My second roll of Svema 400 in the 1950s Bencini Comet S (127 film) came out better than the first. Still lots of light leaks, but that's likely due to the film, which is on a polyester base that is very prone to light-piping. The leaks were strongest at the beginning of the roll, and I used a changing bag to take out the film once it was exposed and load it into the tank. This was the last shot on the roll.
jimmuller wrote:
Well, my Linux system has an AMD Athlon(tm) II X2 270 Processor × 2, 3.7G of memroy. It shouldn't be a slouch but is admittedly 2 upgrades old. We upgraded my sweetie's office system a few years ago. Then because MS said it couldn't run Win11 and threatened computer-virus Armageddon we upgraded again to Wn11. The first was an incremental upgrade, the second an excremental upgrade. I would install Linux on the newer machine but I fear TurboTax wanting some older data. When next year's taxes are successfully submitted I may move to the newer system.
One disturbingly invasive thing FerrumPix did on first running was search my entire computer for image files. After that it seems to have settled down.
These were "scanned" with my Z5ii/FTZ/Tamron 90mm Macro, converted to positives with Film.Scan.Converter, lightly processed wtih FerrumPix, uploaded to Flickr which then gave me 1024-pixel wide BBCode to post here....Show more →
Love the rich colors of the first and last photos. If FerrumPix searched my computer initially, ir would only find 1400 pixel web sized images. My photos are stored across my NAS network. With an M2 drive in this box - no wonder it seemed instant - it was instant.
James Markus wrote:
Love the rich colors of the first and last photos.
Thank you. FWIW, I didn't do much to any of those pics, just almost imperceptible contrast increase and some of what FerrumPix calls Clarity which seems to be a sharpening of sorts. No color manipulation per se. Just whatever the film gave me.
I feel like I've taken lots of shots like those over the last year. Been too busy lately though. The last shot was with the 2.8cm, IIRC. That first one may have been with the 105mm.
I've discovered that my thought process for selecting shots is different in two ways between film and digital. The idea that it would produce a tangible item throws me back to my younger days when I was trying to capture experiences instead of create images. It changes my criterion for desirability. Second, as I get closer to the end of a roll I tend to take shots that I might skip with the Z, just so that I'll finish up the roll faster and get it processed sooner. It's "Let's try this, maybe it will be interesting." I do that with the Z too but just to try something, not so I can take the pics off the camera sooner. With film it feels wasteful but the motivation pushes me to do it anyway.
James Markus wrote:
If FerrumPix searched my computer initially, it would only find 1400 pixel web sized images. My photos are stored across my NAS network. With an M2 drive in this box - no wonder it seemed instant - it was instant.
Ah. I did not think to downsize those pics before sending them to Flickr or even loading them into FerrumPix. Normally I do any color or contrast/brightness manipulation before resizing. I could have resized them first, I suppose, don't know why I didn't resize them at all. Got distracted by the glitz of a bunch of new buttons!
Shawn, That's dedication! Carrying that rig in sand - amazing!
It reminds me of those Mad magazine drawings of people going about their daily routine, while a mushroom cloud, and post apocalyptic city lays in the background. I know that area. There is park not far from there that has a dune known to swallow people whole. Apparently, there are voids in the sand from long buried trees. You find the best stuff!
James Markus wrote:
Shawn, That's dedication! Carrying that rig in sand - amazing!
It reminds me of those Mad magazine drawings of people going about their daily routine, while a mushroom cloud, and post apocalyptic city lays in the background. I know that area. There is park not far from there that has a dune known to swallow people whole. Apparently, there are voids in the sand from long buried trees. You find the best stuff!
Thanks James - it was definitely a workout! But such a surreal scene. I let the photo sit for a few months to get some distance from it and just went back to it today and couldn’t believe it’s not from 1970 or something.
