|
MrBlandAverage posted:This is a common problem I've heard from users of Vuescan and the simplest solution is not to use Vuescan. Lol, wtf. I figured a maintained software, with colour profiles, etc would be better than something from 2007, but no.. This is straight from the Epson Scan software  Wont give me raw, but at least I can still get a tiff. I spent like 2 hours trying to get Vuescan to behave reasonably well. (Edit: It does offer16 bit tiff) Also got some persistent marks on the scanner where the top film holder fits...will give it another clean in daytime...or use the bottom one. ImplicitAssembler fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Sep 4, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Lol, wtf. I figured a maintained software, with colour profiles, etc would be better than something from 2007, but no.. One of us is missing something here - how would a scanner give you RAW when RAW formats are from digital camera sensors? I think all of us scan to large TIFF files. Make sure you adjust the histo in Epson scan utility so that you don't lose detail in dark and light areas, you can set black points and do RGB levels in PS after the scan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:One of us is missing something here - how would a scanner give you RAW when RAW formats are from digital camera sensors? I think all of us scan to large TIFF files. Make sure you adjust the histo in Epson scan utility so that you don't lose detail in dark and light areas, you can set black points and do RGB levels in PS after the scan. Looks like I edited after your reply. Yeah, only saw 24bit scan as an option, but 48bit is there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Lol, wtf. I figured a maintained software, with colour profiles, etc would be better than something from 2007, but no.. That's better, but I'd also suggest not letting Epson Scan invert your negatives. Scan as 48-bit positive and invert in Photoshop instead, either with Colorperfect or some other plugin (downside is these tend to cost money) or using curves (downside is this can be time-consuming to get perfect). Don't use the Photoshop action I've seen mentioned here a few times - it intentionally clips shadows, which is bizarre to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
also don't just set the black point to the area around your image and call it a day for whitebalance, you won't be getting any good results with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Speaking of scanning, I got my ebay v700 last night. Are the better scanning holders worth it, or should I just pick up a used v850 holder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:That's better, but I'd also suggest not letting Epson Scan invert your negatives. Scan as 48-bit positive and invert in Photoshop instead, either with Colorperfect or some other plugin (downside is these tend to cost money) or using curves (downside is this can be time-consuming to get perfect). Don't use the Photoshop action I've seen mentioned here a few times - it intentionally clips shadows, which is bizarre to me. Colorperfect looks, well, perfect. I’ll gladly pay 60 bucks to not have to gently caress around hardly at all with color inverting every shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Lol, wtf. I figured a maintained software, with colour profiles, etc would be better than something from 2007, but no.. What aperture is that? Did you want the foreground to be out of focus? I'm going to develop a few shots I took last weekend sometime today that had some front standard movements to try to both foreground and distance in focus, hoping it worked out because it seemed like the amount of front tilt I needed was almost zero.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:What aperture is that? Did you want the foreground to be out of focus? I'm going to develop a few shots I took last weekend sometime today that had some front standard movements to try to both foreground and distance in focus, hoping it worked out because it seemed like the amount of front tilt I needed was almost zero. F16 and no, that was a plain mistake from my side. I picked the most contrasty line I could find, which was the background mountain. Still need to add a couple more 'steps' to my plan when setting these up. Installed a fresnel lens today on my GG which makes a huge difference indoors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:F16 and no, that was a plain mistake from my side. I picked the most contrasty line I could find, which was the background mountain. Ahh ok, I almost always default to f32 on my 4x5 outdoors, remember that to get an equivalent depth of field on a large format camera to 35mm you need to use a proportionally smaller aperture. In normal lighting this usually ends up as between 1/4 and 1 second exposure on ISO 100 film, shooting a landscape on a tripod unless it's super windy or there are waves up close or something that's usually fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Also this owns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:F16 and no, that was a plain mistake from my side. I picked the most contrasty line I could find, which was the background mountain. use the one third/two thirds focusing rule https://thewayeyeseesit.com/2018/01/31/depth-of-field-and-the-1-3-2-3-rule/
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Second time I've gone to this place and second time the light hasn't come to the party with heavy cloud, still I feel like these two worked ok. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
Picked up some Fuji Super HR-U green sensitive medium speed x-ray film, any suggestions for a starting point with hc-110? I plan on giving it a go in my SP-445 and then stripping the emulsion for scanning. Might just try tossing some sheets in when I do my next run of HP5+ 1+63/8:37 (21c water). Google Butt fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
They develop fast (maybe 1 minute), gotta test and find what gives you acceptable contrast for your setup. don't bother stripping the emulsion, they scan fine with both sides, flares like hell because there's nothing to stop halation
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
I often see people that have front filters on expensive LF lenses to protect them, but I never see anyone using rear filters. Is there an optical reason that using filters on both ends would hurt something? Is it angle of projection? If so, would a step-up ring help fix that? Or is it just that the front is exposed while the rear rides inside the body (on press cameras at least)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
consider why a thumbprint on the back of your lens is significantly worse for image quality than a thumbprint on the front
