vanner

<p>Mac or PC? If you are a Mac user, you sound like the kind of guy who would love Aperture's image library management. While it is true that Aperture lacks some of the sophisticated editing options availabel in Photoshop, it is very strong when it comes to library management (ie folders, projects, albums, keywords, etc. . etc. etc. ). I use Aperture exclusively, I shoot RAW, and I love it</p>

<p>Virginia, In the Aperture print options screen, you can easily set the exact size of your print. Just select custom and fill in the size that you want. In the media option in the printer settings, select the size paper that you have. Now, if your images are printing smaller than you specified, my guess is that you have "Fit entire image" selected. In that case, the print will be smaller than the selected size so that nothing is cropped out. OK - here's that bad news. Aperture is NOT good for printing multiple images on one sheet of paper. The contact sheet printing function comes close, but you are right that it lacks complete flexibility and is difficult to customize completely. For this task, believe it or no, iPhoto is significantly better. So, if you need to print multiple images on one sheet, your best bet is to import your project or album into iPHoto and print it that way. I hope this helps. I don't have access to my Mac at the moment, but when I do I can be more specific if need be.</p>

<p>Arjun, I was going to post both images, but when scanning from the print, the whole point gets lost. Anyway, to me the quality which is better on the optical print is perceived sharpness in some of the darker detail. The quality better on the print from scanned negative is white balance and highlight detail. I must be humble enough to say that I haven't made the comparison enough to generalize necessarily, my comments are particular to this one particular example, for whatever it might be worht Steve</p>

<p>I recently took some shots of horses at a county fair against a bright sky. While the brown of the horse was exposed beautifully, the pro lab had trouble making an optical print for me without blowing out some of the details of the bright sky. Finally, I scanned the negative (MF Portra 400VC/Epson 4490/Silverfast AI) , adjusted the curves, and got it PERFECT - some gentle cloud details in the sky rather than all white. Anyway, for me that was the turning point in deciding that YES, converting to a self-controlled digital workflow, even for a film enthusiast, and even with a $300 scanner with bundled sofware, maybe can be better? Even printed at 10" X 10" (sqaure MF) one would reasonably judge the digitally converted image to have some qualities superior to that printed optically. Those would be white balance, and highlight detail. Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Keep a 35mm film camera.</p>

<p>One more thing, my advice above regarding MPix is assuming that you are shooting 35mm C-41. For E6, B&W, or formats other than 135, Mpix is not an option. </p>

<p>Check out MPix. You send them the film. They process it (I think they do a pretty good job), scan it, post your thumbnails online, and send you back your negatives. Then, you have several options. You can order a set of prints from them, order a CD with your scanned images, both, or be more selective and order copies of only the good ones. It's probably the most cost effective and versatile option. If you are looking for a potentially higher quality process and scan from a truly "Professional lab", including AandI and the likes for example, (that term is sometimes worthy of only its marketing effect), it will cost you a heck of a lot more than $200+. Process and scan, with a high res scan, can sometimes be over $30 per roll. In the end, unless you are planning on professional uses for your images, check out MPix. </p>

<p>Here's all you need to know: Your roll of 120 film is 72 centimeters long. Now you don't have to memorize anything! </p>

<p>Robert, Thank you very much. Your succinct and to-the-point answer just saved me $75. Steve</p>

<p>In my decision regarding 4490 vs. V500, I've come to understand that the real pracical difference is bulb vs. LED, therefore warm up time. Question: Can someone give me a sense of the difference in warm-up time- seconds? Minute? And is the warm up time an issue only when making a first scan, or with each sequential scan (say one per minute for example). Thanks.</p>

<p>The problem with a white eyedropper tool is that there may not be pixels in your photo which are, in fact, absolutely white. Even a wedding gown may have a slight color cast to it. Furthermore, leaving some color in the whites is what gives the photo a mood or feel ie warm or cold If you remove the color cast by selecting a pixel as white, you might have created what you are calling "overexposed." For this reason, IMHO you might find a temperature slider more appropriate to use. </p>

<p>I own a Plustek 35mm scanner, but recently getting into MF. I want to go out tonight to buy a flatbed scanner so that I can scan my MF negatives, both color and black and white. Enthusiastic hobbyist, will be unlikely printing greater than 8X10 or 11X14 or so, ever. Question: is the Epson 4490 enough for me, or should I cough up an additional $75 for the V500. It looks like the only difference, as far as I can tell, is scan resolution, correct? Thanks.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Randy. I'm relatively new to this cerebrally exhausting film world after years of digital only. So, all of this advice is very helfpful for me. I checked out your portfolio and I must say that you do a nice job of taming the idiosyncracies of harsh light. Thank you for the explanation of exposure time and shadow detail. That's very helpful. Steve</p>

<p>Thanks Chuck. The images are scans of prints made by the lab, so I can't be absolutely certain that there might not be more detail on the negative - but I doubt it. I own a 35mm scanner, not a flatbed, so I can't scan MF and therefore let the lab handle "soup to nuts" on my Holga stuff. The light was harsh, as you can see. Next time I use the Holga in similar bright/harsh light, I'll take everyone's advice to overexpose and underdevelop by using a 400 rated film, and ask the lab to pull-process it a stop or two. Thanks again to all. Steve </p>

