james_harris13

<div></div>

<p>I bought some 1960's 620 film in the original boxes, just for the spools (which are hard to find), but I decided to try to use it just for fun. It curled like crazy when I developed it and I had to flatten it for a while, but it developed and I got some shots I liked. It was amazing. I guess the only explanation is that it was in cryogenic storage under Cheyenne Mountain all that time...have fun!</p>

<p>A few comments:<br>

a. If the negatives are sharp enough to warrant it, I scan 35mm at 6400 dpi, 48 bit, no sharpening, clean up dust in PS, then downsample to 3200 dpi and sharpen to taste--this can give noticeably better quality for sharp negatives. I then overwrite the 6400 dpi tiff originals, and organize them into Lightroom. I do jpeg conversion in Lightroom.<br>

b. The two outer rows of the 35mm holder can produce reflection artifacts along the edges of the scans--I tend to avoid them but with your workflow maybe you can live with cropping out the affected edges<br>

c. Software is a personal preference<br>

d. I cut negative strips to six long, and then place them in per-page negative holders immediately after scan for archival</p>

<p>I had the 10-22 for use on a 40D. I found the variable aperture frustrating, slow at the long end, and annoying (I use aperture priority quite a bit of the time and it is the only variable-aperture zoom I have owned. I didn't like it changing on me when I zoomed), fringing ugly, and just not sharp in the corners. I sold it for the Tokina 11-16 2.8--a great all-around ultrawide angle. <br>

I also have the 17-40 L and agree it is a totally different animal on a crop sensor, where 40mm is just about a normal lens and 17 is pretty wide but not ultrawide--a great walkaround lens, light, but solid. I took it into the drenching mist of a waterfall with no fear. On full frame the 17-40 L suffers from the same blurry corners as the 10-22, but you said you were unlikely to go there.<br>

To summarize: wouldn't own the 10-22 again. Love the Tokina. Love the 17-40L but it is a different type of lens</p>

<p>I had the 16MP 36x36mm Hasselblad V-system, at the same time as the 5DMkII.<br>

At ISO 50, with a tripod, those were the most amazing 16 megapixels you can imagine. No antialiasing filter meant unimaginably sharp at 100%, 9-micron pixels meant 0.0 noise and a pixel size well above the lens MTF, and incredible color depth and richness. Way, way better than the Canon's 21MP.<br>

Raise the ISO to 200, or try to handhold less than 1/250th, or take a picture that includes textured fabric, and the Hasselblad was no longer the winner. So they have their place, but not if you are ducking and running.<br>

I still own the Canon.</p>

<p>Wow, that is nothing like my light meter's readout. If my meter wants to say "halfway between F16 and F22", it says F19, not F16.5. Interesting but I agree, totally confusing to me.</p>

<p>By my calculations, the difference between 22.1 and 16.5 is .84 stops more light. Even less sneezable.</p>

<p>I sold the Canon to buy the Tokina 11-16 and was very happy with the switch. The Canon was relatively slow with changing aperture, had lots of distortion, blurry on the edges, and had worse CA than the Tokina, and is more expensive to boot. The Tokina actually has a relatively large image circle--set at 14.5 mm and up, it covers full frame and actually look pretty decent.<br>

You should try an ultrawide before you buy, though, as suggested above. I use it, but it is the most difficult lens to make an interesting picture with.</p>

<p>I use a 1VHS when I want autofocus, which my Mamiya NC1000s does not have and my 5DII barely has (when compared to the 1VHS, at least). Its shutter/film advance audio track is unimaginably satisfying and solid and is worth the price of admission alone. <br>

I took pictures of my kids at a tree top zipline park with Ektar 100, backlit by the sky through the trees, nothing blown out, zipping along in focus, enjoying watching them instead of a tiny LCD screen. Same with a family outing at the tulip farm. I don't need huge grainless enlargements of these types of pictures, just beautiful memories. A 1V with TMY, Ektar, and Portra is pure bliss.</p>

<p>One thing that plays into the reproduction of color is crosstalk, which happens when a red photon ends up in a blue or green pixel, etc. The smaller the pixels, the more likely that a photon passes through a red filter and ends up in a neighboring pixel, which is either blue or green, due to optical or electrical crosstalk. At that point, good luck with the software figuring out what happened and correcting correctly. In effect, this is a desaturation of color information.<br>

