Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
JA> Since my once brilliant local repair shop has been bought out by the jokers JA> from Vancouver, I don't trust them any longer. Also, won't such a retrofit JA> need both the focusing and light meter recalibrating? JA> James Yes, it will need both recalibrating. It's worth the effort though, IMO. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
Good lens ... and a very charming girl! - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan > Yesterday I recieved in the mail another interesting M42 lens, > the Vivitar 200mm F3.5 from the middle 70's. I "risked" a > whopping $35 for it MINT on ebay. It's got at least 3 layer > coatings which aint too bad for a tele design. > > Anyway I took it out in the back yard and was sitting waiting > for the sun to come out and it finally did. At the same time > a neighbor came out and sat near me about 15 ft away. I asked > to take her picture and she said yes but she was on the phone, > I shot anyway: > > http://jcoconnell.com/temp/GIRLPHONEFNL1000.jpg > > Tech data: > Spotmatic > Lighting: Mid day sunlight ( BOO!) > Fuji Superia 400 > 1/500 @ F11 > Vivitar 200mm F3.5 > Epson 2450 scanner > 2400ppi (reduced for web) > > This lens is excellent quality. On the large scan you > can clearly see the finest stiching on the girls shorts and even > the adjustment holes on her watchband. Skin texture > is rendered nicely too. > > I think I'll keep this lens. :) The view through > the viewfinder is gorgeous at F3.5. > BTW, the pic hints at good bokeh too. I really > enjoy finding these "diamonds" in the rough for peanuts. > > I am delighted with the 2450 35mm results except it > takes too damn long to scan 35mm @ 2400 ppi ( 10 minutes). > How long do typical dedicated 35mm film scanners take to scan > at full resolution I may buy one just for the speed > if nothing else. > JCO >
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
Frantisek, Thanks for the info. The cost might be prohibitive, since I have already spent $180CDN each over the past 2-3 years on repairs to my beloved SPF's(CLA'd & meter repair/replaced with K1000 parts). Since my once brilliant local repair shop has been bought out by the jokers from Vancouver, I don't trust them any longer. Also, won't such a retrofit need both the focusing and light meter recalibrating? James - Original Message - From: "Frantisek Vlcek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 3:46 PM Subject: Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan > JA> lenses, which helps a lot. Although the focusing screens on the ME, MES, > JA> Program Plus, Nikon Photomic FTn, KR-10 and XR-X 2000 are way better than > JA> the Spotmatics, I don't know how my eyesight effects focusing with a > JA> split-screens. Does anyone know how the split-screen technique works? > JA> James. > Hi James, it is possible to retrofit the spotmatic with a K1000 screen > (which is both brighter and does have a split-screen focusing aid). > This operation needs a competent repairman though, and not everybody > has heard about this nor are they willing to do such a swap (it needs > focus recalibration). > > The split-aid should work regardless of eyesight, however, to be effective > you must see it well. > > Good light, >Frantisek Vlcek >
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
JA> lenses, which helps a lot. Although the focusing screens on the ME, MES, JA> Program Plus, Nikon Photomic FTn, KR-10 and XR-X 2000 are way better than JA> the Spotmatics, I don't know how my eyesight effects focusing with a JA> split-screens. Does anyone know how the split-screen technique works? JA> James. Hi James, it is possible to retrofit the spotmatic with a K1000 screen (which is both brighter and does have a split-screen focusing aid). This operation needs a competent repairman though, and not everybody has heard about this nor are they willing to do such a swap (it needs focus recalibration). The split-aid should work regardless of eyesight, however, to be effective you must see it well. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
>I am delighted with the 2450 35mm results except it >takes too damn long to scan 35mm @ 2400 ppi ( 10 minutes). >How long do typical dedicated 35mm film scanners take to scan >at full resolution I may buy one just for the speed >if nothing else. >JCO My system (P3-700 512MB, SCSI-II, Minolta F-2900) takes 1 min for a 2820dpi 8bit/channel scan without ICE. 16bit/channel with ICE & multipass would take mins. I suppose USB1.1 scanners would take longer. regards, Alan Chan _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
Hi JC, Nice shot, my friend has a Nikon Coolpix scanner, and I watched him scan in negs at HR in around 30 Seconds. I'm sure speed will depend on how good your PC is! My son has a 1.6GHz Athlon XP with 500MB SD-RAM. He scans photos way faster than I can, with my Pentium MMX 200 with 64MB Fast Page RAM. I am pleased with the results with my Vivitar 200mm f3.5 and SPF, especially as the lens came cheap at a garage sale. I also have a Vivitar 300mm f5.5 and Vivitar 400mm f6.3 Telephoto. My problem now is that my eyes are getting bad, so have trouble focussing with manual lenses. I can't focus very easily with my manual focus cameras e.g. SP/SP500/SPF/ME/MES/Program Plus/Nikon Photomic FTn/Ricoh KR-10 and XR-X 2000. My MZ-7 and SF-1 both have built-in diopter adjustment, and F-series AF lenses, which helps a lot. Although the focusing screens on the ME, MES, Program Plus, Nikon Photomic FTn, KR-10 and XR-X 2000 are way better than the Spotmatics, I don't know how my eyesight effects focusing with a split-screens. Does anyone know how the split-screen technique works? James. .