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
What do you guys use for negative storage? I'm looking at something like this https://www.printfile.com/negative-kit-4x5.aspx Is there any better alternatives?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:What do you guys use for negative storage? there are 8x10-ish pages with 4 negatives per page, which is easier if you shoot other formats too, since 8x10 is a standard size for negative pages (due to it being easy to contact print, 4 per page) eg https://www.printfile.com/45-4hb-pol_100.aspx and https://smile.amazon.com/Beseler-Archival-Safe-T-3-Ring-Binder/dp/B003YM0N3A or https://smile.amazon.com/Vue-All-Archival-Safe-T-Binder-Rings-Black/dp/B0009E6LFA Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:consider why a thumbprint on the back of your lens is significantly worse for image quality than a thumbprint on the front ok but why is a thumbprint/scratch/etc on a filter on the rear of the lens worse than a thumbprint on the back element itself. It's a bit closer to the film plane but it's a problem either way and if it happens wouldn't it be better to happen to a (replaceable) filter than an expensive lens? another dumb question: do (non-telephoto) lenses vary enough in true focal length (nodal length) to make rangefinder cams inaccurate unless matched to the specific lens formula, or does it not really matter unless it's really off (eg a telephoto lens)? I have a nice top-rangefinder Crown Graphic and a small selection of cams (I have ebay watchlists out but they are HARD to come by) but I'm not sure how delicate the focus is when using the rangefinder. Is a plasmat going to have the same focus curve as a tessar and so on? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:ok but why is a thumbprint/scratch/etc on a filter on the rear of the lens worse than a thumbprint on the back element itself. It's a bit closer to the film plane but it's a problem either way and if it happens wouldn't it be better to happen to a (replaceable) filter than an expensive lens? ok but consider the optical effect of a filter on the rear of the lens vs on the front. yes plasmats require slightly more extension than tessars, so no, they won't work with the same cam if you really want accurate cams, consider making your own https://graflex.org/articles/oakes/
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
We're dancing around the issue. Is dispersion (diffraction?) from a rear filter that bad then? even with a high-grade coated glass filter like say a B+W or heliopan? Let's say it's meticulously clean. Or otherwise what is the specific optical problem from introducing another glass flat? OK so it's not sufficient to just adjust the rear stop distance, for maximum accuracy you'd have to grind a new cam? drat, that's a loving pain, and a potential market niche if someone could fill it with precision die-cut steel parts for various lenses. I knew about grinding your own cams, I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. what about planars? I have always dreamed of loving around with one of the late-model 135mm planars. Planars are also mainly my curiosity from the filter thing... with a $1700 lens I would feel bad scratching it up. Same with a nice triple telephoto setup. I mean, it's probably accurate enough for the most part for rangefinder shooting, right? Especially on wider lenses like a 135 or a 90mm? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
are you exposing the rear element of your lenses to the sand constantly? is this an intellectual curiosity or a functional one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
I would definitely be more worried about scratches on the front group of my LF lenses. Even with a high-grade coated glass filter, I've run into edge cases where I wish I hadn't used them - and yes, those edge cases will be worse with the filter on the rear. When it comes to focusing cams, "accurate enough" depends on your personal standards and your usual subject distances. Also, given sample variation and tolerances, a cam made for your specific lens and your specific rangefinder is always going to be more accurate than mass-produced cams also subject to sample variation. Whether that's worth the trouble is your call.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:are you exposing the rear element of your lenses to the sand constantly? is this an intellectual curiosity or a functional one? mostly intellectual curiosity, the "if I bought a nice lens set what would be the best way to protect it so it didn't get trashed" thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:mostly intellectual curiosity, the "if I bought a nice lens set what would be the best way to protect it so it didn't get trashed" thing. The best way to protect your lenses is to leave them at home in the box.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:mostly intellectual curiosity, the "if I bought a nice lens set what would be the best way to protect it so it didn't get trashed" thing. Lens caps when not in use and not dropping your camera has always worked for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
once i left a smudge on the rear of the front element of my 120mm f8 lens when installing it in a new shutter and didn't notice it for boxes and boxes of film, everything came out fine
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
Smudges, dirt etc on the front of the lens are not such a big deal because the light entering the lens is not very collimated and there are multiple paths for light to enter the front element that avoid areas where scratches etc, exist. On the rear element however, the light leaving to the image plane is very collimated and any problems there will be immediately visible. The front element can be really quite bad before it starts to seriously impact image quality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Just shot and processed a bunch of 4x5 sheets of Provia. Seeing large format slides come out of the tank is magical, and doing E-6 myself wasn't any harder than C-41 (and I practically have to do it myself because the only lab I know of around here that does E-6 sheet film charges $12 each). Don't seem to be having any dynamic range issues with Provia but I'm always very careful with metering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Scans of my slide film taken yesterday, Provia in 4x5. All of the same scene from slightly different locations/angles and times of day, not sure which one I like the best to be honest but overall I'm really happy with the results.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
These always own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Blackhawk posted:These always own. Thankyou, my dude 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 09:18
|
|