The ill effects of crosstalk are certainly detectable, and show up to the extreme in cell phone cameras. That said, the crosstalk differences between 4.3 micron pixels and 5.6 micron pixels are nowhere near as big as those between 4.3 micron pixels and 1.4 micron pixels.</p>

<div></div>

<p>That does sound like something else. Mine would say "lens error" before it turned back off.<br>

Hopefully it is not one of those things that is never meant to be taken back apart, but thrown away if it stops working.</p>

<p>Bob,<br>

We have the SX120 IS. My son took it to the beach and got the lens jammed. I took my set of automotive feeler gauges and pulled out one of the thinnest, that would fit between the extension barrels (there are two that extend). I carefully worked the gauge around and around the barrels, angled so as to force the grains up and out, and after about 5 minutes of this it was working again.</p>

<p>Backpacking in the Wallawas last weekend</p><div></div>

<p>deleted</p>

<p>And a 4000 dpi crop from a Nikon 9000 scan of 6x6, same emulsion</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a 2400 dpi crop from a 4x5 scan</p><div></div>

<p>I get about 2400 dpi with my Epson, closer to 2800-3000 when I pull out all the tricks, which I don't do with large format. So I scan about 8800 x 11000 pixels for 4x5.<br>

I have also scanned the same emulsion on a Nikon 9000, for sharp pictures taken with my Mamiya 6. About 8800 x 8800 pixels.<br>

Detail on both is about the same. The big difference is the tonality and grain. Much more prevalent grain on the medium format.<br>

I will see if I can whip up a few example crops.</p>

<p>6400 ppi scan downsampled to 3200 ppi</p><div></div>

<p>3200 ppi straight scan</p><div></div>

<p>2400 upsampled to 3200</p><div></div>

<p>It sounds like there are a wide range of experiences out there with the V700. Maybe that in and of itself is scary. But at least for MY copy, with good technique, I get 3200 PPI results that I am happy with. I have printed these at 300 dpi and I like them.<br>

Here is the center section of a picture I developed last night, from medium format 6x6, Tmax 400. I will first post the picture, then 3 identical crops. The first was scanned at 2400 ppi, then upsampled with bicubic to 3200 ppi. The second was scanned straight at 3200 ppi. The third was scanned at 6400 ppi, then bicubic downsampled to 3200 ppi. When you compare them side by side, the texture and detail of the 6400 ppi scan looks much better to me. The only thing done to each was a 100% USM, 1 pixel wide, at the very end.<br>

I know Epson skips scan rows when you don't select 6400 ppi, just because the scan speed increases, no matter how small your crop. Who knows what they do with the pixels on each row. I also know lenses don't go from some resolution to no resolution all of a sudden, so there is some information in the 6400 that isn't in the others. Take control with a 6400 ppi scan and process to taste, then downsample to 3200. It looks good enough to use.</p><div></div>

<p>See my recent post on how to make the stock V700 film holders work to hold film perfectly flat (I made little magnetic widgets that trap the film flat, I suspect this will work with other holders as well). You also need to adjust the height of the holders to an optimal position (mine is the tallest spacer plus 4 sticky note thicknesses).<br>

Once you do all that, you scan at 6400 ppi, do a little noise cleaning, and sharpen/downsize to 3200 ppi. Voila, you get about 3000 lines/inch usable worth of output. It is noticeably better than 2400 ppi scanning.<br>

It is a little work, but I only do that process for pictures I really care about. For medium format, this is really decent. I can make good looking 10x15s from 35mm, with 12x18s a stretch.</p>

<p>Thanks Roger,<br>

You can also use the magnetic strips to make 35mm strips that are curled sit down while you clamp them in. I generally don't get much curl with 35mm once I get them locked in.<br>

There is not enough room between adjacent exposures in 35mm to put the flatteners in between, but if you had a particular negative that you needed to lay flat for a really good scan, you could put these over the ends of the adjacent exposures, without damage to the emulsion.</p>

<p>And a bottom view</p><div></div>