kwoodard wrote:
Depending on how much the scanner was used, there can be a lot of dust build up on the mirror. Nikon designed the mirror to be under the film strip, so everything falls on it. I have also seen a build up of film on the mirror, which requires removal of the mirror, careful cleaning, and reinstallation. That is dicey and hard. It would also be a good idea to see scans from the unit and if at all possible, test before you buy. The first 5000ED I got, was a mess and needed cleaning of the mirror, film transport wheels, and fresh lube on all moving parts. It was about an 11 hour job. First time I reassembled, I put the mirror in backwards... ...Show more →
Doh!!! Ok, I'll be extra careful if/when I need to clean & install the mirror. Any special lube you used?
I received my five rolls of various film back from a (somewhat) local B&W only photo lab. These are from the first roll. Taken at the 2016 International Sportsmen's Expo back in January.
Kenj8246 wrote:
Nice day yesterday. Rode up to the Cavanaugh Flight Museum in Addison TX and shot some 4X5 film. Camera is a Chamonix 045-F1 field camera.
Kenny
Wow, if I had seen those without knowing they were film I would have absolutely thought digital. That's _so_ much detail! Really awesome stuff.
Blast I would have loved to have picked up a CS8000 for that price. I just had to pay $450 to get my CS4000 working after just buying it last summer for $500. An 8000 would be much preferred so I could get better 120 scans. *someday*.
I'm buying the CS8000 from a RC Flying buddy who use to be (now retired) an aerial photographer. I found out this past weekend that he solely shot with two Pentax 6X7's. That's how the conversation started and now I'm buying his scanner. Compared to how much he paid for it used to what he's asking for now...wow! I'm definitely jumping on it! He's trying to sell me his Epson 3800 (?) too, but I have no room for it...despite wanting it badly!
I'm stopping by his house this weekend to run a few 120 negs through the scanner and see if there are any glaring issues with it. Hopefully there's nothing wrong with it other than a likely mirror cleaning.
Joshua Lowe wrote:
Wow, if I had seen those without knowing they were film I would have absolutely thought digital. That's _so_ much detail! Really awesome stuff.
When it's done right(which I don't always manage), a 4X5 negative can still show more resolution than digital. I got lucky here. Thanks for the compliment.
A little off topic... my dads B&W Studio Portraits on 4x5
1940's, He also developed and printed his B&W.
Scanned with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan, then Lr and PS.
arbib wrote:
A little off topic... my dads B&W Studio Portraits on 4x5
1940's, He also developed and printed his B&W.
Scanned with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan, then Lr and PS.
Not at all off topic. They started with either film or photographic paper. These are wonderful images and a testament to film and film photographers, no matter when. Good job on the scans, BTW.
arbib wrote:
A little off topic... my dads B&W Studio Portraits on 4x5
1940's, He also developed and printed his B&W.
Scanned with an Epson V700 and Epson Scan, then Lr and PS.
Yeah that's perfectly relevant content to post in this thread! I love the old lighting styles from the early days. I think it's because everything has such an intentional feel to it.
