|
Radbot posted:I know the Wein are probably the best, but hearing aid batteries are much, much cheaper. I'd rather shim them then pay for a new Wein cell every month or so. They do last a good bit longer generally (like six months or more). But yeah, hearing aid ones are cheaper.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:They do last a good bit longer generally (like six months or more). But yeah, hearing aid ones are cheaper. Wein cells last for a year if you don't use them. Hearing aid batteries are the wrong voltage and can result in some bad meter readings. Example: Spotmatic F, uses a funky dual-core light meter that isn't voltage-corrected right or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
Does anyone here use a Canon 8800f? I just got one and am horrified at the results compared to the Epson V700 I use at my university. Does anyone have any scans that they got from it to share? Maybe tips on how to pull a good B&W scan from it? I was thinking maybe it's just the included software that's crappy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 23:49
|
|
|
The hearing aid batteries in question are 1.4V, the original mercury batteries are 1.35V. This minute difference is probably worth about a third of a stop at most and can be corrected by setting a slightly lower ISO. You also get six to ten of them for the same price as a shipped Wein cell. I've heard that Wein cells can last for a few months, but I've never heard of them lasting a year when they've been activated. Rednik: Can you post some of your scans? I don't think a V700 and 8800f are really even comparable scanners, so I wouldn't be surprised at a large difference especially in smaller formats. Maybe if we see some scans some 8800f owners can see if your results are typical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2009 23:50
|
|
|
Rednik posted:Does anyone here use a Canon 8800f? I just got one and am horrified at the results compared to the Epson V700 I use at my university. Does anyone have any scans that they got from it to share? Maybe tips on how to pull a good B&W scan from it? I was thinking maybe it's just the included software that's crappy.  I'm borrowing my friend's 8800f, just using the included software. The image straight from the scanner was a little flat so I upped the contrast in Photoshop (just curves) and this is what it gave me. It is medium format, so I'm not sure if it would be the difference between doing 35mm and 120.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
I don't know, that looks pretty good. That's a seriously contrasty scene, so the blown out parts could just be the way it was scanned. Not bad for $160 or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 00:38
|
|
|
Rednik posted:Does anyone here use a Canon 8800f? I just got one and am horrified at the results compared to the Epson V700 I use at my university. Does anyone have any scans that they got from it to share? Maybe tips on how to pull a good B&W scan from it? I was thinking maybe it's just the included software that's crappy. http://www.flickr.com/photos/gecafe/sets/72157621824079397/ Also keep in mind it's not quite a fair fight, it's up against a professional NCPS scan. I'm sure you can tweak it and adjust the distance from the glass the negs are and get by with web quality stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
pwn posted:web quality stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 02:27
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Well, yea, for ~$200 what more could you really ask for? That's basically the only reason I want to get one for myself, to scan my medium format stuff to upload to flickr. If I wanted to print anything, I'd either do it traditionally or have a shop do it. Yeah I suppose I'm in the same boat. I'll try it with some negs that I've already scanned at the uni to compare and maybe post them. It could be that the lab that processed my B&W in Eastern Europe hosed up with developing the shots. I guess I just felt too lazy to make the trek to the digital darkroom and make do with the convoluted scheduling of the scan room, so I got the 8800f. Does anybody use or has heard anything for/against 3rd party software? Edit: by the way Kaerf, that scan looks great
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
Vuescan lets you scan in DNG/RAW 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
Installing Silverfast right now... Here's an Epson V700 Scan followed by a Canon 8800f scan:   The Canon one seems ridiculously fuzzy to me for some reason, though I turned off all the features
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 04:04
|
|
|
Well it's not really a fair comparison. One is a much better scanner scanning an evenly lit image with a lot of detail that is all on one focal plane, the other one, well, isn't. There's no doubt that the V700 is a better scan, but the 8800f doesn't look half bad considering the depth of field at play in that image. And apparently you didn't even use a USM?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Vuescan lets you scan in DNG/RAW So does the Epson interface, sort of. Probably works with anything that saves to TIFF. If you scan a negative as a 48-bit TIFF, you can open it in Adobe Camera Raw and use the same RAW editing controls. I think 16-bit grayscales work too, but I haven't tried that. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Aug 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 07:21
|
|
is go
|
Speaking of scanning software, what is the preferd software? Silverfast or Vuescan?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 16:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Wein cells last for a year if you don't use them. Hearing aid batteries are the wrong voltage and can result in some bad meter readings. Example: Spotmatic F, uses a funky dual-core light meter that isn't voltage-corrected right or something. Bad example: all the Spotmatics used a bridge circuit and aren't particularly picky about voltage. And as somebody pointed out the Wein cells and hearing aid batteries are practically the same (a .05 volt difference on paper).