|
Quantum of Phallus posted:What are you scanning with dorkasaurus? Whatever my lab has... I'll ask next time I go.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Whatever my lab has... I'll ask next time I go. Thanks, the quality is brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:There needs to be some kind of breathylizer attached to my computer so I can't log into Keh when I've had several beers. ZippySLC posted:I can hardly avoid just throwing the CC down on the KEH site when I'm sober. I could hardly imagine it when I've had a few beers. gently caress that, I want the opposite - something that means I can ONLY spend money on photostuff when I'm plastered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:gently caress that, I want the opposite - something that means I can ONLY spend money on photostuff when I'm plastered. I used to have Amazon one click enabled, so every so often I'd come home to a stack of boxes sitting outside my apartment with surprises that drunk Casu ordered for mid-week Casu. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:I used to have Amazon one click enabled, so every so often I'd come home to a stack of boxes sitting outside my apartment with surprises that drunk Casu ordered for mid-week Casu. If only my drunk self and sober self didn't have a joint checking account...
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
That's why I opted for KEH to not save my credit card details - all that extra typing can deter your drunk self from completing the purchase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
I really want that Mamiya 50 ULD. Time to crack open the Jim Beam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Some of the first 4x5 I processed using my new-to-me Jobo CPP2. Other than being a tad overdeveloped (thanks to my not reducing the development time despite the continuous agitation) the negatives are drat near perfect, which is unfortunately not true of some of my negatives developed with the MOD54 reel, which sometimes have overdevelopment around where the "fingers" hold the film (only visible in flat/low-contrast areas). Marquam by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr  Harrison & SE 9th by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Got the RZ's first three rolls worth of scans back from the lab. At least I know the camera actually works now, and that the free iphone light meter app does okay, but holy balls am I disappointed in the scan quality you get for ten bucks. With a 7cm wide negative giving me roughly 2500 pixels I paid for about a 900ppi scan, which apparently even a cheap flatbed could beat handily. I've got to be honest, after shooting hundreds of thousands of DSLR frames since the last time I burned film I really wasn't prepared to see such a low resolution, noisy, flat 3MB jpeg coming from such a giant negative. Looks like it's time to go scanner shopping! Baby's first frame:
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Got the RZ's first three rolls worth of scans back from the lab. At least I know the camera actually works now, and that the free iphone light meter app does okay, but holy balls am I disappointed in the scan quality you get for ten bucks. With a 7cm wide negative giving me roughly 2500 pixels I paid for about a 900ppi scan, which apparently even a cheap flatbed could beat handily. Not to discourage you from getting a scanner, but Precision Camera in Austin will do your scans at $12/roll and send back a CD at ~4815x5902 for 6x7. I was always pretty happy with their services, and the one time I wasn't (the scans were dusty as hell) they did a re-scan for free. Send your sleeved and home-developed black-and-white and they'll even scan them at the color rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Not to discourage you from getting a scanner, but Precision Camera in Austin will do your scans at $12/roll and send back a CD at ~4815x5902 for 6x7. I was always pretty happy with their services, and the one time I wasn't (the scans were dusty as hell) they did a re-scan for free. Send your sleeved and home-developed black-and-white and they'll even scan them at the color rate. Yeah, that's still only 12 rolls before a V500 pays for itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Yeah, that's still only 12 rolls before a V500 pays for itself. Not when you factor in the (included) cost of C41 development, it isn't, unless you're doing your own C41 too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Not when you factor in the (included) cost of C41 development, it isn't, unless you're doing your own C41 too. Oh, I didn't see that $12/roll is develop and scan, not just scan. That's still only 16 rolls before a V500 pays for itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
I am curious why people don't prefer a DSLR and 1:1 macro lens (or extension tubes) over something like the v500? What I have been reading is that the results with the scanner aren't great and it is also really slow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
deaders posted:I am curious why people don't prefer a DSLR and 1:1 macro lens (or extension tubes) over something like the v500? What I have been reading is that the results with the scanner aren't great and it is also really slow. Probably because you'd have to make/setup a rig every time that you'd want to scan some film in. And scanning is the worst part of shooting film so anything to make it go faster is better in my book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
deaders posted:I am curious why people don't prefer a DSLR and 1:1 macro lens (or extension tubes) over something like the v500? What I have been reading is that the results with the scanner aren't great and it is also really slow. From what I can tell, a lot (most? all?) of people who don't get good results with flatbeds haven't taken the time to get their film holders set up to actually hold the film in the focus plane. The exact focus height does tend to be slightly different from one scanner to the next. Also, scanners' output isn't sharpened by a RAW/JPEG engine like output from a DSLR - it can handle a lot of sharpening. Finally, I find setting up my negs in a scanner to be much faster than making sure a DSLR scanning rig has the right film flatness, focus, etc. Maybe a DSLR scanning rig is faster if you're only scanning one negative at a time...
