Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
The 40mm at night
- Thread starter wbulte
- Start date
floridarich
Member
Wilko Bulte (Wbulte)
IMPRESSIVE! Being an Architect, I do appreciate architectural photography - but the dinosaur is wonderful.
Richard
IMPRESSIVE! Being an Architect, I do appreciate architectural photography - but the dinosaur is wonderful.
Richard
simonpg
Active Member
Great stuff Wilko, and thanks for sharing them. I noticed that where you seem to have the camera level, there is little noticeable distortion. I bought the 50mm FLE because I "feared" distortion. The shots are very sharp too. Great results.
Yes Colin, Portra 160NC is wonderful print film. In fact it is my favourite. It is totally natural and the lowish saturation responds very well to PS pumping up the saturation in images where high saturation is desirable. So now I don't bother too much buying the VC (vivid colour) version. Portra 160 NC also scans very very well.
Yes Colin, Portra 160NC is wonderful print film. In fact it is my favourite. It is totally natural and the lowish saturation responds very well to PS pumping up the saturation in images where high saturation is desirable. So now I don't bother too much buying the VC (vivid colour) version. Portra 160 NC also scans very very well.
wbulte
Active Member
Hi Simon,
The distortion of the FLE40 is I think generally exaggerated. I should
have borrowed a SWC to do some side-by-side shots for comparison.
Maybe another time.
For illustration some daytime FLE40 shots of the pre-WW2 Olympic Stadium in Berlin (for the curious, to the right was the Fuhrer stand). Of course the roof is a modern addition.
Wilko
The distortion of the FLE40 is I think generally exaggerated. I should
have borrowed a SWC to do some side-by-side shots for comparison.
Maybe another time.
For illustration some daytime FLE40 shots of the pre-WW2 Olympic Stadium in Berlin (for the curious, to the right was the Fuhrer stand). Of course the roof is a modern addition.
Wilko
G'day Wilko:
So what I want to know is ... if you only have a "rather lowly Epson 3200", then how come you can make such great architectural pictures with your 40FLE (even at night).
(Kidding !! )
Cheers, and have a great weekend.
Colin
Student,
The Simon Galbally Shoot it First and Get Marc to Scan it Later School of Photography
So what I want to know is ... if you only have a "rather lowly Epson 3200", then how come you can make such great architectural pictures with your 40FLE (even at night).
(Kidding !! )
Cheers, and have a great weekend.
Colin
Student,
The Simon Galbally Shoot it First and Get Marc to Scan it Later School of Photography
I have less "lowly" 4870.
I'm in the middle of a decision.
Thinking of upgrading to V700 or going up thr ladder to a Nikon 9000 ED. This scanner has as many con reviews as pro reviews.
If I'm going to spend 2K it better be great. If I go for the V700, I can sell my 4870 and just put a lowly $350 or so.
What do you think?
Ed
I'm in the middle of a decision.
Thinking of upgrading to V700 or going up thr ladder to a Nikon 9000 ED. This scanner has as many con reviews as pro reviews.
If I'm going to spend 2K it better be great. If I go for the V700, I can sell my 4870 and just put a lowly $350 or so.
What do you think?
Ed
Hello Eduardo,
This is precisely the dilemma which I face also.The thing which puts me off the Epson V700 and 750 is the necessity for fluid scans to obtain the best quality.I have also read negative reviews of the Nikon although I cannot remember where but issues of banding spring to mind and of course the price is very high.
I have decided to wait for the new Microtek M1 which I am informed is due in the UK in the late summer. This does not scan film through glass and looks very promising.
Here is a link to some details about it:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microtek_artixscan_m1/
Cheers,
John
This is precisely the dilemma which I face also.The thing which puts me off the Epson V700 and 750 is the necessity for fluid scans to obtain the best quality.I have also read negative reviews of the Nikon although I cannot remember where but issues of banding spring to mind and of course the price is very high.
I have decided to wait for the new Microtek M1 which I am informed is due in the UK in the late summer. This does not scan film through glass and looks very promising.
Here is a link to some details about it:
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microtek_artixscan_m1/
Cheers,
John
G'Day:
For what it's worth, I have the Epson V750M, plus the excellent aftermarket BetterScanning dot com negative holders, and it does the job for me.
Scanning 'flat' 6x6 or 6x7 using Silverfast gives me huge files to work with; then throw in some Optipix adjustments, and I'm OK. That is, it works for me.
Anything I put online gets crushed back to JPEG at 72dpi, although I optimise it via CS2. And for prints via the R2400, out to 13x19, I am very happy. It works for 35mm also out to 10x8 at least, although less forgiving. (Rubbish in = rubbish out).
And that's the point of it I guess. It works very well for me up to my present needs. Horses for courses. If you have need of more, spend more and get more. (Or send the selected images out for scanning.) Of course you can hang out for better technology ... and hang out ... and hang out. Start scanning !
Colin
PS About Fluid mounting (Aztek etc). The newer fluid is not messy. Once again, although I have that 'technology', I rarely use it because there is no real need. (Works great with old scratched negs etc)
For what it's worth, I have the Epson V750M, plus the excellent aftermarket BetterScanning dot com negative holders, and it does the job for me.
Scanning 'flat' 6x6 or 6x7 using Silverfast gives me huge files to work with; then throw in some Optipix adjustments, and I'm OK. That is, it works for me.
Anything I put online gets crushed back to JPEG at 72dpi, although I optimise it via CS2. And for prints via the R2400, out to 13x19, I am very happy. It works for 35mm also out to 10x8 at least, although less forgiving. (Rubbish in = rubbish out).
And that's the point of it I guess. It works very well for me up to my present needs. Horses for courses. If you have need of more, spend more and get more. (Or send the selected images out for scanning.) Of course you can hang out for better technology ... and hang out ... and hang out. Start scanning !
Colin
PS About Fluid mounting (Aztek etc). The newer fluid is not messy. Once again, although I have that 'technology', I rarely use it because there is no real need. (Works great with old scratched negs etc)
wbulte
Active Member
Hi Colin,
The good thing is, its not the scanner taking the pictures
That said: just practice, practice ad nauseam. And don't get too bogged down into discussions about whether lens A. has 1.23% distortion versus lens B with only 0.98% distortion.
If this worries you find a MK70 and pay Hasselblad some (well.. some..) money for a reseau plate without etched crosses.
Wilko
G'Day Wilko:
Exactly ! Bogged Down = No picture taking.
If I worried too much about all this, I'd stop using my Rollei TLRs, and my M3, with all those 'ancient design' lenses. I have a 50mm Nikon 1.4 in satin chrome - which I got new in 1967 - and I use it still, either as a second loupe !! or as a prime lens on my F. Mind you, it is built like a tank ...
Cheers,
Colin
Exactly ! Bogged Down = No picture taking.
If I worried too much about all this, I'd stop using my Rollei TLRs, and my M3, with all those 'ancient design' lenses. I have a 50mm Nikon 1.4 in satin chrome - which I got new in 1967 - and I use it still, either as a second loupe !! or as a prime lens on my F. Mind you, it is built like a tank ...
Cheers,
Colin