I think their scanner is especially crappy. I used to get better
results with Kodak 800 color print film scanned with my Scanwit 2720s at
9mp from 35mm film with pretty much any coke bottle bottom I mounted on
a Pentax camera. With a good lens much much better, I could easily get
excellent 8
een around
> for awhile then.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> >From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
> >Subject: Re: My first roll of film in a Pentax in decades
> >
> >Interesting. When I had my Pentax 6X7, the image quality was outstanding.
> >Mostly, howeve
Pentax back in 1969 and they had been around for
awhile then.
-Original Message-
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
Subject: Re: My first roll of film in a Pentax in decades
Interesting. When I had my Pentax 6X7, the image quality was outstanding.
Mostly, however, I made contacts an
I got my first SLR, an Asahi Pentax back in 1969 and they had been around for
awhile then.
-Original Message-
>From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
>Subject: Re: My first roll of film in a Pentax in decades
>
>Interesting. When I had my Pentax 6X7, the image quality wa
I've found the larger the format the more deliberate the process of image
creation needs to be.
On 7/18/2018 21:15, Larry Colen wrote:
Last year I was given a Pentax 67, it took me until a couple weeks ago to finish
the first roll of Porta 400. Unfortunately, when Bay scanned it, they scanned
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:49 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
> Frankly, Larry, your choice of subject, focal distance, AND display would
> not show any of these advantages, even with the lens I mentioned.
Re-reading this, I sound less friendly than I intended so I apologize.
I guess that related to what
Interesting. When I had my Pentax 6X7, the image quality was outstanding.
Mostly, however, I made contacts and then had enlargement printed. I had
only 2 lenses for it, both primes.
Did you really mean to say you had been using DSLR cameras for 45 years? I
didn't think they have been around tha
You have to mean 2000 dpi.
200 dpi only gives you 450 x 550 on a 2-1/4 x 2-3/4 negative.
I think people forget the original “purpose” or reason for larger format
(film)
a) it requires less enlargement for the same sized print (magnifying fewer
of the physical film limitations, like grain) - so is
Oh crickey you've reminded me that I still haven't tested out the gizmo that
Mark Roberts loaned me to try before I buy !! I suppose the good news is that
because we are moving house (slowly!) I will be able to find all my negs in the
attic so that I can then put the hardware together, source th
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 7/18/18 8:31 PM:
?? 200 dpi ?? A 200 dpi scan of a 6x7 negative is barely a 0.2 Mpixel output
file.
You're right, I slipped a decimal place, a common hazard with slipsticks.
A typical good scan of a 6x7 negative in a proper film scanner should be at
between 240
?? 200 dpi ?? A 200 dpi scan of a 6x7 negative is barely a 0.2 Mpixel output
file.
A typical good scan of a 6x7 negative in a proper film scanner should be at
between 2400 and 4000 ppi, netting approximately 5480x6330 pixels (35Mpixel) to
9130x10550 pixels (96 MPixel) resolution.
"...the co
Just using the camera is a great experience. Enjoy!
Paul
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:02 PM, l...@red4est.com wrote:
>
> Interesting. The price was right, I'm borrowing it from my next door neighbor.
>
>> On July 18, 2018 7:24:38 PM PDT, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> A clunker. The primes are largely e
Interesting. The price was right, I'm borrowing it from my next door neighbor.
On July 18, 2018 7:24:38 PM PDT, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>A clunker. The primes are largely excellent.
>
>Paul
>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:19 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Stenquist wrote on 7/18/18 6:58 PM
A clunker. The primes are largely excellent.
Paul
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:19 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote on 7/18/18 6:58 PM:
>> What lens was mounted? With the better 6x7 lenses image quality is superb.
>
> 55-100 f.4.5
>
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.c
Paul Stenquist wrote on 7/18/18 6:58 PM:
What lens was mounted? With the better 6x7 lenses image quality is superb.
55-100 f.4.5
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157612824732477/
--
PDML Pentax-Dis
What lens was mounted? With the better 6x7 lenses image quality is superb.
Paul
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> Last year I was given a Pentax 67, it took me until a couple weeks ago to
> finish the first roll of Porta 400. Unfortunately, when Bay scanned it, they
> sc
16 matches
Mail list logo
