35mm Negs with the EPSON 2450 scanner
This is slightly OT, but what the hell. Yesterday I scanned some 35mm negs with the EPSON 2450 scanner. Just a couple of shots in my back yard I had handy. Film: Fuji Superia 400 Camera: Olympus 35RD (sorry) Lens: 40mm F1.7 Zuiko (6 element) Exposure: 1/500 at F11(1) 1/250 at F11(2) Scanner: Epson 2450 Software: Silverfast set to Fuji Superia Tweeks: Photoshop 6.0 Levels and Sharpening Heres the reduced full frame files, and blowups at actual pixels in the 2400 ppi scans: PIX http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE1.jpg http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE1B.jpg http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE2.jpg http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE2B.jpg Note the lack of flare in the second shot even though the sun is in the frame! Lens isnt even SMC either...Fantastic results. I didnt upload the full size 2400ppi scans because they are over 10MB a piece using the best jpg quality setting in PS6. Heres the camera. Its a very small all mechanical 35mm rangefinder with what I have found to be an outstanding lens. ( Sorry it's not Pentax, but Pentax never got into the rangefinder business : ( CAMERA http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/OLY35RD.jpg Anyway, these scans give a good idea what is possible with 35mm the EPSON 2450 scanner. I made some prints on the 1280 printer and they are incredible sharp. I cant believe they are from 35mm they look so good. At 8.5 X11 even the film grain with 400 film isnt bad. JCO -Original Message- Subject: RE: OT Epson 2450 (was Re: Re[2]: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces) havent posted any 100% MF scans yet but I'm getting fantastic scans with the 2450 using 6X7 originals. In fact I did some 8.5X11 scans/prints yesterday using 35mm!!! Fuji superia film that are mind blowingly good. Hell, If i had known this kind of quality was possible with 35mm I might not have even bought my $5k 6X7 gettup.But one thing is for sure, the epson 2450 is an outstanding scanner and its ideal for 6X7 and 4X5 originals. At $350 its a no-brainer..BTW 2400 ppi is more than adequate for 6X7 or larger origianls IMHO, like I said its giving me beautiful results even with 35mm, so you can imagine how good it is with MF or LF. 2nd BTW, its a top notch flatbed too. JCO
Re: 35mm Negs with the EPSON 2450 scanner
JCO, You are obviously getting better results than average with your 2450. I'm curious about the amount of sharpening you are doing. When I scan 35mm on my Minolta Scan Dual II and Vuescan, I don't have to really sharpen at all to get great looking 8 X 10's. When I tried the 2450, I was not that impressed, but I didn't do much with sharpening on the initial scans (I usually sharpen when I resize an image). The results you are getting is causing me to really think again about trying the 2450 because I really miss being able to scan my 67 stuff. Can you give us an idea of the workflow and steps that you take during the scan and post processing? Thanks, Bruce P.S. The stuff looks great! Thursday, August 29, 2002, 11:36:46 PM, you wrote: JCOC This is slightly OT, but what the hell. JCOC Yesterday I scanned some 35mm negs with JCOC the EPSON 2450 scanner. Just a couple JCOC of shots in my back yard I had handy. JCOC Film: Fuji Superia 400 JCOC Camera: Olympus 35RD (sorry) JCOC Lens: 40mm F1.7 Zuiko (6 element) JCOC Exposure: 1/500 at F11(1) JCOC 1/250 at F11(2) JCOC Scanner: Epson 2450 JCOC Software: Silverfast set to Fuji Superia JCOC Tweeks: Photoshop 6.0 Levels and Sharpening JCOC Heres the reduced full frame files, and blowups at JCOC actual pixels in the 2400 ppi scans: JCOC PIX JCOC http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE1.jpg JCOC http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE1B.jpg JCOC http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE2.jpg JCOC http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/O35RDTREE2B.jpg JCOC Note the lack of flare in the second shot even JCOC though the sun is in the frame! Lens isnt JCOC even SMC either...Fantastic results. JCOC I didnt upload the full size 2400ppi scans JCOC because they are over 10MB a piece using JCOC the best jpg quality setting in PS6. JCOC Heres the camera. Its a very small all JCOC mechanical 35mm rangefinder with what I have JCOC found to be an outstanding lens. ( Sorry JCOC it's not Pentax, but Pentax never got into the JCOC rangefinder business : ( JCOC CAMERA JCOC http://jcoconnell.com/35mmscans/OLY35RD.jpg JCOC Anyway, these scans give a good idea what is possible JCOC with 35mm the EPSON 2450 scanner. I made some prints JCOC on the 1280 printer and they are incredible sharp. JCOC I cant believe they are from 35mm they look so good. JCOC At 8.5 X11 even the film grain with 400 film isnt bad. JCOC JCO -Original Message- Subject: RE: OT Epson 2450 (was Re: Re[2]: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces) havent posted any 100% MF scans yet but I'm getting fantastic scans with the 2450 using 6X7 originals. In fact I did some 8.5X11 scans/prints yesterday using 35mm!!! Fuji superia film that are mind blowingly good. Hell, If i had known this kind of quality was possible with 35mm I might not have even bought my $5k 6X7 gettup.But one thing is for sure, the epson 2450 is an outstanding scanner and its ideal for 6X7 and 4X5 originals. At $350 its a no-brainer..BTW 2400 ppi is more than adequate for 6X7 or larger origianls IMHO, like I said its giving me beautiful results even with 35mm, so you can imagine how good it is with MF or LF. 2nd BTW, its a top notch flatbed too. JCO
Tiny bit OT
Wah-hey! My posts are making it - yippee! Banzai! etc. And there was I thinking Doug had set me to silent mode. Fantastic. Thanks mate. Peter
OT drag racing
Sorry I don't remember your name (I have that picture in my head) but the gentleman with dragging experience please mail me off list. Thanks Peter
RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war?
-Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Have you ever lost data moving something around a network? No (and I work in a software house - we do this a lot! Have you ever discovered after that data was lost that the last six months of backups were bad because... (fill in the blank with your favorite excuse/reason). No (We have DAT tapes going back years and I can still read them. We do a verify after writing and test the backup regime when we change it to make sure we havent done something wrong) Occasionally the tapes fail during writing, but in 8 years I only had one fail when trying to restore after a successful verify. I NEVER had a TK50 fail before that. But I also have two 8.4 gig hard drives that failed just after I transferred everything to them during an upgrade. Then you should source another make and/or supplier. Were they from the same (dodgy) batch? This could possibly be an isolated problem or a cheap brand in which case it is not a good comparison.
Re: Future of digital
I think this touches upon an important point and one that suggests a continual need for digital to develop beyond the standards of film (whereas many are still, I believe erroneously, using film as a yardstick for digital resolution). I imagine digital resolution continually increasing until one day the method will be that one starts by taking an initial survey and then goes into a post-production mode on a PC and creates pictures - changing the perspective angles, adding and subtracting various things, at times zooming well into an image for a detail or macro from what started as a panoramic survey. The majority of the images will be made thusly in post-production. And having a great capacity to capture large amounts of information (far, far more than on film) from a scene fairly quickly will be deemed essential. Of course, in my opinion this has nothing to do with photography - but at this point that's neither here nor there. [Robert Soames Wetmore] One huge weakness to this concept is that of DOF. This is a method that is employed at the time of exposure to sometimes emphasize or de-emphasize a particular element or subject. If you were to capture a very large scene and then later pick it apart, focus and out-of-focus areas would really make or break the picture. That means you would still have to apply as much or more creativity at the time of capture as you would at post processing. [Bruce] This is true as things are at the moment, but I don't see why this couldn't be changed - particularly if companies are trying to come up with new things to sell cameras in the future, and if people are convinced they need this sort of thing. I think most of these types of limitations, such as DOF, can be overcome by computers - like maybe something that focuses in and out quickly to record a scene at a myriad of different focal points which can then be interpreted (interpolated) by software...or increasing sensitivity so much that depth of field is enormous (and can then be foreshortened by various types of blurring software). I can almost guarantee that everything is going to go post-production in this way. RSW _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re[2]: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war?
False. You can copy *any* file 100 times a second for the next 100 years, and the last copy will be as good as the first one. [Mike] Ridiculous. Robert Soames Wetmore _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: advertizeing
I don't think I've ever seen a Pentax ad, even in photomags. Could anyone describe one? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Albano desperate test
I see it.
