addicted2light

December 20, 2016

Thank you Barrie!

Yes, I've considered using a piece of glass, and I've used one with the Epson, on the back of the negative, to keep it flat.

But in this case it should go in the optical path, and like you already suspected I'm wary of potential image degradation...so I still prefer taping the negatives down.

On the other hand, I'm seeing if I can manage to find (here in Europe they are scarce) a Beseler enlarger medium format film holder; from pictures I've seen they seem to be flat enough to be used with this system, but the only way to be sure will be seeing one in person.

January 7, 2016

First of all a macro lens has a much higher resolution, otherwise just shooting on Velvia in the film days would have capped its potential. Even normal lenses, i.e. non macro, when they are good resolve much more than this. Try shooting on Spur or Adox CHS20 (I hope I got this one right, I always mix it up with its "normal" brother), b/w films capable of recording >200 lp/mm and you'll see for yourself.

More, you are disregarding the main factor: you can go closer (i.e. increase the magnification factor) if you want more detail, just shooting more images to combine later in one shot...This is why this method is, within limits, resolution-independant both in terms of lens used (as long as it is sharp enough) and sensor megapixels.

February 18, 2015

You're welcome :)

February 17, 2015

Hi everyone,

like I promised when I first published the list for 35mm lenses, in the end I was able to "polish" the medium format one as well.

You can find it here (careful, the page because of the list is almost 600Kb, please be patient):

<a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/02/12/medium-format-legacy-lenses-sizes-and-specs/">Medium format legacy lenses: sizes and specs</a>

Like the 35mm one, this is just something it grows from notes I kept as a reference for myself during the years. I revised it, but there might be some mistake, mine or of one of my sources.

Enjoy it, and careful for sudden attacks of G.A.S.! ;)

January 12, 2015

Well, most of the job, albeit in a rougher form, was actually done years ago when I supposedly should have been studying for a trade law test (yeah, I was in law school, biggest mistake of my life, soon enough rectified).

Trust me, that stuff it is so boring you will find every possible excuse to avoid cracking the books :)

After that I just added a few rows now and then when I found something that interested me; and all that I had to do now was, like I said, clean it up a bit to render it intelligible to others as well.

January 11, 2015

Hi everyone,

I finally got around to cleaning up - and render understandable even for others and not just me - a table that I was keeping as a reference that contains a lot of informations about legacy lenses: optical schemes, variations, dimensions etc.

It's the condensed "juice" of many old magazines and many websites, some of them disappeared long ago.

I've just published it; please be careful, the table weights 2.7Mb so the page will take its sweet time to load! :-)

You can find it at:

<a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/01/11/35mm-legacy-lenses-sizes-and-specs/">35mm legacy lenses: sizes and specs</a>

In a month or so I hope to have the time to complete "tiding up" another one about medium format lenses, so stay tuned.

Hope it can be useful, happy pictures (and 2015) to all!

Luca

November 29, 2014

The key, John, is ram even more than processing power. A faster cpu will end the job quicker, but without enough ram your computer will often not be able to end the task at all.

And to have enough ram you need a 64 bit operating system, because 32 bit ones can handle up to just 3Gb of ram, way too few for today big files or for high-res scans.

To give you a reference point: I can stitch with relatively ease 4x5 "scans" (black and white, though; I've never shot color in large format) or 6x6 color slides "scans" on a mid-2011 core i5 iMac all stock but for the addition of ram up to a total of 24Gb.

I've got a Photoshop cs6 script taking care of all the stitching one image after the other. So I just launch the script on an entire roll or set of images and then go grab a coffee or have lunch.

November 9, 2014

As usual the higher the macro ratio, the more vital the absence of vibrations (mirror lock up…) and *perfect* focus (minute variation can make huge differences, so if you move the camera even a bit to tape the hood in place instead of screwing it on before and leaving it alone you can knock the focus off).

Btw, if you want to heighten the macro ratio but can't find a suitable spaced hood try using one or more filters stacked, just with the glass part removed. Two or three filters are cheaper than a metal hood and work like a charm.

But honestly, on 35mm in comparison with a Dimage 5400 I think you will maybe see the difference with so few shots that it isn't wort the effort (I'm assuming here you use 35mm for handheld shots, high Iso and such; if you shoot landscapes on a tripod on it it will be different). In any case, 35mm is a pain in the *** to scan with this technique (from a quality / effort perspective) unless you reserve this treatment just for the very best images.