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:So does the Epson interface, sort of. Probably works with anything that saves to TIFF. You can get 8-bit images (tiffs, jpegs, i haven't tried anything else) to open in camera raw as well. There's a preference for making it the default or you can just choose "Camera Raw" from the format dialog in Photoshop's open dialog when you have the image you want selected. I sometimes do this if I need to do some white balance correction or fiddle with fill/highlight recovery as I find its easier to do in Camera RAW than using more conventional Photoshop methods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Bad example: all the Spotmatics used a bridge circuit and aren't particularly picky about voltage. You're wrong quote:If you're up to trying, a silver-oxide watch battery can also make a good replacement in a pinch. Karen Nakumura of Photoethnography.com put it succinctly when she wrote that Pentax "built in a bridge circuit in the metering which makes it battery voltage independent," which is to say that a silver-oxide battery of about 1.5v tends to work just fine for the light meter in most Spotmatics without effecting the sensitivity (your mileage may vary, but most people are happy to report less +- 1/3 EV). Gene Poon notes that the Spotmatic 'F' was the exception, because it has a dual core meter that requires a precise voltage, so it's not too good to substitute the wrong voltage. What hearing aid batteries are these? .05 off is 1/3 of .15 volts which seems to cause a small bit of EV change in even bridged circuits. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Aug 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 00:49
|
|
|
I don't know what to tell you, but the difference between a 625 Wein cell and a 625 alkaline with ISO halved is really hard to tell. The discharge profile is the only reason to go zinc-air, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 03:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't know what to tell you, but the difference between a 625 Wein cell and a 625 alkaline with ISO halved is really hard to tell. The discharge profile is the only reason to go zinc-air, in my opinion. Hmm, I've never heard of that, but it makes sense, as long as the meter's response to voltage follows a linear scale. You're probably right that it would work. 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Aug 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
Scanning!!  I've spent most of the day loving around with this Canon 8800F and I'm wondering if I didn't gently caress up buying this thing. What I have found to work the best for me is to use the Canon MP navigator to make the scan, using no filtering other than unsharp masking. 1200 dpi seems to be the best compromise between detail and image size, going to 2400 seemed to be more useful for inflating file size than detail. Same with 16 bit gray vs. 8 bit, on some images 16 bit made things worse. Also, 120 seems to scan better than 35mm. Color scans better than monochrome. I would scan the image in MP Navigator, save it as a TIFF, open it in iphoto, make my manipulations and export as a high quality JPEG. Anyway, here's what I came up with. 35mm    A couple in 120   I dunno, but I may be rethinking my choice of scanner. Not much to be done now, maybe my expectations are too high. I would have been better served my mixing up a can of dektol and filling some trays....some days you just feel like taking a hammer to the whole works and taking up whittling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 05:58
|
|
|
Bleh. On the top of scanning, My V500 seems to choke on Kodachrome. It scans, but it seems there are tons of artifacts. It almost looks like bad JPG compression, so I switched to TIFF, with no change. I'm using the Epson software.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You're wrong Crazily enough I've actually used these things and not just read about them on the Internet! (Still own an SP as well.) They DO work just fine with 1.5v modern batteries. But you are right and I am wrong in that they did not use a bridge circuit on the F. My bad. Here's a pretty good doc compiled by the Spotmatic discussion group that covers the variations: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...information.pdf Clayton Bigsby fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Aug 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:28
|
|
|
Sorry to make this the scanner problems thread, but: These are from an epson 4490, scanned through epson scan at 2400 dpi, 48-bit color, tif format. The film was 645 160VC. The lower part of the image is a full-size crop. Has anyone experienced this? I tried flipping the film around in case of newton's rings, and also re-scanned it twice. Same results. It happened with other frames in the roll as well, but not all of them. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:30
|
|
|
Brackbox posted:Sorry to make this the scanner problems thread, but: I would get the same problems with my older Epson scanner. When I see this in a modern copier I know the white plate that the machine calibrates itself against is dirty or the lamp may be getting tired. Is there a calibration or backlight correction available in your software? This sort of problem was why I gave up on my old Epson. I never could completely get rid of the striping in light sky areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:36
|
|
|
I got some weird artifacts when I had dust removal on, but everything fixed itself when I turned all that off. Is dust removal on for you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 06:53
|
|
|
Is there some reason Mamiya RB67s are cheap used? $240 seems like about the lowest price I can find on an interchangeable lens medium format outfit, makes me a bit suspicious. Is it just because they're huge? (gently caress why am i shopping for medium format i dont even have a decent 35mm or digital camera  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 08:20
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #20 posted:Is there some reason Mamiya RB67s are cheap used? $240 seems like about the lowest price I can find on an interchangeable lens medium format outfit, makes me a bit suspicious. Is it just because they're huge? It's because they're huge and getting dated. People are buying RZ67s instead, even though the RBs are perfectly good. The RZs have a slightly better lens range. (It's because MF is better than 35mm and digital put together.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 09:12
|
|
|