Re: Albano desperate test
If you are reading this email, please write me directly to let me know. I can't see my own postings, and it's PRETTY FRUSTRATING. Thanks Albano (in digest mode) I wouldn't get that frustrated - your postings haven't been all that interesting lately, so you're not missing much. For instance, this one was just about how you're not getting your postings...very dull and uninteresting. Rob _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
ok, ok, I'm here (even if I can't see myself)
It seems my messages goes to list but I can't see them (I hate it, if you ask me). When I resubscribed, in the subscription confirmation it said something like by default your own messages will be returned. It means that nobody sees their own messages? Some insight would be appreciated Regards Albano The Invisible Man
WTB: AF 500 FTZ
My assistant photographer needs an af500ftz. Anyone out there with one they'd like to part with for a resonable price? TIA. Nick Wright __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
RE: ok, ok, I'm here (even if I can't see myself)
I can see my own! Apart from less postings, I don't see any difference from what I had before. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 August 2002 15:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ok, ok, I'm here (even if I can't see myself) It seems my messages goes to list but I can't see them (I hate it, if you ask me). When I resubscribed, in the subscription confirmation it said something like by default your own messages will be returned. It means that nobody sees their own messages? Some insight would be appreciated Regards Albano The Invisible Man
Re: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
On 30 Aug 2002 at 12:54, Knut Kampe wrote: I'm surprised by this! I once contacted several picture banks, quite a few of the really big ones are located in Germany, and they clearly stated that they prefer slides for two reasons contrast range and much lower grain. Most of them digitalize the images and some even give the slide back to you after they have done this. The argument of pacifying editors does not hold if they only keep the digital image. Hi Knut, Nor would you expect to get an exhibition quality image from an image bank, these entities are in existence primarily to support advertising/illustration. Maybe I should have been more absolute, I was thinking more of photographers who need to achieve the very best quality. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re[2]: Future of digital
I think most of these types of limitations, such as DOF, can be overcome by computers unfortunately, computers cannot change the laws of physics. that is, unless you are playing Quake :) DOF and high (at diffraction limit) lens resolution are related. you can have either one or the other. Mishka
Re: Future of digital
Interesting idea. It would take the equivalent of the stitch software to make panoramas but in the depth direction. I wonder how many in-focus slices a camera would have to take to get enough info for the software to create an images with a .1 m to infinity DOF. Obviously, it would depend on the FL and aperture, although I'm sure the sharpness would oscillate since the DOF is not an all or nothing phenomena. The software would be complicated but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. This is true as things are at the moment, but I don't see why this couldn't be changed - particularly if companies are trying to come up with new things to sell cameras in the future, and if people are convinced they need this sort of thing. I think most of these types of limitations, such as DOF, can be overcome by computers - like maybe something that focuses in and out quickly to record a scene at a myriad of different focal points which can then be interpreted (interpolated) by software...or increasing sensitivity so much that depth of field is enormous (and can then be foreshortened by various types of blurring software). I can almost guarantee that everything is going to go post-production in this way. RSW _ Join the worldÆs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
On 29 Aug 2002 at 21:27, Herb Chong wrote: simple. clear film to black has a larger dynamic range than orange base to black. don't mistake range for contrast itself. the scanner relies on and captures dynamic range, and stretching a negative's range after subtracting the orange mask and inverting in Photoshop starts to introduce color aliasing. Hi Herb, Not so if the dynamic pre-amplification is tailored to optimise the media being scanned or if you have a low noise image capture device followed by a precision low noise image sensor that can deliver 14bits per pixel? The reality is that no system can never get back the information lost in the black of a shadow or in the blown out highlight in a slide. There are obviously certain lighting conditions natural or artificial that do suite slide films but where and what I shoot it's rarely the case hence my predilection for negative films. I'd rather a little noise than lack of detail. BTW I have read your article The Art of Scanning and many more of a similar vein, I did appreciate your article but don't agree entirely :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
On 29 Aug 2002 at 20:37, Mishka wrote: Rob, Both, slides and prints have their advantages. Lattitude is only one half of the equation. Dynamical range is the second half. No, you cannot create either one in Photoshop. No matter what you do there, you will only lose data. You trade lattitude for contrast and vice versa. Unless there is a film whose lattitude and dynamic range match those of a scanner perfectly, there's no better or worse between slide and print films. Just a matter of preference. E.g. on overcast day, when the lattitude is largely irrelevant, I think slides will be superior, in terms of amount information they carry from the original scene to the computer file. For a very high contrast scene, print film wins. Hi Mishka, Don't get me wrong, I agree with your presentation of the technicalities of slide vs neg however the reality is that many top class landscape photographers who have embraced digital output technologies have moved away from shooting slide films. The digital film scanners are getting so good that very good results can be achieved via scanning negatives. I have quite a few references to photographers who have switched and as you most probably know there are plenty of discussions regarding the issue however not all are up to date. You wonder too sometimes whether the people debating these issues actually have anything but theoretical experience :-) Within the last few months a PDML lister posted a URL about the very topic of a pro who has switched to neg film for scanning which unfortunately generated very little discussion (If anyone has the post that I an referring to archived I'd appreciate a copy of it). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