The kinky results, btw, I think depend by Photoshop having heating something heavy at dinner and having nightmares :)

It happens now and then to me as well, and the funny part is that often if I process again the same set of images after just closing and reopening Ps I can get two completely different results! Anyway this is a general problem with stitching and it happens all the time with "normal" panoramic photography as well.

It helps having something detailed in the black part (the frame) of the frame. This is why I suggested the white paper-backed tape. Its height it is a bit taller than a normal transparent tape (still negligible though), but its texture gives the stitching program something to work with even with images with quite a bit of less detailed space like sea or big patches of sky. For the same reason, shoot the sections without leaving the borders of the "master" image at the extreme borders of the section-images (I hope this makes sense) because there is where Ps or any other stitching program will try to deform the stitched image the most and where the distortion of the lens you use for the job will usually be more visible.

P.s. thanks for the info on the Reflecta. I thought it had a nice Af like the Minolta 5400; what a bust...

November 8, 2014

Hi Adrian,

I never had any problem with dirt or lint, with the exception of the notoriously terrible (in this regard) Rollei ATP, that is a real dust-magnet. And I live with a dog that is practically a lint factory :)

You could try 2 strategies for this:

1) change place; as banal as it sounds there are rooms or just places that collect more dust than others because of air currents, electromagnetic attractions, materials of which is made the furniture around etc.

2) wash down the floor before; this is an old darkroom trick. It will rise the humidity in the room, forcing the dust to settle down instead of floating around (and sticking onto your negatives)

To avoid the distortion in Photoshop you should use one of the last two methods of stitching in the list: collage or reposition. All the other ones will introduce some amount of distortion, that while often negligible (depends also on the subject and the way you shoot the sections) I understand it is a big deal if you shoot architecture.

And remember to overlap quite a bit the various sections, at least a 20% if not a 33% (otherwise just shoot more sections). It is a bit counterintuitive, but the more juxtaposed the images are the easier and faster the process will be. If you are on Windows, you could try as well to use the (free) Image Composite Editor (ICE). I'm on Mac so I cannot comment, but from feedback I've received from readers of my blog it looks like an even better alternative, especially when you have images with less details for the software to work with (skies, seascapes and such).

Last, I don't know if you did this, but please remember to both use the mirror lock up and the Live view to focus accurately, and even more vital please tape the film down! Use the white "painter" tape, the one used to mask areas you don't want to paint; it is cheap and doesn't leave residues. Don't rely only on the macro rig to keep your films parallel.

A Coolscan 9000 yes, would be a really nice alternative, but:

1) the ICE will not work on black and white films; given they are 95% of what I shoot…I'm out of luck :(

2) it is unsupported; if it brakes it will become a really expensive paperweight. In this regard probably it would be better and cheaper the new Reflecta medium format scanner; the reviews are pretty good, even if not at the level of the Nikon (but again, it costs a fraction of the price). I seem to recall it will reach 3600ppi (as measured by the testers, not as just declared by the manufacturer)

Hope this can help :)

P.s.: if you really want to crush the scanner results try shooting at a bigger macro ratio (like 2:1)…it will take more time, but you will be amazed by the amount of detail you can pull off from a good (low iso, good lens, tripod and mirror lock up/rangefinder) negative

June 25, 2014

Hi Adrian,

a Youtube video would be a good idea, as soon as I'll have a bit of time I'll do it.

But it is really simple: I just move the camera between exposures, lifting it (so not to leave scratches on the negatives) and repositioning it a few centimeters down the "line" I'm scanning. Precision is nice but not paramount, because the software will take care of this.

The film is taped on the surface of the light table, so it stays put. And lifting the camera avoids almost every possibility of scratching the film.

I'm a nitpick, so the first times I used to refocus between each shot: turned out it is a complete waste of time (as long as the gear you use doesn't have loose parts, like a creaking focus ring).

I don't refocus, not even between different frames; I only do this with different film strips, and this mostly because of the possibility of positioning the following strip on a different place on the glass that could be a bit less flat.

Happy pictures.