I have the Canon 5600F, which is pretty much the 8800F without medium format scanning. Honestly I've been pretty happy with the results, I turn all the auto adjustments/dust removal/sharpening off and do the sharpening/curves in Photoshop. If I want a good quality image I just scan at 4800 dpi then resample down to between 6 and 12 megapixels. I'm happy to post a full-res sample if anyone would like to see.killabyte posted:Bleh. I remember reading that the infrared beam in dust/scratch removal doesn't handle the surface of Kodachrome very well, maybe check that it's turned off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 09:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Can I have your stuff when you destroy yourself trying to find this lens? Nah, but I don't see why you'd want it. None my equipment is particularly expensive. While admittedly, I did get a fantastic deal on my Pentax 6x7 (body, prism, 105mm 2.4, 75mm 4.5 for $1500 AND 40 rolls of tri-x 400 for free), you could get it for about the price of a 5d mk2. I shoot 35mm on a Canon t70, and mainly use a 50mm 1.8, the t70+50mm 1.8 should not cost you more than $160 pretty much anywhere. I use a cheapass Phoenix wideangle zoom (19-35mm 3.5 I think) that I got for 30 bucks, and I got some other Canon telephoto zoom for free when I initially got the camera. All of the mounts are FD, all the lenses are fantastically sharp, and in terms of longevity, I've dropped my t70 and 50mm literally hundreds of times, sometimes in the rain or snow and it keeps on trucking perfectly. That camera is pretty much indestructable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 11:18
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Crazily enough I've actually used these things and not just read about them on the Internet! (Still own an SP as well.) They DO work just fine with 1.5v modern batteries. But you are right and I am wrong in that they did not use a bridge circuit on the F. My bad. Cool, thanks. I did not see that one searching around. I was doing my looking this spring and there seems to have been a bit of dicussion since then, but not enough to clear up the mystery. Sorry if I jumped down your throat. I wish Eric Hendrickson would weigh in on this, because I've seen way too many contradictory answers 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Aug 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 13:37
|
|
|
trueblue posted:I have the Canon 5600F, which is pretty much the 8800F without medium format scanning. Honestly I've been pretty happy with the results, I turn all the auto adjustments/dust removal/sharpening off and do the sharpening/curves in Photoshop. If I want a good quality image I just scan at 4800 dpi then resample down to between 6 and 12 megapixels. I'm happy to post a full-res sample if anyone would like to see. Good call, let me try that...
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:I would get the same problems with my older Epson scanner. When I see this in a modern copier I know the white plate that the machine calibrates itself against is dirty or the lamp may be getting tired. I tried the same frame with no ice, ice-speed, and ice-quality. Of those only ice-quality exhibited the streaks. Ice-speed messed up some details though so I probably won't use it. Backlight correction on medium and high with ice-quality yielded minor streaks on the edges. So yeah, the only thing that worked totally was leaving ice off. Good to know the scanner's not defective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 18:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Cool, thanks. I did not see that one searching around. I was doing my looking this spring and there seems to have been a bit of dicussion since then, but not enough to clear up the mystery. Sorry if I jumped down your throat. Email him and ask. For all practical purposes the Spotties all do great with 1.5v batteries, but it'd be interesting to hear the "real deal" from somebody who knows the gear in and out.edit: also, sorry for being a bit pissy. Bad week here, stuck in a smalltown in Belgium for work, my cat died while I am overseas, and my company is driving me up the loving wall with their idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 18:28
|
|
|
GAS sufferers, I have found another form of relief beyond fleabay and your local second hand stores. http://www.shopgoodwill.com/ Of course now you guys will bid all of the good stuff up. It seems like they have some interesting cameras/lenses in there and the bidding isn't so crazy...yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 17:59
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:GAS sufferers, I have found another form of relief beyond fleabay and your local second hand stores. Oh snap, they've got some good stuff on here.. I'm going after some of those 8mm film cameras.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 18:48
|
|
|
On that note, has anyone bought from KEH from abroad? A relative is traveling through Georgia, so I can arrange for local pick-up, but I expect them to treat me like a thief over my Visa card. Are there any extra delays?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 19:07
|
|
|
Snaily posted:On that note, has anyone bought from KEH from abroad? A relative is traveling through Georgia, so I can arrange for local pick-up, but I expect them to treat me like a thief over my Visa card. Are there any extra delays? I'm in Canada. They charge a lot for shipping and there's duties and stuff on top of it so if you're ordering from there, it had better be something that's either a really good deal or really hard to find.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
Snaily posted:On that note, has anyone bought from KEH from abroad? A relative is traveling through Georgia, so I can arrange for local pick-up, but I expect them to treat me like a thief over my Visa card. Are there any extra delays? I love KEH but there's been a bunch of reports lately on things not being as expected and while they gladly take them back it might be too much of a hassle if you are overseas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
Just processed a test roll from the Olympus 35RC. Good lord, this camera is fantastic. Dead-on exposure, nice and sharp lens, you can run it as low as 1/15 handheld and I got 39 photos on a roll of 36 without trying. All the hype about this camera is for real. Like I said earlier, if it went to 1600, it would be just about perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Is there a way to check if a m42 lens' focus ring is working without a camera? I picked up a third party 35mm/2.8 for $9, but I can't tell if the focus ring is actually doing anything. I tried looking through it in reverse the "macro" way, but focus isn't changing when I turn the ring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 01:11
|
|