allen_gara

Ed, nice write-up. Digitally capturing color negatives drives me crazy. One technique I hit upon was to digitize using an 80b (blue) filter. 80a also works, and results can vary. Screw it on between the lens and first adapter, then do your custom WB with a blank (orange mask only) shot. I usually take a first shot with the lens cap on to make sure I have one on the roll. This helps reduce the amount of color curve compensation needed. Regarding the hardware, Canon used to make a converter called a DP-10. You can pick them up on the auction site pretty cheap. The holders are metal and actually very good at keeping the negative strip flat.

I would suggest a Canon AF35ML or Fuji DL-200. I have both, and they're both fine little cameras with decent lenses. They're still cheap online, I guess the hipsters haven't hipped to them (yet).

Mr. Ghantous, thanks for sharing. I agree with your sentiment, although I still take a digital full frame on vacation. There is something fun about seeing how film pictures turn out, weeks after the vacation is done. The pictures in the article are really nice, BTW.

That might make sense if one were shooting B&W. If you read his article, and looked at the pictures (which are actually quite nice, and not "rank"), then you saw he's shooting Portra 400. C-41 isn't a variable developing process. Scanning might be though.

Hey, cool you're digging into medium format film shooting. You're gonna like it. I've had most every meter people have suggested so far, and probably own 5 different ones. The one I grab and use 90% of the time is a Sekonic L-208 TwinMate. Small, compact, reads analog directly with f-stop/shutter combinations, and the battery lasts around a year. It has an incident dome, which is good to know how to use. Sekonic L-208 . If you go Gossen LunaPro, I'd highly advise you get the newer LunaPro SBC or F. They take 9V batteries and have much more reliable silicon cells. You can get a spot attachment for these cheap, which is really handy to do more Zone system metering. That's what I use the other 10% of the time. Have fun and good luck!

Sad news indeed. Condolences to the family, and may we all carry his passion forward.

<p>I agree with Steve, you won't be able to get enough squirted into the threads to make much difference. And I use DA to soak all the time. I's safer than Naptha because it won't mess up any of the painted parts. Remove the entire assembly from the inside with the outer retaining ring. I fill up a tupperware container so I can put a lid on it. DA evaporates. Also, I use some small glass droppers to squirt the DA into any openings or slots once in awhile, then shake it out. Stuff comes out, and it's not pretty. I'm sure 91% alcohol does the trick too, I just happen to have DA around all the time. Once it's apart, then for sure Naptha (lighter fluid) will get it off well.<br> <br />For lube I like to use Super Lube 21030. You can get it at the hardware store or some auto parts stores. It's synthetic, has PTFE in it, and won't run or drip when it heats up. Vaseline will move around on a hot day. </p>

<p>All scans have soft edge looks to some extent or another, depending on the scanner. Especially for 35mm, you will need to sharpen the scan. And sometimes in more than one way to get a sharp image.</p>

<p>When I first started scanning, I found this site and some "101" tips. http://www.scantips.com/simple.html It's a good place to start. For your specifics, try to set the black and white points manually in the scanner after the pre-scan, but leave a little gap between the points and curve so you don't clip anything. You'll have a better place to start with. Once it's reversed, adjust the levels in the same manner, but try it on the individual RBG channels separately for fun. It takes a little more time, but I find it gives better results. In PS, you can create the B&W image from any (or all) color channels, and sometimes one gives a better (or more differenter) result than the others. Also, you need to maybe hit "despeckle" to clean up noise, then get some Unsharp mask on that thing. I use the curve tool to make more refined contrast and levels adjusts, but it takes a lot of eye-balling.</p>

<p>Alan, that's the best explanation I've seen on using filter factors. Lisa- in case you haven't figured it out, filter factors are multipliers, not adders. 1.5 mean +2/3 stops roughly, not +1.5 stops. EV adjustments are the same as stop adjustments. 1 EV is the same as one whole shutter or aperture stop.<br> <br />All that being said, I usually don't use the filter factor. I take a reading of a grey card or blank light wall, then put the filter on (or over the sensor if it's not TTL or within the lens front) and adjust compensation until I get the same reading. I get a lot of filters used, and am too lazy to google search for the original manufacturers data. </p>