January 13, 2014

I tried this using Photoshop 6 and it didn't stitch the images together properly

</blockquote>

Hi Jerry,

Photoshop stitching engine was not very good until the CS5 version, at least for what I remember.

Try using another program, like the free Hugin (powerful but complex) or the excellent Autopano Pro (you can download a tryout version).

And remember to leave a 25%/30% margin of juxtaposition when "scanning" the images to help the software.

December 22, 2013

Thank you again for sharing the benefits of your efforts here

</blockquote>

Many thanks to you; half of the fun, in photography, is really learning new "tricks" and sharing them!

December 22, 2013

given your assessment of raw software and the camera-dependent issue

</blockquote>

Hi again Luke,

I thought you may be interested in seeing with your own eyes how much difference the right raw converter can make:

<a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2013/12/22/the-importance-of-choosing-the-right-raw-converter/">http://www.addicted2light.com/2013/12/22/the-importance-of-choosing-the-right-raw-converter/</a>

Happy Holidays!

December 22, 2013

But, given your assessment of raw software and the camera-dependent issue, I'm having second thoughts about a p&s camera shooting raw.

</blockquote>

It's not a matter of issues. But each raw converter gives the best possible results with a few sensors / cameras, average results with the bulk of them, and not so good (that does not mean unusable by any means!) results with a few others.

It would seem that lens quality and sensor size/performance are both critical to achieving a quality raw image even worthy of post processing.

</blockquote>

Lens definitely, sensor yes and no. Meaning that a smaller but newer generation sensor will give you the same results of a bigger but older one. Think how amazingly good have become the Olympus m4/3 (an excellent choice for you, BTW).

Now, I don't know how small a camera do you need, but I can share my experience in the search for a pocketable one. After many many failed attempts (cameras that I ended up selling as fast as I could or sending straight back to the seller) I liked very much the Fuji X100 and the Sony Nex3.

This last one, in particular, in its latest incarnation is the same size of a Panasonic LX, with maybe a couple of mm more depth if you choose a zoom lens, but delivers quality in spades. I've seen it go just the day before yesterday for 320 euro with a 16mm lens, new, in a brick and mortar store in my city. If you are comfortable in buying one used you can have it - and try it for yourself - for much less.

As for myself I'm now selling the big and heavy Canon 5d mark II after having bought a Sony Nex 7 (not A7). The quality is actually higher with the Sony (more recent sensor), even if it is an APS-c, and it covers all the bases: tripod / landscape camera & events / travels one. And yes, I tested it one agains the other by myself, because I could not believe the review found on the web; but they were definitely right.

YMMV, but for me sacrificing a few mm for more compactness is not worth the price paid in image quality loss and the usual lack of "speed" and responsiveness of the classic compact cameras.

December 22, 2013

i.e. which software would a cheap bastard be content with as he tests the waters of raw format?

</blockquote>

Hi Luke,

I don't know what camera do you have. Keep in mind that the results with raw converters can be extremely camera-dependant; what works like a charm on a Canon 5d mk II files can work poorly on Sony Nex 7 files for example (here I'm talking for experience).

That said, there are at least two free raw converters out there that I can recommend, even more than a few commercial ones. Which one will you choose will depend mostly by which camera do you have (compare the results), which operating system are you on (Windows, Linux or Mac) and by how comfortable you are with the user interface.

1) RawTherapee (Windows, Linux, Mac)

<a href="http://rawtherapee.com/downloads">http://rawtherapee.com/downloads</a>

Extremely good and powerful; the downside is that with a lot of cameras it isn't the top performer, but only the second or third best. Avoid it like the plague (or at least don't use its default demosaicing algorithm AMAZE) if you happen to have a Sony Nex 7; results are way too soft.

2) RawPhotoProcessor (Mac only)

<a href="http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Downloads.html">http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Downloads.html</a>

Few options, but this is deceiving because it is one of the program with the best output out there. With Sony Nex 7 files, for example, is one of the few that gives me zero chromatic aberration and magenta shift, and this without having to mess with anything. Also quite often the one that gives the sharpest results, at the price of a tiny bit of more noise. Technically not a freeware but a donation-ware, meaning that you can use it for free forever, but to unlock some advanced feature like the batch processing you will have to donate.

