If I wanted to take the next step in scanning [from a flatbed], but with an economical focus, what scanner would you recommend?
I started printing some 35mm TRI X scans on Hahnemule Museum Etching paper and couldn't believe the results. Though the on-screen images were nothing for which to speak, I did the best I could with the levels command.
The resulting images provided a 'pop' which really surprised me. There is an immiacy to the primary subjects, while the backgrounds faded to a gradual gray.
Where to go from here? I shoot both 35 & MF square.
TWoK wrote:
Have an M-44?
Russian 1891/30, which I guess is a model earlier than the 44? Don't know much about the history of them. It was dirt cheap though, and gives a nice kick (about like a .30-06) and fun to clean up for the first time too! it's got accurate windage, but shoots a bit high at 200-300 yards.
I am very impressed with the sharpness of the OM 21/2 on film, but it heavily vignettes on digital, which is very unfortunate. What's unusual about the way I used the lens?
TWoK wrote:
I am very impressed with the sharpness of the OM 21/2 on film, but it heavily vignettes on digital, which is very unfortunate. What's unusual about the way I used the lens?
Most people don't use Ultra-wides for portraiture. But it does work quite well the way you used it.
I have a little Minolta 16mm camera. I bought it at a flea market for $5 complete with box, manual, case from the 50s. Where on earth did you find the film cartridges?
Mine came with some and I have a neat little Russian slitter that will cut 35mm film down to 16mm... not something I use very often, but in this case, the full images have a wonderful analog charm that is kind of fun.
Mine came with some and I have a neat little Russian slitter that will cut 35mm film down to 16mm... not something I use very often, but in this case, the full images have a wonderful analog charm that is kind of fun.
Very cool. I've found a source for 16mm film (B&H carries 16mm motion film), but haven't been able to find a cartridge except on the auction site for 5 times what I paid for the camera.
It's funny, but a few people on the Canon forum were claiming that their 450D or XSi (cheap entry level DSLRs with kit lens) were better than 6x7 size film. It's laughable except for the fact that actually deluded themselves into believing this.
That's because the digital photography proponents started to claim 5 or 6 years ago that a 35mm film shot was only equal to 5 or 6 megapixels and Reichman started claiming that a 39MP 645 back was equal to 4X5 films scans. Both of which assume a extremely poor reproduction from the film. If that's what they want to believe it is fine, but I'll enjoy knowing from personal experience what I can get out of film.
There's room for both digital and film in this world.
(about like a .30-06) and fun to clean up for the first time too! it's got accurate windage, but shoots a bit high at 200-300 yards.
!