FA100-300mm
Quick question - FA100-300mm There appear to be two versions. A power zoom version (f4.5-5.6) and a current silver version (f4.7-5.8) The comments on Stan's site all seem to pertain to the power zoom version, and imply that it's not worthy to carry the Pentax name. What about the new version? It's considerably cheaper, but does that mean that it's an even worse performer than its older brother? tvm wendy beard ottawa, canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
OT: The Inkjet Printer Reaches Maturity
Hi Has anyone used or received sample prints from the new Epson 2200/2100 (or own one), i'd be very interested to hear lister opinions? The review on Luminous Landscape seems very positive indeed :-) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Re[2]: Future of digital
I think this can be done by a series of pictures taken at different points of focus and stitched together. See my other note on this. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/30/02 10:16AM I think most of these types of limitations, such as DOF, can be overcome by computers unfortunately, computers cannot change the laws of physics. that is, unless you are playing Quake :) DOF and high (at diffraction limit) lens resolution are related. you can have either one or the other. Mishka
Re: advertizing
Hi Steve, I like the one with a photo of a Land Rover/Cruiser (memory fails to distingush) next to a glacier with the tag line Reliable Gear For Your Adventures I think it is for the ZX/MZ5n and others. I'm sure I've seen it this past year in Pop Photo or Shutterbug or something... Chris L. Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/30/02 09:40AM I don't think I've ever seen a Pentax ad, even in photomags. Could anyone describe one? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: advertizing
I am sure there was also one in the Uk for the MZ-7, showing an F1 car overturning and how the fast shutter and predictive AF caught a sequence of shots perfectly as the car rolled! Funny, at the time the MZ-S came out there were a lot of ads for the MZ-7 running. I never saw one for the MZ-S! Go figure... Oh, and the one where the farm animals were in formation flying around with their nippon headscarves on! (not really) -Original Message- From: Christopher Lillja [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 August 2002 15:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: advertizing Hi Steve, I like the one with a photo of a Land Rover/Cruiser (memory fails to distingush) next to a glacier with the tag line Reliable Gear For Your Adventures I think it is for the ZX/MZ5n and others. I'm sure I've seen it this past year in Pop Photo or Shutterbug or something... Chris L. Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/30/02 09:40AM I don't think I've ever seen a Pentax ad, even in photomags. Could anyone describe one? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vs: Pentax sighting
No. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 30. elokuuta 2002 3:11 Aihe: RE: Pentax sighting -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] snip BTW, are the plus and minus signs in a K1000 meter supposed to light up? tv
Vs: Pub Meeting With Frank
William Robb? Really? All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 30. elokuuta 2002 7:04 Aihe: Re: Pub Meeting With Frank So Paul, you must know: Whats black and blue, and floats on St. John's harbour? William Robb
Vs: SMC M 200/f4
IIRC when I changed it for 4.5/80-200 SMC Pentax M zoom the performance of the zoom was better. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Francis Alviar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: Pentax Discuss List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 29. elokuuta 2002 22:30 Aihe: SMC M 200/f4 I'd like to get the groups opinion regarding this lens. How is it optically? Thanks. Francis M. Alviar Irvine, CA
Re[2]: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
I have quite a few references to photographers who have switched and as you most probably know there are plenty of discussions regarding the issue however not all are up to date. You wonder too sometimes whether the people debating these issues actually have anything but theoretical experience :-) The reason for my reply yesterday was my overflowing with frustration when I tried to scan a bunch of negs on the Nikon4000 scanner. The dynamic range of the negs (actually, of the subjects) was just wy to narrow -- and stretching the distributions (in 14bit/color images) led to an obscene amounts of noise. And without stretching the scans looked too flat. Maybe I was doing something wrong. Within the last few months a PDML lister posted a URL about the very topic of a pro who has switched to neg film for scanning which unfortunately generated very little discussion (If anyone has the post that I an referring to archived I'd appreciate a copy of it). Yup, I'd like to see that too. Cheers, Rob Studdert Best, Mishka
RE: advertizing
