francesco_bertelli2

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1947909">Scott Frindel Cole</a> of course, but some guys have uploaded the highest size and they look better than my scans... I'm juts trying to achieve what is doable whit this scanner...</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2065020">Michael Madio</a> , thanks! this is the kind of advice i needed, i bought the scanner from a guy who didnt hav the manual and i didnt know about the two lenses! that's why i got erratic resutls so far becaus ei was using maybe the holder with lower dipi or viceversa!</p>

 

<p>If you spend five minutes on flickr you'll find plenty of examples of 35mm films scanned with an epson v700 that are really great. so the point is not to find an alternative method but to improve the existing one.</p>

<p>I finally got my leica m6 with a superb conr 35 preasph<br>

happily i shot some bw rolls and color as awell, then when i scanned it they were looking like crap, way worse than my nikon d700.</p>

<p>i'm aware that the digital might be better, btu on flickr i saw lot of people posting m6 films very good...my main problem seems the sharpness...i cant undestrand how to get the best sharpness with my film holder...<br>

is really absurd...when i use a loupe i can see the writing on a soda can, then when i scan the pic of the soda can is all blurry...not to mention the bad tri-x 400 eperience ultra grainy<br>

let's skip for now the topic grain and development...<br>

my question is how can i use better my epson v700 scanner? the film holder seems to be wrong...i got more shaprness with the film laying on the scanner glass...how could it be...did the epson tech didnt think enough?<br>

i believe is me..maybe i'm doing something wrong but i dont know in which phase...<br>

if you have examples of your scans coming from a 35mm i'll apreciate it</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>PS. ive benn shooting a lot lately with 4x5 and 8x10..so i'm definitely biased and maybe i'm demanding to much to my camera, but at least i'd like to scan what i see in my film! :S</p>

<p>haha i was actually doint it! my couhc and my tv is now 3m far...<br>

i was wvwn thinking to buy a cheap sound meter to improve my perception of dictances at least to recognize 1m from 3m from 5m ;)</p>

<p>not to mention my finger covering the focusing little window by the R lever...aaargh.</p>

<p>ok i felt like a newbie,even thought im way faster with my 8x10!...in the viewfinder i see a piece of hood, im using a summicron 35 preasph<br>

focusing is very difficult, just tha tiny center rectangle is too small... but I started learning that moving the focus toward the finder means "closer", the opposite means far...this tip helps me to prepare my hands before shooting...but jeeezz rapid street phtography seems impossible to me now unless i stick with a preset focus leveraging the hyperfocal distance and without touching the aperture ring...<br>

someone has any tips, experience advice to improve the use if a Leica M?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks Alan,<br>

I thought the same... also might be a marketing reason of course... in the end i opend the package and tried a couple of print and the result is great to me...maybe non a MoMa approved ;) but very good...</p>

<p>thanks for the advice on trying the ilford!</p>

<p>I just bought a pack of Exhibition Fiber paper glossy, and I have a printer Epson Stylus Photo R2000<br>

but when i got back home i noticed in the epson website, that fiber paper is not suggested among the papers for my printer...<br>

what's the backdraw of using it? I can return it since i didnt open the pack yet, so if you have experience on mismatching papers let me know..</p>

<p>you know what...i'll buy one today...they are very cheap considering the size...I have the hood also..and i'll shot a roll w/ and w/o and I'll see the difference.. ;)</p>

<p>yep, i'll definitely get a b+w filter, 39mm is so cheap at bhphoto that i dont have reason not to buy it..</p>

<p>question is: can i still use the Leica hood right (on a 35 summicron)?</p>

<p>i have a junior manfrotto 410, but even is junior is not really light... i wonder if there is any other solution that weighs aout 400gr or so like my other mini ballhead...</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>also i noticed that a good BW filter is 50$...considerng a $2500 lens is worth to buy one...</p>

<p>thanks richard, but i partially agree also with robin, because I dot think Cartier-Bresson, neither Meyerowitz were using a uv filter, but i might be wrong...</p>

<p>ahaha, you right...actually the hood could be enough to protect the lens now that I think of...;)</p>

<p>what protection/UV filter do you use for Leica's M lenses?<br>

which is the best (= completely neutral)?</p>

<p>actually from a close inspection with a flashlight, a very tiny but strong flashlight, i noticed two particles of dust inside, and some supermicro dust in the middle of the lens inside... i cant say if is dust or else...maybe is a starting haze?<br>

<img src="http://oi53.tinypic.com/65s57d.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>

<p>hey Jerry, what would be a good price to buy it? or actually, if you would have to sell it, how much would you get?<br>

i'm just wndering if i did pay to much for it or not... the lenses seems perfect, is only a little discolored on th enumbers...because of the previous owener, but the focus is very smooth, the aperture ring very easy to change (may too much? I shoudl try it on camera but i dont to touch the ring anc change the aperture by mistake... )<br>

i will inspect witha flashlight, as previously stated</p>

<p>the reason of why i would spend more for a Leica lens, even if other brands to good, is that in my experience, when you buy better famous brands you can sell it quickly even to non-experts, whereas a zeiss or voigt. you can re sell it only to photo-nerds ;)</p>

<p>I just bought from ebay a summicron 35 pre-ash serial 34xxxx etc<br /> i never own a lens Leica, and I bought a body thet is coming next days... I can return the lens in case in few days so i'd like to know what i should be aware of, beside the aethetic condition..<br /> the lens looks good, the numbers are little dirty of a heavy use (and this means is good lens i guess because otherwise the previous owener woudl have never used it ;))<br /> there ar emechanical aspect i shoudl check? the focus ring sounds smooth, the apertire ring is very easy to change, maybe too muc thoug with avery subtle play<br /> the lenses front and rear have no scratch no marks, they look perfect<br /> the front retaining ring has seme marks on the little gap that fits the ring tool, it looks like the lens has been serviced...maybe... i cant say<br /> thanks</p>

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

<p>great!</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4527384">Andrew Gillis</a>, do you know, buchance which reels I shoudl look for to develop 135 film? os it the 4323 for 4x5 only? can a reel of 2000 series work for 4000 as well?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>I have a Unicolor roller too! SO i'm going to definitely choose your method! thanks fot the advice!</p>

<p>If I buy a Jobo 4323 can I use other reels meant for 2000 series? there are differences in diamater between each series? i cant find the specs on jobo's website...</p>

<p>a friend offered me a Jobo 4323 with two rolls for 4x5 sheets for 110$<br>

btu I'm indecise is I have ot go for it or get the Yankee tank or HP tank that go for lower money...<br>

actually money is no biggie, given is onyl 30/40 bucks differnece and hopefully they last years... so i watn the best/better solution, and easy to use, less error-prone..<br>

so far i have been using a roller drum 8x10, wich can handle 4 sheets at time with 350ml of chemicals, sofar so god, but 4 sheets a time means to repeat the process mannytime if i have 30 sheets to develop...</p>

<p>whereas the jobo with two rolls means 6+6 films..<br>

bottom line..suggestions based n experience are appreciated</p>

<p>Thanks <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=434363">William Clark</a>,<br>

that is the kind of tests I was talking about...you dont need years or month to get wich one is best unless you have a mediocre taste</p>