ant_nio_marques

We know you've been shooting and developing film since before many of us were born, and that's not the only reason many of us have a lot of respect for you. You've also made clear in the past that that's not out of fondness for film, but lack of options. I think my questions are simple and quite independent of anyone's personal opinions. Are they not OK with you?

Count me as P (Puzzled): 1. Why is a person who professes to have no love for film claiming to be saddened by its increased rarity? 2. This is the state of affairs as opposed to what? To digital never having become good enough for serious work? To film photography to have evolved new features not transferable to digital?

<p>The issue is that 6x7, as far as I understand, isn't really 6x7, but more like '60x77', the average frame size being closer to 56x72 than to the 56x65 that the name would imply. The ratio is really close to the 1.25x of 8x10/4x5. Otherwise, 6x7 would hardly be better than 6x6 for anything.</p>

<p>Hi.<br> I'm very happy with the K-30 I got some weeks back.<br> I was wondering if someone here has ever used a Bronica (ETR) lens in a Pentax PK body. I have 40mm, 50mm, 75mm and 150mm ETR lenses which would love to be used more (tho they're used enough as is, thankfully).<br> We do have a Canon camera, for which I know there is an adapter, but I'd rather use the Zenzanons with the Pentax, since our choice of Canon glass is quite wide enough already.<br> (Yes, I know MF lenses do not necessarily shine on small format bodies, much less on crop ones. But one is able to take pictures with them, and at least there's no lack of DoF and edge-to-edge performance.)<br> There's the route of using an ETR -> Nikon + Nikon -> PK combo, but the last step is less than optimal to say the least. Can anyone think of anything else? Of course, since both camera and lenses are to go on being used in their normal context, I'm not willing to consider any option that involves modification of the lenses or the camera.</p>

<p>Certainly not as an upgrade path. Possibly for usage options.<br> It's a bit like a car with replaceable engine. More practical in that engines are heavy, but less in that engines are not so integrated with the rest of the car (didn't use to be). Think of it: being able to choose between power and fuel economy! What do people do? They get separate cars rather than a single car with interchangeable engines.<br> Lenses are (were) different.</p>

@David, I'm amazed that you replied to what I wrote without reading it. You're using the modern notion of amateur, which has nothing to do with the historical one. Historically, an amateur was someone who loved some field but didn't work in it. More or less the opposite of wanting the results without the process.

<p>Angie, from your reply I'd say you've gotten the concepts correct.<br> Your profiling with the Spyder must of course be done using the same settings on the monitor that you will be using afterwards.<br> For generic profiles, I'd google for the monitor model plus "icc". But there's no guarantee the results would be better than what you have.</p>

<p>In other words, a prosumer is what we call an amateur now that the word amateur got undesired connotations. Real Amateurs were there before there were consumers.</p>

<p>Just to hammer it in, there rarely is such a thing as not having images there anymore. And you can probably find some professional near your area who will develop it for a fraction of that price. Even if the negatives come out with little contrast, that may be solvable in Photoshop. That said, don't expect very very good pictures, because even if they had been developed in 1963 they might not be tack sharp or well composed. I'd say to consider also the hypothesis that they might contain things that people don't want to see, but in that case I doubt the roll would be left unguarded in the box.</p>

<p>It came to pass that technology evolved enough that professional and consumer gear have gone in quite different directions. Then it became necessary for people who aren't professionals but find no fun in the consumer offers to have something that can work and feel more similar to professional gear, but needs nowhere meet the same standards. Such is called the prosumer market. It has zilch to do with price or power, nor does it need anyone's derision. Real Prosumers aren't really keen on the term because all they really into to be is consumers, but the majority of consumers are interested in quite a different technological approach. 'Enthusiast' is a synonym, but feels too emotional.</p>

<p>@Angie, the above dialog is merely for you to tell Windows how your monitor renders colours. It doesn't really matter what format the image files are (sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc), what you are choosing there is how your monitor will show whatever colours Windows feeds into it. If one of those is its correct profile, then by choosing it the monitor will show what Windows thinks it will show. On the contrary, if it's incorrect, then Windows will think it is showing colour A when in fact it is showing colour B.</p> <p>But we can't tell you which one to choose because from their names they both seem to be custom-made profiles. If both were correctly made using good tools, then they should be more or less equivalent. Sometimes, there are profiles available on the Internet for given monitor models; those are not made by measuring your own monitor, which would be the only foolproof way, but by having some confidence that monitors of a given model will always behave very close to a certain standard. But neither of your options seems to be such a generic profile, they both look like something someone made. Now, whether they were made for your monitor or not, is something that only the person who made them can tell.</p> <p>As to sRGB/AdobeRGB/etc, those are profiles that you find in an image file, describing how the numerical values in the file should be interpreted. They have nothing to do with your monitor, aside form the (for now irrelevant) fact that your monitor may have been designed to have a gamut close to one of those standards. (A monitor which is only capable of showing the colours that can be expressed via sRGB will show a correctly-identified AdobeRGB image as if that image had first been made to fit within sRGB: correct colours, but with loss of distinction).</p>

