jackflesher

Black powder?

 

;),

Not sure this is much of an improvement, but I ran a 50% gray layer to pump up the skin then despeckled.<div></div>

Ralph Gibson, a well-known Leica photographer, so loved the look of his traditional B&W prints while still "wet" before they dried down, he began to scan them right out of the print washer. He rolls them onto the glass platten and scans them, no oil, just wet with the wash water. His results are exceptional.

You are doing it the proper way. There is no need to convert to the print space prior to printing if you do what you're doing via the print with preview window in Photoshop.

You hold it on the film rails of the empty filmholder to check or confirm critical focus. It is a very crude method for confirming focus and the main reason I went the V-Pan route instead.

 

I am giving up on 6x17 altogether and am selling mine on the Bay, but here is the link so you can see how it works -- kind of half view camera, half Art-Pan: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3850285588

Personally, I think you cannot do better than Imacon... But even older, used models can be very expensive, and they're not particularly fast -- but the quality of the scan is simply outstanding.

Just like with film, you'll be better off with the lower ISO and faster prime lens. However, if the zoom is a Canon IS lens, then you really do gain an easy two stops of hand-holdability...

I used to own them but don't anymore as I recently sold the entire system.

 

But... The 45-90 is a superb optic for a zoom. It is big, heavy and slower focussing, and perhaps not quite up to the optical performance of the primes it replaces, but still very good. You end up covering three main folcals; 45, 55, and 80 all with one lens -- so it really about convenience.

Your Sekonic is an incident meter, your Pentax is a refelcted spot meter. You thus need to spot meter a gray card with the Pentax meter in the same light you are taking the Sekonic reading in. You cannot simply meter any available object, as its reflectance could be significantly higher or lower than neutral gray or zone V.

 

You should also set your Sekonic to ISO 100 for the comparison to avoid any confusion about how the meter alters the EV reading for ISO. Now you can compare the readings and they should be much closer.

 

Cheers,

Jack

EV is EV and the ISO setting should have no bearing on the EV reading. (For whatever reason, and I've never understood why, Sekonic and Minolta both allow set ISO to affect the EV reading.) Since the Pentax operates by reading EV directly AT ALL TIMES and you transfer that reading to the scale up front. Most Pentax meters remain very accurate over their life, but you can easily check it by taking a reading of a clear blue North sky at around noon near sea-level -- this reading should generate a "sunny 16" exposure (reciprocal of the set ISO as the shutter speed at f16) with ANY meter.

 

Note: if your Pentax meter has been modifieded by Zone VI studios, it may read slightly different as it is calibrated for the spectral sensitivity of B&W films.

If the sky is smooth in tone, I think you'll find the eraser works best.

 

If it is smooth in luminosity, then the magic wand is probably best.

 

If it isn't either of those then the extract filter -- stupid name and place for that tool if you ask me -- may be worth a look.

 

Or finally, a combination of them may be required.

 

Cheers,

Jack

I'm pretty sure it's a Canon 1DMKII.

Here is my 60-second go at it -->

 

Dupe layer, blur top layer, add layer mask, paint in to reveal sharp details.

 

Cheers,

jack<div></div>

The 1DII is more than capable for A4 offset -- actually the original 1D was good enough...

 

As for 20D v 1DII --> I have compared images from both side-by-side and have to admit they are very close. I'd give a slight edge to the 1DII image in terms of detail, but conversely, perhaps a slight edge to the 20D image in terms of noise.

 

If you don't need 8 frames per second, don't mind trading the build-quality of the 1DII for the lighter-weight of the 20D, and don't have issues with the 1.6x sensor versus the 1.3x sensor, then the 20D is a relative bargain.

 

My .02,

Jack

Bill:

 

read this article -- If you understand parallax, this is THE way to stitch: http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_58/essay.html

 

IF I need to do a nodal-point stitch, I simply mount a Kirk "Long Rail Plate" in the QR clamp of my Arca head, level the camera, slide the Kirk LRP fore/aft until at the lens nodal point, and pan my pano. Works great and adds an insignificant of weight and bulk to what most of us are already carrying anyway ;)

 

Cheers,

Jack

On point to the question, 12 bits per channel allows SIGNIFICANT pushing around of the pixels before you see spikes and gaps in your histogram (posterization). In that regard, it is significantly better than 8 bits per channel. But as a practical matter, there would be very little visible difference between even a grossly manipulated 12-bit and true 16-bit image.