<p>This is why I stopped buying old film, unless it stated it was stored correctly, and wasn't more than a few years out of date. Because yours were not in the foil pack, even having them sitting out in room light for long enough would probably cause issues. I'd just do what you are already planning, get a good fresh roll and see what happens. BTW, I stick to chemicals that I like, but still adjust times. There are websites and smart phone apps that can show you timings for free. Also, the manufacturers websites always have the recommended times. Yours may vary, but there a good place to start.</p>

<p>I doubt there is anything you could do to repair the scratches that wouldn't show up anyway, or would cost more than getting a replacement glass plate from Epson.</p>

<p>Maybe not a great help with the issue, but 3'30" seems very short for FP4 @125ASA in DD-X. I vary the process slightly from Ilford's, and use a Jobo rotary process (continuous agitation), and that's 8' developing. I'd assume your stopping between dev/fix. Then the 2'30" for fixing seems about minimum. Clearing can be important too. I use the "Ilford method" with all the Ilford films (ok, all of them).</p>

<p>Tri-X at 200, wow. The shots really look great. I need to try that! Oh yeah, nice lens too.</p>

<p>Not sure if it will solve your problem, but I think you're fixing longer than needed, and not rinsing enough. With standard rapid-fixer (kodak or ilford) it shouldn't need more than 5mins. You can test it after it gets up in age if needed. With the rinse, using the Ilford method will let you get the rinse down to 5mins or so safely, but you have to do the agitation & dump sequence first. Not clearing the film may be contributing to some of the issues. Do a search in this forum and you'll see references to ilford method. </p>

<p>Darin/Cory- while on vacation this past spring, I took some of my best photos (to me anyway) with a CiroFlex Model C (Velostigmat 80mm). I shot a nice roll of TMax100 with a yellow filter while hiking in a canyon. Except the camera was loaded with Ektar 100. This was the result! No amount of photoshop would wring out the yellow. So dum.</p><div></div>

<p>Funny, I was just about to post a "re-processed" version of your original. I think as you found there is more you can accomplish with post-processing. Personally, I've done Tri-X, rated at 1600, and used DD-X. I liked it, and results were pretty consistent. I usually exposed to try and preserve the highlights, if I had a choice, since the blacks were going to be "black" anyway. </p>

<p>The pictures looks great, and the exposures seem fine. I'm going to say you need a better scanner in order to judge whether a tripod or the lens is limiting your sharpness (or post-processing work). </p>

<p>You should try to sell it as a kit, like the others suggested. Actually, you should sell the whole kit to me for $400!</p>

<p>Eclipse makes an archival film emulsion cleaner, PEC-12. I've used it, it works well. I'd recommend using either cotton balls or buy their pec pad wipes. The big online photo shops sell it. And try to brush and blow off as much as possible to avoid scratches.</p>

<p>Always late to the photo party. Voigtlander Vitessa A w/Ultron 50mm f2, Kodak Gold 200. </p><div></div>

<p>The guy on ebay does a great job. I've had several mirrors custom cut by him, just had to do all the measurements. Once he sent two different thicknesses just to be sure one was perfect.</p>

<p>Jim, your B&W work is excellent. To prove it, here is a mediocre B&W shot. Ricoh Diacord L, Delta 100. The lower rez scan has some issues with the tight lines. </p><div></div>

<p>Yes, great idea on running a donor roll through it. Even if the Mamiya doesn't have a ruby window you can always open the back to see if the numbers are at the right place. But, from experience, don't wind all the way to the end, it makes rolling the film back onto the feeder reel really hard.</p>

<p>IMHO, the background on the linked photo is quite distracting because it's not out of focus enough. It's very busy, and at the immediate edges around the subject woman's right side outline, the other person is too discernible as another person in the frame. That being said, it's all a matter of taste, so it's only an opinion. If the objective was to create a background story, then I'm all in with it being right. <br> I think you are 100% right about technique creating the shot, not the equipment. Barry's first shot is a perfect example to me. The ratio between the subject and the background is large, and the background colors are in contrast to the subject. So, she pops right out and there is nothing but pleasant framing around her. Her hair flowing from top left to bottom right creates nice movement. If the background had too much information, this would be lost. The take away is that where you stand and the direction you point the camera determines the background. </p>