Also go to http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=190 and select 'all Film Cameras' and you get to see Steve Irwin with the Caption Chris states. -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham Sent: 30 August 2002 16:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: advertizing I am sure there was also one in the Uk for the MZ-7, showing an F1 car overturning and how the fast shutter and predictive AF caught a sequence of shots perfectly as the car rolled! Funny, at the time the MZ-S came out there were a lot of ads for the MZ-7 running. I never saw one for the MZ-S! Go figure... Oh, and the one where the farm animals were in formation flying around with their nippon headscarves on! (not really) -Original Message- From: Christopher Lillja [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 August 2002 15:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: advertizing Hi Steve, I like the one with a photo of a Land Rover/Cruiser (memory fails to distingush) next to a glacier with the tag line Reliable Gear For Your Adventures I think it is for the ZX/MZ5n and others. I'm sure I've seen it this past year in Pop Photo or Shutterbug or something... Chris L. Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/30/02 09:40AM I don't think I've ever seen a Pentax ad, even in photomags. Could anyone describe one? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: OT Epson 2450 (was Re: Re[2]: Sanning negs vs positive
Thanks Dave, Mine just has holders for 35mm negs and slides. It has an A4 template that the holders sit in with little feet markers for the light source to align to. Wonder if I can cobble up a holder for the 6x7 film. It sounds like a very similar arrangement. I just looked at the URL Jeff posted http://math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html Wow! I'm impressed. Sigh, if only I hadn't just had a massive bill to fix the dogmobile. Better start listing some of my stuff for sale that I keep meaning to but never get round to. Wendy From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: OT Epson 2450 (was Re: Re[2]: Sanning negs vs positive Wendy. The 2450 has 3 adapters that lay on the=20 glass.One for 35 mm strips(of 2),on for mounted=20 slides and on for 6x6 or 6x7 negs and the other=20 half for 4x5's. There is a partition you have to removed from=20 the lid to allow the alternate light source. Jeff found one at Greytech in Toronto for $560=20 Can which is $140 less than anywere else. Hope that helps:) Dave wendy beard ottawa, canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: FA100-300mm
Quick question - FA100-300mm There appear to be two versions. A power zoom version (f4.5-5.6) and a current silver version (f4.7-5.8) The comments on Stan's site all seem to pertain to the power zoom version, and imply that it's not worthy to carry the Pentax name. What about the new version? It's considerably cheaper, but does that mean that it's an even worse performer than its older brother? wendy beard There are at least three (in addition to the newish silver #27607/#27608 80-320 4.5-5.6): 1. #27927 FA 100-300 4.5-5.6 (black) (out of production, no longer on Pentax USA site) This is powerzoom and was twice as expensive as the one below. 2. #27931 F 100-300 4.5-5.6 (black) (probably out of production, though if so it stopped after the FA production stopped. Still on Pentax USA website. Getting harder to find. Looks like the FA - both have ellipse shaped impressions in the zoom rings.) Probably the least expensive. 3. #27617 FA 100-300 4.7-5.8 (silver) newer and current. FA but not powerzoom. From what I understand, (1.) and (2.) are the same optically but the second is cheaper because, though later, it lacks powerzoom; both are considered poor. I don't know about (3.). Most people seem to say the 80-320 is the best one of all, though not stellar. It's usually around $280. Last I checked you could still get the FA Powerzoom 100-300 at Focus for $260, and the other 100-300s (the F versions) at a number of places for much less. This is probably one of the best areas in which to consider third party lenses - and particularly the alternative of third-party used fixed focal length lenses (especially if you were looking to use the zoom lens at longer focal lengths where they are all mediocre at best). Rob _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: The Inkjet Printer Reaches Maturity
The reports on the Yahoogroups EPSONx7x list have all been very favorable. Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: OT: The Inkjet Printer Reaches Maturity Hi Has anyone used or received sample prints from the new Epson 2200/2100 (or own one), i'd be very interested to hear lister opinions? The review on Luminous Landscape seems very positive indeed :-) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: SMC M 200/f4
I think it performs very well and it is light and compact which suits me well. Sure the FA's are in a different league but then again the M200/4 is alot more affordable. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Francis Alviar [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd like to get the groups opinion regarding this lens. How is it optically? Thanks. Francis M. Alviar Irvine, CA
Re: FA100-300mm
Hallo Wendy In the german FotoColor was a test about telezooms. The new FA100-300 4.7-5.8 got simular verdicts than the Pentax 80-320 which has a good reputation. The power zoom version is also big and havy. There is a third version, the F100-300 which looks like the powerzoom but has no zoom motor and is less expensive. For money the new FA100-300 4.7-5.8 looks good, but I think it has a plastic lens mount. regards Rüdiger Quick question - FA100-300mm There appear to be two versions. A power zoom version (f4.5-5.6) and a current silver version (f4.7-5.8) The comments on Stan's site all seem to pertain to the power zoom version, and imply that it's not worthy to carry the Pentax name. What about the new version? It's considerably cheaper, but does that mean that it's an even worse performer than its older brother? tvm wendy beard ottawa, canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
At 00:15 31.08.02 +1000, you wrote: On 29 Aug 2002 at 15:05, Herb Chong wrote: negatives have less brightness range than slides. you will still get best results from scanning slides if you have a good enough scanner. Why do you believe this? Scanning negs gives a far superior contrast range, you can never get beyond a little over 4 stops from a slide. [Rob] Rob, I think Herb is right: It relates to the Dmax a scanner can resolve. A neg only has a Dmax of 2-3; thus a scanner with a similar Dmax may be better served with neg film as the contrast range of what is on the negative film can be fully captured. Picture libraries are picky -in contrast to what you mused- they also serve customers that require stunning images for calenders etc, they do go for max quality! The latitude problem of slides (higher range between 0 and Dmax on slides) was never a problem on high end scanners in use in the picture libraries. Of the pro's I know in the scene, none have switched to negatives, but I agree that such information is just anecdotal evidence. It really depends on which scanner you buy: It is important to check the Dmax and if it is below 4, you might be better off with negs. Knut