 

As others have stated, claims of 16-bit output do not mean you get a TRUE 16 bits per channel. By definition, 9-bit output would require a 16-bit block to deliver.

BTW, there is a very good digital B&W forum here: http://www.outbackphoto.com/tforum/

If you use a raw workflow, you can -- and often do -- apply some form of a curve during conversion. The converter itself may apply it for you, but nonetheless it is applied based on parameters you choose.

 

You still need to capture the image properly, yet with digital, we mostly want to avoid blowing the highlights. However one accomplishes this task -- via internal meter or histogram review -- we are essentially selecting an exposure that maps our zone 9 tones into zone 8 on the sensor.

 

 

Furthermore there are tools in digital imaging programs that perform the same tasks as one achieved by uinder-exposure and over-development, or vice-versa. We then use the image processing program (PS) to correctly position the other zones in our image using this array of tools.

Linhof tech 4, 5 and Technikardan, Wista, Horseman woodfield, Nagoaka, Ikeda, Raja, Tachihara, Phillips and a host of others.

 

BUT it is a "generic" version of the board. Linhof cuts their shutter holes below center to allow for easier mounting of copal 3 shuttered lenses in the front standards. Linhof and Wista also have a badge on the upper right corner of their boards.

 

Probably worth about $20 on the used market.

Fact is it probably does not matter that much... Most folks (me included) however agree that it is best to get the image as close as possible in the raw converter, then do final tweaks in CS.

Actually, you should look into a re-furbed Epson 7600. There is a *SUPERB* RIP called "Quadtone" (it's shareware) available for B&W printing using the matte black inkset. You could also wait until the RIP becomes available for the 4000, but I do not believe a time frame has been given for that.

 

More info can be found on the outbackphoto site here:

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/tforum/viewboard.php?BoardID=12

 

Cheers,

Jack

I use the Maxtor one-touch drives and prefer them to the WD. I use a pair of them, with the second one mirroring the first using "Mirror folder" from Techsoft. (http://www.techsoftpl.com/backup/index.htm?retail) This set-up gives me a mock-RAID that works very well. FWIW, you can set the mirroring to work at the folder level, the directory level or the drive level and can schedule it to run at given times or run live.

Cheers, Jack

While I've not uprezzed an H25 file, I have sucessfully uprezzed 1Ds files to 40x60 at 200PPI -- they look very good at normal viewing distances, but will not stand up to a ncritical viewing from a few inches.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Jack

Funny thing is, I had a 360A and it was just a so-so performer -- nowhere near as good as a Nikkor 300M. I sold it off a few years ago for something like $900... Just goes to show ;)

 

Anyway, for the money, if you are looking for a small lightweight long lens, the 450C is tough to beat -- at least IMO.

Simple reply with the results of my tests:

 

Capture:

 

1) 645 MF film scanned on an Imacon at 3200 DPI rendered images not quite as good in detail as my 1Ds.

 

2) 6x7 MF film scanned on an Imacon at 3200 DPI rendered images slightly better in detail than my 1Ds.

 

3) The differences above while notable at actual pixel view, were just barely notable, and IMO are not significant. In other words, all of the above captures are very close in detail -- close enough to be called equal.

 

4) A 16 MP Kodak digital back on my Contax 645 produced files that appeared about 25% more detailed than those from my 1Ds, even after cropping to 35mm proprtions.

 

5) 4x5 film scanned on an Imacon at 1600 DPI is far better than anything else I have seen. Period.

 

6) My current equipment for capture are Canon 1DMKII and 1Ds cameras, and the best glass I can afford for them.

 

Output:

 

1) Fuji Crystal Archive is nice -- but I prefer the look of inkjet prints -- especially those off an Epson 7600/9600.

 

2) I figured the way I print, I would pay for a 9600 in less than 2 years. Since I had the room in my office, I bought a 9600 about 1-1/2 years ago... The printer has already more than paid for itself.

 

3) I like being the one in control of the entire process, from initial capture through final print.

 

All the above is my .02 only and I respect others opinions may vary,

 

Cheers,

Jack

 

3) My net output is currently FAR better than anything I ever got out of a custom lab, including large prints from 4x5 transparencies.