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
This guys setup looks pretty good: http://www.instructables.com/id/Introduction-30/ I have tried a quick and dirty version and once you get the camera set in place you can go through the whole roll pretty quickly. Am now waiting on some extension tubes to arrive before doing it in a more permanent way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Yeah also another argument would be that you're giving up a lot of resolution and maybe some color accuracy too - with slides. The resolution thing matters at least with medium format, definitely so with large format. A larger area to keep perfectly flat, too -- tricky! Don't think that'd be a problem with 35mm and a modern dSLR, though. That said, I'm probably biased as I'm the scanner equivalent of the %1. Still, my friends with their v600 and v700's seem also pretty happy with their purchases, once they figured out how to shim the film holder for maximum focus. It's also what I'll buy should my dedicated scanner ever break. *touches wood*
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Not to discourage you from getting a scanner, but Precision Camera in Austin will do your scans at $12/roll and send back a CD at ~4815x5902 for 6x7. I was always pretty happy with their services, and the one time I wasn't (the scans were dusty as hell) they did a re-scan for free. Send your sleeved and home-developed black-and-white and they'll even scan them at the color rate. Reason #10,000 I wish I was still in Austin. Thanks for the tip, I'll send a roll out to them and see how I like it. I've thought about rigging up my DSLR but (unless I'm missing a cheap and easy product that works great) dealing with alignment and lighting seems like even more DIY trouble than scanning. I used to use a cheap flatbed for 35mm years ago and though flattening the film was a PITA it seems like you can get an adjustable glass holder and an epson for under 300 bucks together and get a decent thing going. According to this at the worst of the V500's best average effective resolution (1262ppi horizontal) I'd produce a worst case effective resolution of 3470x2981 out of 6x7, which is better than I got from this batch by a lot but still not great. They don't go into a lot of detail as to their process, but they mention using the stock plastic holder except in cases where the film doesn't fit and then just putting it on the glass. A V750 (2148ppi horizontal) would produce an image 5907x5074 which is getting bigger than my 5D2's max (5,616 × 3,744 pixels) assuming a copying rig and macro tube would allow it to resolve as effectively. On Amazon a V550 is $175, a V700 (I think I read it's the same imager as the 750) is $629, and one of those flat glass holders from whatever company makes them is about $80. The way this usually goes: I will waffle over which one of the two I want, then spend approximately $150 trying to get a DIY DSLR copying station going, which won't work as well as I want it to. Then I'll just buy the V700/750, and spend so long fiddling with settings that I'll end up shooting less and not actually realizing the economic benefit of scanning myself. In any case there will be a lot of empty amazon boxes stacked up in my living room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:According to this at the worst of the V500's best average effective resolution (1262ppi horizontal) I'd produce a worst case effective resolution of 3470x2981 out of 6x7, which is better than I got from this batch by a lot but still not great. They don't go into a lot of detail as to their process, but they mention using the stock plastic holder except in cases where the film doesn't fit and then just putting it on the glass. A V750 (2148ppi horizontal) would produce an image 5907x5074 which is getting bigger than my 5D2's max (5,616 × 3,744 pixels) assuming a copying rig and macro tube would allow it to resolve as effectively. Wow, that's way worse than what I ever got out of my V500 or V700. No mention of focus height, so I think it's safe to assume they didn't think about it at all. And yeah, as soon as you use a decently set up V700 for anything larger than 35mm, it blows away anything you could ever get with a DSLR scanning rig. VomitOnLino has a good point about color accuracy - even the V500 works in full 16-bit internally and externally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Could any of you using Epsons put your scanning workflow up here for VueScan? I'm not sure if the Epson software is giving me the best possible results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I'm not sure if the Epson software is giving me the best possible results. Thats what I thought, and I got Vuescan. And now I am back to Epson software, because I found Vuescan buggy, obtuse and limiting. A lot of people swear by it, but then again I wonder if they never tried Epson to begin with or just assume that it is crap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
The Epson software is okay if you're scanning as 16-bit positive and inverting negatives yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
I remember someone posted a scan they'd done with VueScan a few years back, maybe in this thread, and it looked amazing but maybe they could get the same results with the Epson software. I find the interface on VueScan really confusing but I've yet to actually use it to scan due to a driver issue I only got sorted recently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
I've never gotten a worthwhile color negative scan from vuescan. ... yes, I am bitter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
