First 67 scans

brkl · 11-16-2009, 05:18 AM

Terrific shots! Do you have an uncropped version of the last one?

knumbnutz · 11-19-2009, 08:46 PM

Full scan, 600pix across.
Cheers Neil

artobest · 11-23-2009, 04:11 AM

Brilliant, intuitive cropping on that pic.

I have the Epson V750 as well as a dedicated film scanner (Konica-Minolta). I find the Epson gives equivalent results to the K-M as long as I apply a huge whack of capture sharpening. Images are rather soft otherwise. Shadow detail is very good too, although not quite on a par with the K-M. To any one considering it or the V700, I'd say go for it, it's a good buy. (One caveat - I found a few specks of dust underneath the platen that needed removing by the Epson technical people. Check yours carefully and send it back within 28 days to circumvent Epson's horrible "refurbished replacement" scheme.)

P67 · 11-23-2009, 03:21 PM

Great captures - well done. Which of the Neopan films did you use? I've converted over to Fuji as well and more specifically Acros 100. I find this film stunning. For colour negative I'm using Kodak Ektar 100.

In both films, however, I've found that depending upon lighting conditions the best contrast and balance comes by shooting at ISO 64 - develop normally at 100. In darker lighting conditions I will change to ISO 80 or 100 (love the 67ii for simplifying this feature), but overall 64 for me. Adjust to taste and do it on the fly in the same roll of film.

As far as scanners go - that V700 is a great unit. I have the Microtek I800 which works very well except on E6 transparencies. Banding and CA in spots for some reason especially astro photography. Using the stock software with other films gave good results. Using Silverfast - WOW. Amazing control and adjustment parameters over stock software. It's really the software the makes the difference.

Keep shooting and posting - and I will be looking in on your gallery.

knumbnutz · 11-23-2009, 07:02 PM

Hi P67,

Yes Across100, i must say though , i think ilford is perhaps a little better but i have not taken enough of either to really form an opinion, this is just "at a glance"

Thanks for the comments,
Cheers Neil

tuco · 11-23-2009, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by knumbnutz

Hi P67,
Yes Across100, i must say though , i think ilford is perhaps a little better...
Cheers Neil

Acros does not have reciprocity failure until after 120 seconds and after that it only needs 1/2-stop of exposure compensation out to 1000 seconds. This is unmatched by any other film I know of (haven't seen data sheets on all films though). And while some films seem to respond better to certain developers than others, 100ACR seems to get along with about every one.

On one hand the reciprocity characteristics are great. No more bother with reciprocity charts, consistent and predicable long exposure results and no adjusting development times in the case of such films as 320TXP, 400TX and 125PX. And on the other hand, it can be problematic if you're after really long exposures because of possible stack of ND needed.

That being said you can find excellent work done on every film. So saying one is better than the other is a moot argument, IMHO.

P67 · 11-23-2009, 09:49 PM

I love night photography, and this is one of the main reasons for me choosing Acros. My astro buddy - Nightfly - and I are presently experimenting with long exposure astro photos. Some good stuff with moon beams and star trails.

I agree, with results speaking for many films. If a make of film fits your eye and gives you that special result - that's what it's all about as far as I'm concerned. Acros and Delta 100 are my personal favourites with HP5 when I need more speed. I also like supporting Ilford - for their products and commitment to B&W films.

brkl · 11-25-2009, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by P67

In both films, however, I've found that depending upon lighting conditions the best contrast and balance comes by shooting at ISO 64 - develop normally at 100. In darker lighting conditions I will change to ISO 80 or 100 (love the 67ii for simplifying this feature), but overall 64 for me. Adjust to taste and do it on the fly in the same roll of film.

Wait, please, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you generally give the film more light than the guide number, but not quite as much more than advised if it's dark? Why?

tuco · 11-26-2009, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by brkl

Wait, please, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you generally give the film more light than the guide number, but not quite as much more than advised if it's dark? Why?

One thing absent in discussion of someone's exposure index for a film here is the developer they use. Without mention of it, their EI is useless. Some developers slow a film down. And then there is a person's development methods and light meter that influence what EI they use. So take a person's EI with a grain of salt.

For example, my Pentax Spotmeter V and Minolta Spotmeter F differ by 2EV reading the same thing under the same light. Now how could my established EI for a film be of any use to you with a light meters differing by that much?