RE: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
Also bear in mind that Dmax quoted by scanner manufacturers is usually measured by their own methodology which they do not divulge - ie the marketing department largely make the numbers up. So you cant compare one with another and certainly cant compare to actual EV in slides. I don't think there are any true consumer scanners with a 'true' Dmax of 4 - not even the Nikons, even though they may be close. -Original Message- From: Knut Kampe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 August 2002 17:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces At 00:15 31.08.02 +1000, you wrote: On 29 Aug 2002 at 15:05, Herb Chong wrote: negatives have less brightness range than slides. you will still get best results from scanning slides if you have a good enough scanner. Why do you believe this? Scanning negs gives a far superior contrast range, you can never get beyond a little over 4 stops from a slide. [Rob] Rob, I think Herb is right: It relates to the Dmax a scanner can resolve. A neg only has a Dmax of 2-3; thus a scanner with a similar Dmax may be better served with neg film as the contrast range of what is on the negative film can be fully captured. Picture libraries are picky -in contrast to what you mused- they also serve customers that require stunning images for calenders etc, they do go for max quality! The latitude problem of slides (higher range between 0 and Dmax on slides) was never a problem on high end scanners in use in the picture libraries. Of the pro's I know in the scene, none have switched to negatives, but I agree that such information is just anecdotal evidence. It really depends on which scanner you buy: It is important to check the Dmax and if it is below 4, you might be better off with negs. Knut
RE: advertizing
-Original Message- From: Christopher Lillja [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Hi Steve, I like the one with a photo of a Land Rover/Cruiser (memory fails to distingush) next to a glacier with the tag line Reliable Gear For Your Adventures I think it is for the ZX/MZ5n and others. I'm sure I've seen it this past year in Pop Photo or Shutterbug or something... Isn't that the one that was shot with a Nikon? tv
Re: The Inkjet Printer Reaches Maturity
The reports on the Yahoogroups EPSONx7x list have all been very favorable. Maris There's a yahoo group for a brand of printers??? RSW _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: FA100-300mm
This is probably one of the best areas in which to consider third party lenses - and particularly the alternative of third-party used fixed focal length lenses (especially if you were looking to use the zoom lens at longer focal lengths where they are all mediocre at best). I am not sure if mentioning a manual focus lens here is OT or not, but I might suggest the older manual focus Tokina AT-X 100-300/4. It is an obvious exception to the above generalization (which is frequently true) that long telephoto zooms are often soft at the long end. There is also a newer autofocus AT-X 100-300/4, but it's a different lens optically, and I can't vouch for it (never having used the autofocus version); however, I can personally state that the manual focus one is great from 100mm all the way to 300mm. See: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x1003004/ - and - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x1003004/modphoto.htm Fred
Re: advertizeing
I don't think I've ever seen a Pentax ad, even in photomags. Could anyone describe one? Interestingly (and this is all part of the enigmatic Pentax marketing history), back in the seventies and well into the eighties, two-page Pentax ads occupied the inside front cover and the first interior page of Modern Photography, month after month after month. All the while, Canon, Minolta, Nikon, and Olympus occupied the less prominent (and undoubtedly less expensive) interior pages. Times have changed... Fred
RE: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
At 17:39 30.08.02 +0100, you wrote: Also bear in mind that Dmax quoted by scanner manufacturers is usually measured by their own methodology which they do not divulge - ie the marketing department largely make the numbers up. So you cant compare one with another and certainly cant compare to actual EV in slides. I don't think there are any true consumer scanners with a 'true' Dmax of 4 - not even the Nikons, even though they may be close. For independent review go to: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro appears to be very good (real Dmax of 4.2 [they claim 4.8 in some advertising, but 4.2 has been verified], resolution of 4800 dpi). But it also is on the high end for pricing ~3K, that's the range of a Digital SLR! But it does allow to scan 35mm and MF. The reviews above (16 scanners covering different manufacturers and budgets) are also helpful as they have an image section in addition to the test description, so you can get an impression how big the difference is in real life photography. Knut
Re: Albano desperate test
If you are reading this email, please write me directly to let me know. I can't see my own postings, and it's PRETTY FRUSTRATING. Thanks Albano (in digest mode) I wouldn't get that frustrated - your postings haven't been all that interesting lately, so you're not missing much. For instance, this one was just about how you're not getting your postings...very dull and uninteresting. Rob Er, shouldn't that have a smiley stuck on the end of it? Cotty Cor, swipe me. He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh classified ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: TOPDML tomorrow?
