Toothwalker wrote:
I don't use ICE either as I find that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Meanwhile I scanned some negatives from a trip to Cuba in 2002. Back then I only scanned a few frames and forgot about the rest. I don't know why.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I definitely agree with Martin that these photos are just outstanding. As mentioned, the human element and perfect timing and composition as well as the color palette. Hat's off!
I did suspect the Contax lenses, but didn't dare to say due my known Contax bias
I am pleased by the color palette of this series, and it is in fact difficult to get something else out of the scanner. The sliders in Silverfast have almost no effect, in contrast to slide scanning. I don't think the lenses have a big influence on the palette. It is more the used film and of course the subject matter itself, the pastel remnants of past glory.
corposant wrote:
It's funny what people notice in street/candid shots. My first reaction was (the the last one) - is that Harvard in the background?
Exactly Right Corp!
The shot below was unfortunately ruined as the film wasn't rolled in tight enough.
Fuji rolls got a pin and film tab got a hole to fasten properly. Sadly, Kodak rolls don't and so film got loose..
don't see it, and yeah I agree Kodak needs to punch that little hole.
how is the lens on that fuji? I've heard some people suggest it doesnt quite live up to the Texas Leica sentiment when it comes to the lens, it's just that the 6x9 negative makes up for it in some ways.
I've been looking at the 6x7 fuji fixed rfs. Anyone got a rec for the best two or three of those?
redisburning wrote:
don't see it, and yeah I agree Kodak needs to punch that little hole.
how is the lens on that fuji? I've heard some people suggest it doesnt quite live up to the Texas Leica sentiment when it comes to the lens, it's just that the 6x9 negative makes up for it in some ways.
I've been looking at the 6x7 fuji fixed rfs. Anyone got a rec for the best two or three of those?
Leica wishes their lenses could be as good as the GW690!
To be honest, I can't quite comment, since my scans are just vanilla mounted 4800 and I am just scanning the first ever rolls shot handheld.
Unlike with digital, one does not really feel like doing test shots at different apertures just for the sake of it..
But I am entirely satisfied with GW690.
redisburning wrote:
don't see it, and yeah I agree Kodak needs to punch that little hole.
Had to crop a lot. Looks like a film frame now.. Though, perhaps for the best..
Im not asking for test shots, of course. Just general impressions.
oh and Nate the reason I ask is because while I really like 35mm and having 36 exposures and a tiny camera, I can get a Mamiya 7 and a 80/4 for less than just the DR cron I feel like I "have" to have right now. A GW670iii is like half of either. neither is an insignificant amount of money for me.
I'd have to buy a new tank, and I'd have a lot less shots per roll. That's kind of a shame because my dog and my surroundings here in the middle of nowhere give me a lot of material too shoot. The upside is 2 dollar slide film processing at WalMart when I want to shoot color.
I really love my M2. And I already kind of "know" what lenses Im going to end up with but I'll be damned with the money I could save on a Fuji folder I could damn near buy a plane ticket to Tokyo or Seoul.
Personally, and this was just my experience, I did not find that the increased negative could make up for slushy negatives until I had pushed 35mm beyond it's limits. I do not ask because I want the absolute best negative I can, but just that I have two requirements:
1. rangefinder focusing (I prefer this style of focusing immensely, especially given my improved in focus rate with my legitimately terrible eyesight)
2. that the lenses exhibit good resolution and microcontrast such that the final image looks good. but with a character that says "pleasing" instead of, how can I put this, overly corrected and contrasty at the expense of all else?
It seems i have to use my Fuji GSW690III more often then, all the results i did before with it [i think 2 or 3 films only] came out more than fantastic, so damn sharp and nice B&W or colors and scan beautifully, it is making me that i am looking at smaller sheet, even my Holga 120WPC wide can't beat this Fuji 6x9, i must have Linhof or similar 6x12/6x17 to kick Fuji out, and the other Fuji GX680 is a piece of art[wish i have that].
Tareq wrote:
It seems i have to use my Fuji GSW690III more often then, all the results i did before with it [i think 2 or 3 films only] came out more than fantastic, so damn sharp and nice B&W or colors and scan beautifully, it is making me that i am looking at smaller sheet, even my Holga 120WPC wide can't beat this Fuji 6x9, i must have Linhof or similar 6x12/6x17 to kick Fuji out, and the other Fuji GX680 is a piece of art[wish i have that].
Got the GX680III Pro few months ago, but haven't used it yet.. Mainly because it's a monster to carry.
Additional shame is the Epson v750 - it crops the 6x9 to 6x7, though not a major loss it is a little annoying factor...
Krosavcheg wrote:
Got the GX680III Pro few months ago, but haven't used it yet.. Mainly because it's a monster to carry.
Additional shame is the Epson v750 - it crops the 6x9 to 6x7, though not a major loss it is a little annoying factor...
I know how monster tank is that GX680, but it is slightly little more heavy over RZ67 or RB, so i got used to that weight, but sure that GW/GSW models are way way lighter.
About V750, i have this and scan 6x9 fine without any issue, you have to check your settings.
As you can see, all the shots are at 1200x8xx[between 803 and 817 due to mistake in adjusting for the B&W], so even with 1200x806 which is about 1.48xxxxx is still very closer to 6x9[1.5], not 6x8 not 6x7, all with V750, only for B&W i did crop manually, but i can do re-scan again for auto crop and it will be same as the color shots.