11-19-2009, 08:46 PM	#17
knumbnutz Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 394 Original Poster	full size Full scan, 600pix across. Cheers Neil Attached Images

11-23-2009, 09:03 PM	#21
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,019	Originally posted by knumbnutz Hi P67, Yes Across100, i must say though , i think ilford is perhaps a little better... Cheers Neil Acros does not have reciprocity failure until after 120 seconds and after that it only needs 1/2-stop of exposure compensation out to 1000 seconds. This is unmatched by any other film I know of (haven't seen data sheets on all films though). And while some films seem to respond better to certain developers than others, 100ACR seems to get along with about every one. On one hand the reciprocity characteristics are great. No more bother with reciprocity charts, consistent and predicable long exposure results and no adjusting development times in the case of such films as 320TXP, 400TX and 125PX. And on the other hand, it can be problematic if you're after really long exposures because of possible stack of ND needed. That being said you can find excellent work done on every film. So saying one is better than the other is a moot argument, IMHO. Last edited by tuco; 11-24-2009 at 05:52 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
poor prints from scans	Sluggo	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	03-29-2010 08:43 AM
Black & White More Tri-X scans	ve2vfd	Post Your Photos!	0	12-23-2009 09:15 PM
My first scans!	BernardMarx	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	5	06-23-2009 05:26 PM
Some more of Siberia (scans)	Rense	Post Your Photos!	7	02-23-2009 02:54 PM
Autumn scans	JMR	Post Your Photos!	9	02-17-2009 04:48 PM

11-16-2009, 05:18 AM	#16
brkl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 497	Terrific shots! Do you have an uncropped version of the last one?

11-23-2009, 04:11 AM	#18
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	Brilliant, intuitive cropping on that pic. I have the Epson V750 as well as a dedicated film scanner (Konica-Minolta). I find the Epson gives equivalent results to the K-M as long as I apply a huge whack of capture sharpening. Images are rather soft otherwise. Shadow detail is very good too, although not quite on a par with the K-M. To any one considering it or the V700, I'd say go for it, it's a good buy. (One caveat - I found a few specks of dust underneath the platen that needed removing by the Epson technical people. Check yours carefully and send it back within 28 days to circumvent Epson's horrible "refurbished replacement" scheme.)

11-23-2009, 03:21 PM	#19
P67 Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: S. Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 30	Great captures - well done. Which of the Neopan films did you use? I've converted over to Fuji as well and more specifically Acros 100. I find this film stunning. For colour negative I'm using Kodak Ektar 100. In both films, however, I've found that depending upon lighting conditions the best contrast and balance comes by shooting at ISO 64 - develop normally at 100. In darker lighting conditions I will change to ISO 80 or 100 (love the 67ii for simplifying this feature), but overall 64 for me. Adjust to taste and do it on the fly in the same roll of film. As far as scanners go - that V700 is a great unit. I have the Microtek I800 which works very well except on E6 transparencies. Banding and CA in spots for some reason especially astro photography. Using the stock software with other films gave good results. Using Silverfast - WOW. Amazing control and adjustment parameters over stock software. It's really the software the makes the difference. Keep shooting and posting - and I will be looking in on your gallery.

11-23-2009, 07:02 PM	#20
knumbnutz Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 394 Original Poster	Hi P67, Yes Across100, i must say though , i think ilford is perhaps a little better but i have not taken enough of either to really form an opinion, this is just "at a glance" Thanks for the comments, Cheers Neil

11-23-2009, 09:49 PM	#22
P67 Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: S. Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 30	I love night photography, and this is one of the main reasons for me choosing Acros. My astro buddy - Nightfly - and I are presently experimenting with long exposure astro photos. Some good stuff with moon beams and star trails. I agree, with results speaking for many films. If a make of film fits your eye and gives you that special result - that's what it's all about as far as I'm concerned. Acros and Delta 100 are my personal favourites with HP5 when I need more speed. I also like supporting Ilford - for their products and commitment to B&W films.

11-25-2009, 08:48 PM	#23
brkl Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 497	Originally posted by P67 In both films, however, I've found that depending upon lighting conditions the best contrast and balance comes by shooting at ISO 64 - develop normally at 100. In darker lighting conditions I will change to ISO 80 or 100 (love the 67ii for simplifying this feature), but overall 64 for me. Adjust to taste and do it on the fly in the same roll of film. Wait, please, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you generally give the film more light than the guide number, but not quite as much more than advised if it's dark? Why?

11-26-2009, 11:12 AM	#24
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,019	Originally posted by brkl Wait, please, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you generally give the film more light than the guide number, but not quite as much more than advised if it's dark? Why? One thing absent in discussion of someone's exposure index for a film here is the developer they use. Without mention of it, their EI is useless. Some developers slow a film down. And then there is a person's development methods and light meter that influence what EI they use. So take a person's EI with a grain of salt. For example, my Pentax Spotmeter V and Minolta Spotmeter F differ by 2EV reading the same thing under the same light. Now how could my established EI for a film be of any use to you with a light meters differing by that much?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search