A comparative view of my normal workflow, and FerrumPix test. In this case, I am not satisfied with either. I was looking for something between the two. I don't like the lighting, and the contrast isn't good in either. What I was testing for was how sharp is the Pentax 67 55mm f3.5 wide open, and what does the bokeh look like near mfd (45cm). Turns out the lens is sharper than I expected, and the bokeh isn't creamy enough. Maybe a #1 extension tube will solve that. I used a homemade support (my lowest profile - 2.5" high), cable release, and shutter speeds down to 1/30th of a second. Since the 6x7 lacks mirror lockup the recoil made the whole rig jump alarmingly, yet the images are sharp with absolutely no motion blur.
rji2goleez wrote:
Thanks. I'm very happy with this camera/lens so far. Next roll, I'll see if I can get a portrait with this lens wide open. For now, a couple more.
Nikon SP + 35/1.8
Ultrafine Extreme 100 + HC-110
Two questions:
What dilution are you using?
What is your scanning process?
The Nikons are different than the M cameras but they have a certain charm and the lenses evolved to be the classics of the F series. Glad you're going to keep it.
madNbad wrote:
Two questions:
What dilution are you using?
What is your scanning process?
The Nikons are different than the M cameras but they have a certain charm and the lenses evolved to be the classics of the F series. Glad you're going to keep it.
I'm using dilution B (1:31). I cooked this film for 8 minutes. The Development Database said 8:30 but I think that's too much based on past development.
Scanning: Sony A1 II with Sigma 105/2.8 macro. I have a setup similar to the Valoi system.
I'll compare to the M3 as they were made around the same time and the SP was supposed to be Nikon's answer to the M3. The M3 viewfinder is clearly brighter. Whether that because my SP could use a good cleaning of the viewfinder/rangefinder or not I don't know. Handling is not very different.
I use a hot shoe mounted light meter on both. Measure, dial in settings, compose and shoot.
The lenses on the SP can mount 'internally' and externally. The 50/1.4 mounts internally to the SP mount whereas the 35/1.8 has a collar that fits over the SP mount. Mounting the 50 so far is a little clunky in my hands but maybe I'll get used to it. I have to fidget to get the lens to mount correctly.
Overall, the Leica is easier to work with.
Images (only one roll in) with the 50/1.4 are really nice. No better or worse than the M3 with several M mount 50s. The 50/1.4 did show some smearing in the corners. I think the 35/1.8 does not.
At this early stage, I'm encouraged by this camera and it's really too early to say. I threw a roll of Kodak Ultramax 400 and will focus on the 35/1.8 and see what I think then.
The camera is a keeper. Any time I can get nice sharp images from a 70 year old camera, it's something to hold onto....Show more →
Very interesting. I've got an F and it appears the SP and F share some DNA. The F feels quite a bit more "loose" and angular than my M2, so I've often wondered how the SP handled and operated in comparison. Haven't actually run across one in person yet, oddly.
And I agree on old cameras. If they're working, I'm going to make an excuse to use them at least once in a while. Enjoy it, looks like you're putting in good work with it already.
rji2goleez wrote:
I'm using dilution B (1:31). I cooked this film for 8 minutes. The Development Database said 8:30 but I think that's too much based on past development.
Scanning: Sony A1 II with Sigma 105/2.8 macro. I have a setup similar to the Valoi system.
Thanks! I've been using Adox Syrup 110 which is similar to the original Kodak formula. I've been using Dilution E (1:47) for 6:30. I also like Adox XT-3, which is similar to Xtol.
I'm using a Sony A7CII with the FE90 2.8 Macro and the Negative Supply gear that has evolved over the years.
James Markus wrote:
A comparative view of my normal workflow, and FerrumPix test. In this case, I am not satisfied with either. I was looking for something between the two. I don't like the lighting, and the contrast isn't good in either. ...
Interesting, I think. If you hadn't said otherwise I would have guessed both were processed with the same software but just left in different final states. Or to put it another way, either image could have been made closer to the other with manual manipulation. Of course if the whole point is to test automatic settings then it's a different game.