<p>Thank you for your responses. You bring up relevant points and JDM's different view isn't necessarily in contradiction.<br> I'm not sure how 'a lot' translates to 'flood' (quoted, at that) or to horde, but certainly there is no dearth of them, and I'm only even counting the EU.</p>

<p>First: forget everything. Now: read below.</p> <p>When you use a profile for a device, what you're doing is telling the computer how that device shows colours. So, ideally, you should use a calibrated profile, that is, an actual measurement done by you or a technician, of how your specific device behaves.</p> <p>When you use a profile for an image, what you're doing is tell the computer how it should interpret the colour values in the image. And here is where those names (sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc), come in. Those are standard ways of converting values into colours, and they have varying strengths and weaknesses. sRGB is rather limited in the colours it can encode, but it was designed to match what most monitors of the time could show. So, sRGB is weak and will round off a lot of your colours (if you happen to have colours to round off, of course), but it has the advantage that almost anything on Earth is able to show it correctly (that is, colour distinctions that sRGB doesn't allow will be lost, but those that it does allow will be shown correctly). AdobeRGB is much better but not perfect, and less compatible. ProPhotoRGB is even better, and even less compatible. So, it all boils down to what devices you will be using your images with. And software - lesser programs may always assume an image is sRGB even when it isn't, and so the colours will be off. What you can never do is simply to say the image is in a given profile when in fact it isn't. Your picture is such an example - one or both of them are wrong. You can convert images from one profile to another, but that involves the program actually shifting the numerical values of the colours in the file so that they are the correct ones for the new profile. By contrast you can't actually change the profile of a device: the device produces or renders colours in a given way, and there's little yoiu can do about it.</p> <p>Device profiles and image profiles aren't alternatives, you need both. A correct image profile to tell the computer what the colours actually aren and an accurate device profile so the computer knows how to make the device show the correct colours (printer or monitor) or what the device-provided colours are (scanner).</p> <p>When scanning, the scanning software will produce an image in a given profile, say, the scanner's profile, or one you provide yourself, or a standard such as sRGB or AdobeRGB. According to the profile you choose, the numerical values of the colours written into the image will be different, but in all cases the colours will be correct (unless you provide the scanner's profile yourself, and provide a wrong one). The difference will be in the colour distinctions that may be lost. A user-provided calibrated profile will be the best, since it will match the source data best (it may be not as powerful as, say, AdobeRGB in some regard, but that doesn't matter, because that means the specific extra power it doesn't have isn't used anyway). When sending files out to print, you should use AdobeRGB, because that's what every respectable lab should be able to handle now. When producing images for the web, sRGB is a safer bet (people's monitors won't be able to show the difference anyway). What you don't want is to send an AdobeRGB file to someone who will treater it as it were sRGB, because the colours will be wrong.</p> <p>If you like the look of using the wrong profile, that's another matter, of course!</p>

<p>Hi.<br> I see a large number of TS-E lenses for sale on eBay. Is that normal? Why are so many people selling them? Could my impression be wrong, and the number for sale be comparable to other lenses? I am especially puzzled that a lot of them say they're the 'II' version, by which I presume the one Canon released in 2009.<br> I was under the impression that these were very niche lenses that most people rented rather than buying, is that incorrect?</p>

<p>Hi, Ray. Have you had any success playing with the options?<br> For the 9000ED you may try:<br> - Set Crop | Preview area to Maximum<br />- Preview<br> What does the preview show?<br> What do the Multi Crop options show?<br> Is 'All frames' checked?</p> <p>For the IVED, I'd expect the process to be 'simpler' since it only does one frame at a time.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I do shoot mostly slide thou I looked at buying a new scanner and was surprised to find the fs4000u seems to be better than the epson v700/750 as its a dedicated neg scanner not a flatbed.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd be hard pressed to think of any dedicated film scanner that isn't better than the best consumer flatbeds (unless you go to very old models with less than 2700dpi, and even then). The great advantage of the V700 or other flatbeds is the ability to scan multiple formats (but even then, the choice of holders is often limited). Of course, some images look better when scanned with inferior optics, but that's another matter.</p> <p>If I were to design a film scanner today (like that's going to happen), I'd go for:<br> - a 2.6 x 9 inch scanning area, so up to 2 strips of 126 film and 3 6x7 frames could be scanned in one go<br> - Fixed holders, in a relatively tight position, and the optics would do the moving<br> - About 4800 dpi, to avoid grain aliasing, or 3600 if 4800 were unattainable<br> - An integrated film-cleaning air blower and/or antistatic curtain</p> <p>I don't think any of this is beyond the abilities of a manufacturer (the cleaning feature might pose some challenge, of course). And I think there's a market for these things. But with all the hate being directed at film, and the public unawareness of what they could extract from their old family photos (they're used to think 4x6 is all there is in them), it's a pipe dream.</p>

