Lens feast

[9designs]

Well I have completed ( ? ;-) ) a lens update spell, having decided I wanted more sharpness than I was seeing from using my Nikon F80 and its standard zoom and a couple of Sigma’s, and under using my Contax RX I’ve had for 4 years.
I had a thought of possibly trying medium format, but then saw an excellent exhibition outside the Natural history museum in London, by Yann Arthus Bertrand, all taken on 35mm, Velvia, and Canon EOS1n and enlarged to over a meter wide !
They were stunning, both technically and photographically !

Realising I had access too some of the finest lenses in the world for 35mm … T*’s

So decided to expand on my 50mm f1.7, (I had some Tamron SP zooms and a 24mm)
So after an unhappy event with a 135mm with scratches and not focusing at infinity, which I return to the dealer.
I picked up an absolute mint ex&le, boxed and complete, as new £175.
This had been proceeded by a nice ex&le of a 28mm from Jessops used stock.
Now to top it off I came to an agreement on a 18mm, which is as new and used once !! Sadly not cheap…… but it really passes as brand new……£550. ( I think new is around £800)

So an RX with 18,28,50 &135mm and bag full of Provia and Velvia !!!

Now all I have to do is put it all to good use and gets some great shots of sunny England ! ! ! ! !

Steve T

 

[writing4me]

> Posted by Stephen Truswell on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 11:12 pm: > (SNIPPED) > I had a thought of possibly trying medium format, but then saw an > excellent exhibition outside the Natural history museum in London, by > Yann Arthus Bertrand, all taken on 35mm, Velvia, and Canon EOS1n and > enlarged to over a meter wide ! > They were stunning, both technically and photographically !

Congratulations Steve. I think many people forget, or never realize in the first place, just how much can be done with 35mm. Excellent film, excellent lenses and a lab that cares are all key. When you have those elements, then all you need to worry about is your own technique and style. Have a great time!

-Lynn L. (the long absent poster to the contax group)

 

[jvirtue]

NIce to see some common sense in here. I have been scanning 35mm Negs and Slides for a couple of years now. The maximum comfortable size to print these scans is about A3. That from a 12Megapixel scanner. Very few digital cameras come near that, so the only way to get good quality above 16x12 (ish) is FILM. I think we will have film for a l-o-n-g time yet.

 

[9designs]

Having just got back my 1st two rolls of slide film from my new lenses, and started scanning, on first impressions I’m impressed and optimistic.
Just holding the film up to the light, the colours and saturation is jumping out at me. As per my post on filters and hoods, I haven’t used any filters, nor do I need to, the blue of the sky is excellent, and Photoshop will fix anything else ! ! ! !

The 1st roll I have scanned is Fuji Provia100, I use a Microtek 4000tf (as good as the fashionable Nikons without scratch removal, cheaper and better dynamic range) I scan at 4000dpi, giving me around a 62Mb TIFF file. ( I read that’s around 20-22 Megapixel ? ? )
Unlike a posting I read on another forum, digital cameras are know where near film.
The pixels are much bigger than the film grain, and I haven’t started on the roll of Velvia yet ! ! ! !

 

[olebojensen]

Hi Steve
I just love your enthusiasm. 3 weeks ago I purchased a new scanner: Nikon ls-40 (IV) and after having scanned some velvia slides, all taken with 18 / 28 / 80-200 Zeiss optics, most on f4 I feel like having a brand new equipment. And the good news. All my old slides are suddenly being upgraded too. 69MB file from 24x36.
In two years I'll be able to buy a 8000dpi scanner and all my pictures are upgraded again. Super.

Regards

Ole
www.photos4u.dk

 

[ssv31]

Hello, Ole,

I am considering purchasing a scanner of th same model. For my limited budget this is quite expensive, so I would like to see some scans before before making my pokets empty. Could you upload a few crops from your scans? I would prefer to see 48-bit scans without afterprocessing showing fine details, dense shadows and saturated colours, and the appearence of granularity. If you were ever shooting Reala, that would be interesting to see too, as I do not have a regular access to slide film.

Regards, Sergei

 

[9designs]

You need to decide on what the end result is when choosing a scanner, printing to what size ?
A3 prints require a 4000dpi unit, A4 a 2000-3000 is ok.
48 bit gives me over 120 meg file, I don't bother with it, consider you PC spec when planning to throw large files around..... RAM ? ? ( Try 1 Gig)

I'm also looking forward to a 8000dpi Unit about 500ukp's in a year or 2 ! ! ! !

 

[max51]

Sergei,

www.imaging-resource.com, is a good resource for comparative scanner information. In particular, it features a series of photos which are used to test each scanner. After studying the scans, one thing I observed is that dynamic range is almost as important as resolution.

After much research, I bought a Dimage Scan III (DSD3) a week ago. Costing less than $300 U.S., it produces scans rivalling machines costing far more. IMO one must spend more than $1000 to buy a scanner that unambiguously outperforms the DSD3 at print sizes of A3 or smaller. With the DSD3 at those sizes I don't believe I'm sacrificing the image quality of my CZ lenses. Also, I still have the negatives. I can always obtain from a commercial processor larger prints of a particular shot should the need or impulse arise.

Hope this helps.

Max >

 

[olebojensen]

I posted an ex&le on http://www.photos4u.dk/salg/p3.jpg

Scanned 'out-of-the-box', minimum levels, unsharp mask, and converted to jpg, level 6.


Ole

 

[ou1954]

>Posted by John Virtue on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 1:44 pm: > >Nice to see some common sense in here. I have been scanning 35mm Negs >and Slides for a couple of years now. The maximum comfortable size to >print these scans is about A3. That from a 12Megapixel scanner. Very >few digital cameras come near that, so the only way to get good >quality above 16x12 (ish) is FILM. I think we will have film for a >l-o-n-g time yet.

I agree. I do have to admit that I generally pay the extra $3.00 to have negatives scanned since they use a higher resolution scan (most of the time) than I do, and it's much quicker than doing it myself. That way I have a way to make quick prints, and at the same time have 24 (or thereabouts) Megapixel negatives when I want to make larger, higher quality, prints.

Just as a side comment, I recently bought a 1.2 Mp POS camera for family things and send the pictures by email. No one notices the difference.

DAW