Hi, Dave and Jeff, Right you are. 12:30 at the Prince's Gates (aka Princess Gates). Bhagen hasn't replied yet, but I sent him a CC of my earlier post, and he can read this post to know what's up. Mishka has my home number, and he may call tomorrow if he can make it (but I'm not counting on it - you know how it is when you're visiting, I'm sure time is at a premium). See y'all then! -frank David Chang-Sang wrote: I'm in.. probably do the same as Jeff.. or maybe a bit longer.. depending on weather.. scenery... and beer consumption level :) Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TOPDML tomorrow? - If we're going to be doing the Airshow, I'd suggest meeting at the Princess Gates (which are really the Prince's Gates, but everyone calls them the Princess Gates) at 12:30, and find a good vantage point for the show. I'm in. 12:30 at the Princess Gates. I'll probably stay till 5:00 PM. Jeff -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: F vs FA in practical use
On 31 Aug 2002 at 0:40, Simon Storey wrote: I've read around this a bit, on the marvellous 'Boz' site and others, but in real life, what's the difference between an F and FA version of the same lens? Yes, a generational thing, early vs late with less electronics, but what difference will it make to it's use? How would using one and not the other be different? Could anyone put into a simple paragraph for me? ;-) I have pretty limited experience when it comes to F/FA lenses but it appear to me that FA lenses with the same formulation as their F counterparts seemed better built and had a more user friendly manual focus option. The LTD lenses take this progression to the next level and have almost gone full circle to present an AF lens that feels more like a traditional MF(ocus) lens. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
On 30 Aug 2002 at 18:27, Knut Kampe wrote: For independent review go to: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro appears to be very good (real Dmax of 4.2 [they claim 4.8 in some advertising, but 4.2 has been verified], resolution of 4800 dpi). But it also is on the high end for pricing ~3K, that's the range of a Digital SLR! But it does allow to scan 35mm and MF. I also noted in this review (with disdain) that the 4800dpi resolution is in fact interpolated :-( My heart is set on the LS 8000 ED unless its out spec'd in the next few months. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: F vs FA in practical use
The LTD lenses take this progression to the next level and have almost gone full circle to present an AF lens that feels more like a traditional MF(ocus) lens. ...unless you actually have to focus it. I'm sorry to disagree, Rob, but I don't care for the whirry focus feel of either the 43/1.9 or the 77/1.8. (There seems to me to be a big difference between the silky feel of a good manual focus lens and the cement mixer feel of some - but not all - of the autofocus lenses.) I much prefer the feel of the FA* 85/1.4 (due to its clutch, I guess) to either of the Limited lenses that I've tried. Fred
Re: F vs FA in practical use
On 30 Aug 2002 at 22:38, Fred wrote: The LTD lenses take this progression to the next level and have almost gone full circle to present an AF lens that feels more like a traditional MF(ocus) lens. ...unless you actually have to focus it. I'm sorry to disagree, Rob, but I don't care for the whirry focus feel of either the 43/1.9 or the 77/1.8. (There seems to me to be a big difference between the silky feel of a good manual focus lens and the cement mixer feel of some - but not all - of the autofocus lenses.) I much prefer the feel of the FA* 85/1.4 (due to its clutch, I guess) to either of the Limited lenses that I've tried. Hi Fred, I'm not so concerned about the literal feel WRT tactility i.e. whir or silkiness but more so focus ring placement, accessibility and function. I don't care so much for the manual feel of FA lenses with the clutch either, I have used several of these family of lenses on which the clutch had become quite loose though use so much so that moving the focus ring didn't guarantee that the focus would actually change. I also don't care for the ultra short throw of the focus rings on some of the F/FA lenses, other listers have noted this as an advantage. Each to their own I guess :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Midroll rewind ZX-5n
Hello fellow ZX-5n users: It's a fact that the ZX-5n doesn't lead the film leader out as one re-winds midroll. How do you folks deal w/ retrieving the film leader on a partially exposed roll? Thanks, Pat __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: F vs FA in practical use
Each to their own I guess :-) Yes, I agree with that, Rob. I do see your point about the difference between the whir or silkiness of some autofocus lenses and the actual facility of their manual focusing. However, I do tend to like the short throw focus of some of the newer lenses, too (the FA* 85/1.4 being just one good example). Fred
RE: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