<p>Glad to know you're getting a grip on it, but don't forget that accidents happen. No amount of refining of your process will shield you completely from losing images in the future. Have that covered in the contracts.</p>

<p>Accidents happens. You have to work out a procedure to handle them and don't deviate. And you should have a standard form covering all of that and also what they should expect from your work (cf the grain issue) so it wouldn't be a matter of requesting this or that. Never do anything without a written agreement.</p>

<p>Thanks all! Yes, it looks like new. The seller said it was a demo device in a store. So far I haven't had any issues with it.</p>

<p>Oh, I'll go out and shoot, sure thing. I just wanted to know if there are specific K-30 gotchas when it comes to second-hand material.<br> My choice of the K-30 was reasonably informed. I wanted a Pentax, I didn't want anything too expensive, I wanted something more photography- than glitz-oriented. Price ruled out the K5-II and the K-3, while the K-7 and earlier might be interesting on the photography-oriented thing, but are generations older. So far I seem to be liking the camera's feel, it's the possible defects that I'm wondering about.</p>

<p>What apertures did you use?<br> I also don't know what 'weak lens' means.</p>

<p>Hi.<br> I recently got a used Pentax K-30. Other than specks in the mirror (or ground glass?), it seems to work OK.<br> It came only with the battery and a charger minus cord (the cord seems to be standard one, so no big issue there).<br> The shutter count is in the 400s, according to the shutter count sites, can they be trusted?<br> All menus seem to be working, and I have made a couple of shots which seem to be OK. The lenses I have are all oldish (FAJ 18-35, FAP 28-105, FAJ 70-300), they seem to work as well as they do on my Z-70.<br> Is there something I should be checking? And any missing accessory I'll need?<br> Thank you!</p>

<p>If you want top quality, you have to go for drum scans. Nothing comes close to that.</p> <p>If you want high but not top quality, you have to go for a Coolscan. I wouldn't even think of buying one of those given their age.</p> <p>You can get a Plustek OpticFilm 120. It may be even better than the Nikons. On the other hand, it may turn out much worse. Plustek had prolems with QA and there hasn't yet been indepedent confirmation tha they are over.</p> <p>For real 3200 dpi, you can get the PIE 120 / Braun 120 / Reflecta MF 5000. It isn't batch-friendly.</p> <p>Get an Epson V700. Some 'copies' manage to get USAF 6.1 on one of the dimensions if you scan at 6400. You don't need wet scanning nor OEM holders (unless your film is very warped), just learn to use the eprovided ones. Reports of it underperforming often turn out to be operator issues (height, selection of wrong lens). Dmax is of course poor. But it can scan lots of frames on one go. What else do you need?</p> <p>You say you need 3.8 Dmax? But how did you get at that number? I don't even know if any of the non-drum film scanners ever built have real 3.8 Dmax.</p>

<p>The problem with this is that it's not just a matter of plumbing. The protocols are different, and, more importantly, follow different philosophies. That said, it is possible to create a USB <strong>device</strong> posing as a cable or adapter which is in reality a SCSI (or any other interface) controller. That has even been done, in the form of the Ratoc devices one finds on eBay. But now there's another problem, which is that SCSI implementations vary wildly, and it's difficult to build a controller that can adjust to any possible peripheral, and even if it is, you don't have access to the parameters your specific peripheral needs. The fact is that each vendor used to supply a SCSI card along with their SCSI device and the two were meant to be used together. <strong>SCSI was not so much the protocol the device used to talk to your computer, but the protocol the device used to talk to its own card installed on the computer</strong>. So the results have been mixed and nowadays nobody builds such adapters, that I know of.<br> There is a page somewhere specifying the values you have to set in one such adapter for use with various scanners. Not all are indicated as always successful, but some are. You are probably better off keeping your old machine running (maybe offloading as much as possible from it) and replacing the scanner when that becomes no longer viable.</p>