<p>Randy, thanks much for the link to your website. After reading it, though, I realized that I should re-state my question. I'm familiar with the concepts that you discuss (I can't say that I agree, though, that you should always pull your film, but that's ok!). I think that what I'm really asking, is this: Do the black shadows have the look of an underexposed negative, an over-developed negative, or is it difficult to distinguish? By the "expose for the shadows/develop for the highlights" theory, I suppose one would say that lack of shadow detail is always an issue of exposure, and not development time?</p>

<p>Here's the second image.</p><div></div>

<p>Decided to play around with my Holga this weekend. Using my sophisticated light meter (two eyes and my brain) it seemed like an "ISO 100 kind of day." Below are two examples that I got with Delta 100 in the Holga on a bright day. I actually love some of the shots that I got back. Im surprised and curious, though, that they came back with such high, albeit too much, contrast. Notice for example that the foliage immediated to the left of the door is black. No shadow detail at all. Far less gray in the image than I anticipated seeing. (BTW I know it's vignetted, please don't tell me to ignore the corners)<br />As a learning point for me, I'm wondering the following. Do you think that they are so "contrasty" because: A) It's a Holga, don't ask why anything happens with a plastic lense and a toy camera B) Underexposed. Next time try 400. C) Overdeveloped by the lab. or D) Delta 100 is contrasty DOUBT. E) Other.<br />Thanks for any opinions on this issue. While it might seem silly to try and understand what happened given no meter-ing or exposure information and a toy camera, I know that I can learn more about the issue of contrast in the final result from this.<br />Steve</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks to all for your responses. I got the HP5+ for black and white street stuff. I'm going to shoot it this weekend. After all of your responses, my plan is to stick with D76 (1+1 probably). Thanks to all for you advice. For Chris - rate at 200, pull develop or use the 400 times and keep it "overexposed?" Thanks all. </p>

<p>Lowell, I'm not math challenged by any means, but I've been looking at your post for about ten minutes now and I just can't follow your math. You multiplied D-76's $6.95 per gallon by 2.5 in order to prove that 2.5 gallons of D-76 costs $17.38 which is fine. Next, you compare the $17.38, the price of 2.5 gallons of D-76, to $3.73, as if 2.5 gallons of working F60 costs $3.73 . But you wrote "list price 3.73 PER GALLON. not 3.73 PER 2.5 GALLONS. Do you see your inconsistency? I just can't follow you.<br>

Here's my version. I looked up F60 and it seems to me that the concentrate sells for about $20 a gallon. At a 1+4 , a gallon of stock makes 5 gallons of working solution. That means that the working solution costs $4 per gallon. So, D-76 is 6.95 per gallon, and F60 is $4 per gallon. Price difference, then, is $3 per gallon. <br>

Your post is aggressive, about the "mathematically challenged . . " So that I can sleep, pleae explain where my version of the math is wrong? I may have well misinterpreted or miscalculated something.<br>

By the way, this is just fun conversation now, and clearly we've gone way off subject of quality of developers for HP5+, but that's part of the fun!<br>

Thanks. Steve</p>

<p>Chuck - Are you using Xtol over D76 because you have noticed a quality difference., or are you simply choosing the easier mixing procedure of Xtol over D76?</p>

<p>Lex - Thanks. Ill give it a go in D76.<br>

Lowell - good question, and forcing me to really think about it. I have stayed away from Ilford's liquids because they are designed as one-shot developers. I don't want to measure and dilute every time I use my developer. Would prefer to mix two liters or so of working solution and be done with diluting in my work flow. I have not used HC110 for the simple reason that everytime I look at it, I feel like the issue of mutiple dilutions, stock A, B C and on and on breaks my "keep it simple rule." Furthermore, I suppose that I like the small size, light weight of packets of powder. I hope that helps. PS not very familiar with the Clayton line, but Ill take a look. Steve</p>

<p>Bought some HP5+, which I 've never developed before. Favorite developer for HP5+ ? Prefer powder over liquid. I like D76 for my TX400, but I'm wondering how people feel about D76 vs. others for HP5+. Thanks. Steve</p>

<p>thanks to all. Robert- that's not confusing to me at all. Question - how did you get 1228X1818 number? do they publish that? I'm not thrilled with 1228X1818 for an 8X10. Isn't a good quality print considered 200 dpi at its size?</p>

 

<p>ADDENDUM: Clearly, I'm confused, and I hope someone can help. I just realized that if you scan a 1" negative at 72 DPI, that means that at 8X10, you don't even have one dot per inch! What am I not understanding?</p>

<p>Very confused.<br>

If you send film to MPIX, they scan it at "72 DPI" according to their website. Just emailed their customer service, who confirmed, "We scan at 72 DPI, and we recommend printing no larger than 11X14 for high quality prints from these scans". I am very confused. Am I interpreting "72 DPI" correctly? Isn't 72 DPI an unheard of low resolution scan for a 35mm negative? Wouldn't a scan of at least 1600 DPI (72 is a far cry) be necessary to create an 8X10 image at 200 DPI? Either MPIX has it wrong, or I have a misunderstanding of the scanning DPI necessary in the real world. Thanks for clarifying.</p>

<p> </p>