3) UFraw (Windows, Linux, Mac)

<a href="http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Install.html">http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Install.html</a>

Not in the same league with the two above mentioned, but still a really good piece of software. Quite fast to learn too. Use the stand alone version (not the Gimp plugin) if you want (and you do) 16bit output.

4) Whichever raw conversion software came with your camera

This are often overlooked, but are quite good even if not the best one. Even the more despised, like the Sony Image Data Converter, are in reality quite good and useful at least as training wheels to learn the intricacies of raw conversion.

And don't get intimidated by the many options of some of this softwares. What you need is mostly set exposure, curves, and optical corrections if this is possible (chromatic aberration, distortion etc.). The rest is often best managed in Photoshop, Lightroom and the likes.

Well, it is not a cheap bastard guide (many other free raw converters are missing) but at least is a beginning. I hope this will help you with your decision to switch to raw!.

Happy holidays!

May 22, 2013

I am a new owner of a Sony NEX-6 and notice you (hopefully other commentators too) are also using the NEX-6

</blockquote>

Hello Jasper, and thanks to you for your kind words.

Keeping in mind that:

a) I have a Nex-3 (not 6), and

b) I don't use Linux for photo processing anymore, so I don't know the last development in this kind of software for the penguin

FOR LINUX

I would suggest you RawTherapee. It's a terrific piece of software, that gives you terrific results as well.

It can be intimidating at first, because it has a ton of options, but it's just a matter of become "acquainted" with them (a week or so will do the trick).

<a href="http://www.rawtherapee.com">http://www.rawtherapee.com</a>

If you want you can take a peek of what I mean at this old post on my blog (it is the last of a series of five, the links to the other four are under the title) in which I compared almost all the serious raw converters available at the time, using the same set of pictures (yes, Nex-made included):

<a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/05/31/review-raw-converters-mega-test-part-v/">http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/05/31/review-raw-converters-mega-test-part-v/</a>

Another excellent option would be using UFraw in the stand-alone version (the one that comes without Gimp). This way it will support 16bit output, and with really nice results. The biggest downside, in comparison to RawTherapee, is the substantial lack of developing, de-noising, etc. options.

<a href="http://ufraw.sourceforge.net">http://ufraw.sourceforge.net</a>

Last bit of software to suggest, not listed in the aforementioned review and that I tried only briefly, is DarkTable. It's Lightroom-inspired, and many people swear for it. Give it a try.

<a href="http://www.darktable.org/features/">http://www.darktable.org/features/</a>

BTW, all of the listed softwares are free and open sources.

FOR WINDOWS

For Windows there is, obviously, a much vaster offer, but not necessarily a better one.

Just check the first part of the review on my blog I mentioned before; there I listed for each piece of software the operating system for which they are available.

Anyway, even on Windows I would still use RawTherapee.

The only serious alternative would be using PhotoShop (but more for the possibilities in image manipulation that for the CameraRaw module) or Lightroom (that keeps your pictures organized as well). Obviously the price tags here would be wildly different!

And remember that now PhotoShop has gone online-only, so you would probably have to search for an old (CS 5 or 6) version.

I hope I've been able to shed some light, in the meantime enjoy your new camera and happy pictures!

December 30, 2012

Also, if the emulsion is facing up it is more easily damaged if a lens hood touches the negative.

</blockquote>

Right, and having the emulsion in contact with the surface of the light source will avoid also the formation of Newton rings.

December 21, 2012

Just found this and thought it may be interesting, if not for anything for "archival" purposes. I don't now the language (just use google translate or babylon) but the images are pretty much self-explanatory:

<a href="http://pentax50test.blogspot.it">http://pentax50test.blogspot.it</a>

It's a comparison between the Pentax A series 50mm: f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2.

December 20, 2012

A couple of examples:

> The Canon 24-85mm:

> The Yashica 28-85mm:

> Olympus 28mm (this shot it's absolutely ugly, but you can see how the little Zuiko renders the colors):

> Nikon 105/4 Micro (more or less 70 euro; not a great lens for landscapes though, there are better alternatives at the same price like the 105/2,5 of the house or the Pentax Takumar 105/2.8):

December 20, 2012

My settings are 6500 K, gamma 2.2 and brightness at either 80 ( if i am making prints) or 100 CFM. What are your settings?