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:08:34 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > http://jcoconnell.com/temp/GIRLPHONEFNL1000.jpg Need a roommate? :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
did you view it full size? Sometimes the browser will reduce scale it and then it aliases. :( Screen resolution can affect it too. I use 1280X960. I touched up the face a tad and im only still learning how to do it. She had a few blemishes i tried to fix. I kinda rushed it. I also sharpened the file for printing, I didnt really didnt prepare it for web properly... JCO > -Original Message- > From: wendy beard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 9:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan > > > JCO wrote: > >Yesterday I recieved in the mail another interesting M42 lens, > >the Vivitar 200mm F3.5 from the middle 70's. I "risked" a > >whopping $35 for it MINT on ebay. It's got at least 3 layer > >coatings which aint too bad for a tele design. > > >This lens is excellent quality. On the large scan you > >can clearly see the finest stiching on the girls shorts and even > >the adjustment holes on her watchband. Skin texture > >is rendered nicely too. > > Agreed - excellent detail on the shorts. Looks like a fabulous lens. Damn > good bargain. > > The scan's all very speckly though and the fuzzy smudge on the > girl's cheek > spoils what would be a cracking photo. > I can't help thinking that you should be using some other > settings for the > scanner. Dunno what though, I still can't get my head round dpi, ppi etc > etc despite having had it explained numerous times. > > Wendy > > --- > Wendy Beard > Ottawa, Canada > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > home page http://www.beard-redfern.com >
RE: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
I forgot, been exploring 35mm for the last week or so. I will do one later today at 2400ppi and update you. i dont remember it being way too much longer though. jco > -Original Message- > From: Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 9:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan > > > > It takes me 1 minute with the HP S20. > > How long does it take you to scan MF images? I'm planning on purchasing a > 2450, but 10 minutes for a 35mm portion sounds awfully long. > > Jeff. > > > > > I am delighted with the 2450 35mm results except it > > takes too damn long to scan 35mm @ 2400 ppi ( 10 minutes). > > How long do typical dedicated 35mm film scanners take to scan > > at full resolution I may buy one just for the speed > > if nothing else. > > JCO > > >
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
JCO wrote: >Yesterday I recieved in the mail another interesting M42 lens, >the Vivitar 200mm F3.5 from the middle 70's. I "risked" a >whopping $35 for it MINT on ebay. It's got at least 3 layer >coatings which aint too bad for a tele design. >This lens is excellent quality. On the large scan you >can clearly see the finest stiching on the girls shorts and even >the adjustment holes on her watchband. Skin texture >is rendered nicely too. Agreed - excellent detail on the shorts. Looks like a fabulous lens. Damn good bargain. The scan's all very speckly though and the fuzzy smudge on the girl's cheek spoils what would be a cracking photo. I can't help thinking that you should be using some other settings for the scanner. Dunno what though, I still can't get my head round dpi, ppi etc etc despite having had it explained numerous times. Wendy --- Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] home page http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
It takes me 1 minute with the HP S20. How long does it take you to scan MF images? I'm planning on purchasing a 2450, but 10 minutes for a 35mm portion sounds awfully long. Jeff. > > I am delighted with the 2450 35mm results except it > takes too damn long to scan 35mm @ 2400 ppi ( 10 minutes). > How long do typical dedicated 35mm film scanners take to scan > at full resolution I may buy one just for the speed > if nothing else. > JCO >
