cameras or mountable lenses not older than 40 years. What I really want to shoot is a portrait against a bright window using available light only. And judging by the pictures i see on flickr and other various places, Yashicon is the best for it. I really want to have a similar thing on my Nikon F100. there must be something...
-
<p>Hello again and thanks for such fast responses! : )
I will check those lenses you mentioned.
I should have told you I am familliar with 135 and 120 formats.
I own some nikon film gear as well as pentacon 6 and kiev 88 stuff.
Of course, mating an MF lens with 35mm camera would give a narrower field and other stuff, but the most imortant thing to me is how it renders light.
Let me give you a few examples of what I was talking about. I found them on flickr:</p>
<p><a href="
<p><a href="
<p>Notice how the highlights and surroundings are rendered.
Now, I know that many people would consider it as bad feature, loss of contrast or whatever.
But this is exactly what I am looking for. Especially, in the last example.
Many other "tessar-alikes" do not give such results. Maybe due to their superior coatings or something else. And I do not find such profound effect in pictures taken with them. For example, my pentacon 6 jena 80/2.8 is much more "cold and precise" if you will.
I will get yashica anyway. But still, is it possible to find yashinon-like mountable lens?
P.s: I loved the yashinon's creamy bokeh too. The circles lack sharp edges. It is the second reason i want it on my 35mm gear.</p>
-
hi, i have seen many pictures taken with yashica 124G and just loved them!
especially loved, how yashinon deals with really bright objects in background.
and i am eager to get one of those yashica TLRs.
but maybe there is the same yashinon lens made for a particular mount, say pentax, M42, pentacon, nikon-f, canon,
or something?
do you have any suggestions?
thanx in advance!
Pentax 645N Quality/Durability vs. Hasselblad?
in Medium Format
Posted
<p>I am reading this <strong>8 years</strong> after. It is a looooooong time to wait for an answer. But I just have to say, that what <strong>Richard Cragg</strong> wrote here <strong>8 years ago</strong> is about the <strong>best thing I've read</strong> in awhile on internet photo-forums. Especially, the ending part. Thank you, Richard. I hope you are well and still taking pictures : )<br>
On the subject, I think I would choose pentax.</p>