At 11:13 31.08.02 +1000, you wrote: On 30 Aug 2002 at 18:27, Knut Kampe wrote: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM The Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro appears to be very good I also noted in this review (with disdain) that the 4800dpi resolution is in fact interpolated :-( My heart is set on the LS 8000 ED unless its out spec'd in the next few months. Cheers, Rob Studdert Rob where did you get that from? For 35 negs the resolution is 4800 dpi, for MF 3200 dpi (different optics within same scanner, as I understand). There is absolutely no statement that the resolution is interpolated! They explicitly say: The dimage Scan Multi Pro has the highest scanning resolution of any scanner we tested to date (September 2001) We confess we really weren't expecting to see more detail from the Dimage Scan Pro than we'd previously seen in the 4000 dpi scanner we'd reviewed, but the Dimage surprised us: There's clearly more detail visible in it's scans [They tested the Nikon Coolscan8000 a few months before in June 2001] This is just opposite of what you claim to have read in this article! Sorry, I do not mean to offend, Knut
Re: Midroll rewind ZX-5n
At 23:13 30-8-2002 -0400, you wrote: Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 19:54:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Pat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello fellow ZX-5n users: It's a fact that the ZX-5n doesn't lead the film leader out as one re-winds midroll. How do you folks deal w/ retrieving the film leader on a partially exposed roll? Thanks, Pat Buy one of those neat little film leader retrieval gizmos. Not very expensive. Bought mine from Jessops in the UK a few years back but I'm sure they're available all over the place. Someone on the list detailed how to make your own but I can't remember who. I'm sure it wasn't Cotty as it didn't involve coathangers and sticky-back plastic. (or did it...) Here's one from a great things supplier http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/pdfiles/p74.pdf Wendy --- Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] home page http://www.beard-redfern.com
RE: Sanning negs vs positive tranparinces
On 31 Aug 2002 at 4:27, Knut Kampe wrote: Rob where did you get that from? For 35 negs the resolution is 4800 dpi, for MF 3200 dpi (different optics within same scanner, as I understand). There is absolutely no statement that the resolution is interpolated! This is just opposite of what you claim to have read in this article! Hi Knut, No offence taken, in the page http://www.imaging- resource.com/SCAN/DSMP/DSMA.HTM they scan MF negs at 4800dpi (obvisously not optical). In the page http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/DSMP/DSMPICS.HTM there is a parragraph as follows: After we posted the first version of this review, several sharp-eyed readers emailed to point out that the Dimage Scan Multi Pro doesn't really scan medium- format film at 4800 dpi, but rather interpolates up from the 3200 dpi that represents the raw sensor resolution. Embarassed by our gaffe (we completely missed this in the DSMP's docs), we re-scanned the res target at 3200. So I was simply a little misled by the review. :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Some random thoughts
Hi all, I have a few small things to post about so I might as well bundle it all together like a digest :) Firstly, I loaded some film into my new LX today and did a few macro shots. What a fantastic camera. Its very smooth and very responsive. It just doesn't get in the way. But I will have to get used to that DOF lever (the K2 and Z-1p both use a button). When the LX's meter LED flashes, is this a low battery warning? I changed the battery and it stopped happening. I've also noticed that the meter LED glows brighter when you press the shutter release halfway down. Next thing on my mind is film. I'm seriously considering completely switching over from E100SW to Provia 100F. I spent a couple of hours mounting 6x7 slides last night, most of which were 100F. When I came across an E100SW film I just did not like the warm colour rendition in most shots. Especially when I found that the first E100SW shot was identical to the last 100F shot (my films are in chronological order) so I could compare the same scene side-by-side. Last of all, I've decided that the quest for absolute sharpness in my slides is not as important as I used to think. A good image will stand out regardless of whether your lens was used wide-open, handheld at 1/30th. I've recently been looking through a couple of Galen Rowell books and found that while some of the images are a little soft, they are still outstanding photographs. So why lust after the greatest ultra- sharp glass? If I want more detail I'll shoot with a bigger format... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
Re: Midroll rewind ZX-5n
- Original Message - From: Pat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Midroll rewind ZX-5n It's a fact that the ZX-5n doesn't lead the film leader out as one re-winds midroll. How do you folks deal w/ retrieving the film leader on a partially exposed roll? I carefully watch the frame counter while rewinding a film. A very little while after the frame number reaches 0, I open the camera back, thus forcing the rewindind to stop. The leader is then outside the cartridge. Regards Artur
ack!! Oh listmaster = pulease help!!!
I unsubscribed before setting of on my trip - the normal way - it seemed to have worked and now, alas, I'm away from home and suddenly h ave a flood of pdml messages !! I'm desperately in need of this getting cut off or my server wil bounce all my real important email that I could be getting from kith and kin and I dont have time or place to get much access -- I KNOW what it used to take to unsubscribe - I did that, and now suddenly I'm getting all this mail.. Doug, if you are out there, please help this is most serious and I cant seem to get it to work. FYI _ I met Shel up close and alive. but more of that when I get home in late Septemeber - then I can give first impressions of Wheatfield and Tom C too! Help help! annsan mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