</blockquote>

Mine calibrates fine. Not too warm and prints matching, also matches my retina screen. Are your prints not matching?

</blockquote>

The display match my output, but only because I altered the calibration curves "by sight". It's really a minor correction (I had to cool down a bit the results), but it makes a noticeably difference in comparison to the results straight from the softwares. I had the same (minor) problem with two different iMacs of two different generations, so I guess it's not just me. And BTW, my settings are 6500K, gamma L* (I tried 2.2 too), and 120 CFM (I work in a fairly luminous environment).

Gianluca, Windows 7 is so far removed XP that you can't judge current Windows performance based on ten year old software.

</blockquote>

Sorry but I probably didn't make myself clear: I like XP, and I used for years as a "Photoshop only" machine. I don't like Windows 7, not even a bit. I find it messy, uselessly complex - and trust me, I'm also a programmer, so I kinda know my softwares - and a with a complete mess as a user interface. To be fair I used it only for a few hours, on my friend's computer like I said, but it was enough. As always your mileage may vary, and what I hate can be the best thing in the world for someone else :)

December 19, 2012

I have a couple of 35mm lens which are known to have lanthanum glass, but they don't show any yellowing.

</blockquote>

+1. My sample of S-M-C Takumar, for example, is crystal clear. But sometime happens that other lenses, not known as radioactive or prone to yellowing, can be as yellow as lemons! This is probably due, like you said, to contamination of the lanthanum batches.

I had a first-series 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor N, the one with the 9 iris blades; it was dark-yellow and, like you guessed, almost one stop slower than its nominal aperture. At the same time, it was one of the best lenses I had, and I'm still beating myself up for having sold it.

December 19, 2012

What would be the best equivalent of that for a FF, I wonder?

</blockquote>

For reportage use:

1) if you don't need the fast aperture (remember, FF looks really good still at 1600 iso): > AF = Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5 EF Usm. Really, really good, especially at the wide end; a tad soft at 85mm at full aperture; from 100 to 180 euro > manual focus = Yashica ML 28-85/3.5-4.5. Great lens, with beautiful "Zeiss" colors and contrast (it's basically a copy of its Contax sibling, minus the T* anti reflective treatment); a bit annoying the short focus distance, that requires often to have to use the "macro" focusing ring; from 50 to 100 euro

2) if you need AF and the fast aperture: I heard good things about the Tamron 28-75/2.8 (and you can find its test here <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html</a>); probably around 300-350 euro

For landscape use I'd forget the AF entirely, so:

- a fixed 24 or 28mm (far cheaper) from Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Contax, Yashica, Pentax, etc. (I'd avoid Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc.); they are almost all great, and almost ever better than a zoom at least at the borders. For the prices you can go from 25 euro (yes, twenty-five) for an Olympus 28/3.5 (sharp as a tack) to the 300-350 of a 25mm Contax (not great, better the 28 of the house in this case) or a new Canon EF (not the best of the bunch, but still a good lens). Add to this a 100 or 105mm, at the cost of maybe 100 euro more, and you're set.

December 19, 2012

And possibly a copy stand...

</blockquote>

Avoid that, if you do not put the camera directly on top of the film you will be faced with alignment issues. Considering that, even at f/11, the depth of field is paper-thin you don't want that...

Posted December 19, 2012 · December 19, 2012

I am getting tired of having to carry a meter

</blockquote>

Jon, if you have a smartphone have you tried PocketLightMeter? It is a FREE iPhone app, but I'm pretty sure there is a version for Android too (I'm not affiliated with this guys in every way, I just like their app a lot).

It works like a charm, you can also calibrate it, and it doubles even as a spot meter! And I'm pretty sure you will have your phone with you every way… For me it replaced the old Sekonic, YMMV

If you want you may check my old review here:

<a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2011/11/30/review-pocket-light-meter-for-iphone/">http://www.addicted2light.com/2011/11/30/review-pocket-light-meter-for-iphone/</a>

December 19, 2012

Didn't have a good way to hold the film flat

</blockquote>

I use simple paper adhesive tape, the one painters use for masking areas, that costs nothing and leaves no residues.

BTW, the Nikkor 55/3.5 is like a wine, the older (version) the better! I had one, and I still regret having sold it.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by addicted2light