I have been shooting 6x6 120 color negatives while saving for a scanner. I shoot one roll a month so I do not imagine scanning speed being much of a factor. I am looking at the v500, but am cool with grabbing an older scanner if I can get better quality in the $100-150 range. Scanning the first few rolls will probably suck, but it will be nice to finally see the images. Are the wide and tele adaptors for TLRs as terrible as random people on the internet make them sound? daspope fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Tonight I scored a Yashica-A that seems in really good shape, except for the leather case which has a broken strap. I'd rather not use the leather case at all - can someone recommend me a good strap that will attach directly to the camera body? Edit: A pic!  Yashica A by benruset, on Flickr ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Tonight I scored a Yashica-A that seems in really good shape, except for the leather case which has a broken strap. I'd rather not use the leather case at all - can someone recommend me a good strap that will attach directly to the camera body? Maybe a strap from Gordy's Camera Straps with string loops?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
wow well loading 4x5 in a dark bag sucks rear end. pretty sure the 6 sheets I loaded are gonna be covered in fingerprints or something. daaang
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:wow well loading 4x5 in a dark bag sucks rear end. pretty sure the 6 sheets I loaded are gonna be covered in fingerprints or something. daaang Yeah, it wasn't until I got 4x5 that I discovered why people like changing tents rather than bags. I got some mini tripod thing that's like 10 inches tall that I put in my bag to hold the top up when I deal with sheet film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
daspope posted:I have been shooting 6x6 120 color negatives while saving for a scanner. I shoot one roll a month so I do not imagine scanning speed being much of a factor. I am looking at the v500, but am cool with grabbing an older scanner if I can get better quality in the $100-150 range. Two things, yes they are really terrible. Except for the Zeiss ones for the Rolleis which cost more than the cameras themselves. Secondly, don't take me wrong, but didn't you just recently acquire this camera? I'm unconvinced that you've already gotten all out of the 75mm / 80mm lens there is to get. Heck I've recently crossed the 200+ medium format rolls mark - and I still feel that I could be making more out of that one single FL. If you want to accessorize, maybe look into bayonet one, or whatever it is that your camera takes, color filters for B&W. Also I'd forfeit on the closeup lenses, too. I have the set but after the novelty wore off they are just collecting dust in my shelf; keeper shots I still like shot with those close up lenses: 0. Simplicity is king, photography is king. Edit: Maybe you could consider the weakest of close-up lenses, the 1+ ones if you're into portraits. They allow for closer head-shots, but otherwise I maintain my verdict. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Just to make it even more confusing the seller left at least 3 sheets in some of the holders so whilst loading the last of the box I ended up with more left over and was thinking "this can't be right" and had to go through all of the holders again to check if I'd forgotten some sides. Christ almighty. Should have checked them all before loading. I reckon I'll get the hang of it after another box or so but wow, this is really a long, slow process from start to finish, huh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
You'll get much, much faster at loading or much, much slower at using up your sheets in no time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
I made photos of a person this weekend. Too windy for 4x5 so I went with the Hasselblad and some horribly expired Plus x that I souped in Diafine.  . by 8th-samurai, on Flickr  . by 8th-samurai, on Flickr  . by 8th-samurai, on Flickr I really wish that I hadn't cut her elbow off in the last one but it was grab shot while she was fixing her hair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
after a long wait I finally did my first LF photo today Rather than clog the thread with me fawning over how much fun it was I made a blog about it if anyone cares to give me tips on the movements or whatever. woooo 
Sludge Tank fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I made photos of a person this weekend. Too windy for 4x5 so I went with the Hasselblad and some horribly expired Plus x that I souped in Diafine. I love this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 12:54
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I love this one. I would too if it wasn't for that elbow. It's killing me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
The RB67 I posted about a while ago arrived, and I finally got around to ordering film and then getting it developed. So far the camera seems to be working fine, if anything its let been down by my initial stupidity in metering most of the shots for ISO200 (film was 100  ), and shooting in the middle of the day because I wanted to quickly test it. No pictures though as I just paid for developing + printing, so to make up for that have a photo of the camera.  Since I know the camera works at least, I guess it's now time to spend even more money on a scanner, and then chemicals, and then more film. Oh joy.  As for a scanner, I'm looking at scanning a bunch of old 35mm film, plus now 120. Should I just be looking at a v700 for both - would the v700 be pretty much indistinguishable from a Plustek at 35mm? plannerpirate fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Two things, yes they are really terrible. Except for the Zeiss ones for the Rolleis which cost more than the cameras themselves. Thank you for the detailed response. I did get the camera in August this year. The only thing I would sometimes like is a wider view for landscapes, but most of the time I just walk a few feet back or spend more time and figure out a better composition. I can always just crop in for portraits. I will just put money towards a scanner and more film for now. daspope fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
plannerpirate posted:As for a scanner, I'm looking at scanning a bunch of old 35mm film, plus now 120. Should I just be looking at a v700 for both - would the v700 be pretty much indistinguishable from a Plustek at 35mm? If you're not going to be scanning large format then you could save yourself some money and get a V600.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 16:41
|
|