[tuco]

Scanning really old stuff for a digital archive
The fashion and tech of the early 90's, lol.

Pentax 6x7, Kodak Vericolor VHC 6329.

[dsmithhfx]

Scanning really old stuff for a digital archive
The fashion and tech of the early 90's, lol.

Pentax 6x7, Kodak Vericolor VHC 6329.

Magnum P.I.?

[tuco]

Magnum P.I.?

Stunt double.

[w2ck]

Thanks, Mike. That lightning picture was pretty cool.

I dunno, as businesses open up from Covid-19 with precaution procedures you can see, something about cooking behind closed doors and handing you the food makes me think twice.

Kodak 400TMY

Hi,

Yes. Our local hospitals are reporting a significant increase in food poisoning cases. From both take-out and delivery and also home cooking from meat the grocery stores are sourcing from places they haven't traditionally used.

I had a bout of it last week from a steak the store had with a brand I had not seen before. I won't be buying that again.

Stan

[ivanvernon]

Impressive image with amazing quality. Your photos are always so amazing.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

I second the motion. I watch this thread constantly for Mike and several other great photographers.

[RICHARD L.]

I was a little wary when ordering this 645 FA 33-55 mm f/4.5 zoom. There is almost no information on its performance available anywhere. In the 3 reviews on this Forum, users say the corners and edges of the pictures are unacceptably soft due to field curvature aberration. Well my image was taken handheld at 1/250 sec, f/11 and 33 mm focal length. The sharpness seems to hold up to the extremities of the frame with this sample at the usual aperture I use. I will try to test it at all focal lengths and all apertures on a tripod to build my own opinion.

[tuco]

I gotta ask, Richard, do your colors look okay on your monitor? On mine they are super, super saturated. And they are that way on my tablet too, just an FYI.

[RICHARD L.]

I have a terrible secret : My eyesight is weird, I'm not exactly colorblind but my color vision is not "normal" (trichromat but with a defective gene). What my eyes perceive is very colorful and totally beautiful. I fail half the tests for colorblindness but I succeed at 50 % of them, which is quite uncommon according to my ophtalmologist. I tend to saturate my pictures a "little too much" maybe, I adjust them so that I find them beautiful. Camera setting is "Vibrant". I rarely use a CPL and then, only with wide-angles in the vertical format. If I took up painting, my "tableaux" would be similar to Van Gogh's, I guess ... lol !

Regards

[kaseki]

"Vibrant" here on my BenQ running Adobe RGB color balance, and pretty much also with sRGB. Sometimes this is appealing, but it does give the structures the feeling of being part of a plastic scenery set.

[paulster]

My first thought was Velvia. It took me right back to those days.

[manishved]

Love these, tuco!

---------- Post added 06-14-20 at 10:35 AM ----------

I got out for sunrise in the California Delta:

From Tyler Island
645Z & DFA55

Stunning!

---------- Post added 06-18-20 at 10:27 PM ----------

Here's a milky way shot with the DFA 55 on the 645Z. 17 stacked 8 sec images using Sequator.

Mt. Dana & Galactic Core

Wow! Amazing

[johnha]

I was a little wary when ordering this 645 FA 33-55 mm f/4.5 zoom. There is almost no information on its performance available anywhere. In the 3 reviews on this Forum, users say the corners and edges of the pictures are unacceptably soft due to spherical aberration. Well my image was taken handheld at 1/250 sec, f/11 and 33 mm focal length. The sharpness seems to hold up to the extremities of the frame with this sample at the usual aperture I use. I will try to test it at all focal lengths and all apertures on a tripod to build my own opinion.

My first thought was Velvia too.

I too was wary about buying the FA33-55 for my D due to the lack of reviews (I scoured the web with little luck). I summised that since most (all?) related to 645 film, the corners had to be better on 33x44. I mainly use mine for landscapes handheld and haven't noticed significant issues. I should also test and post a review.

In reality, the 28-45 is simply over my budget. I thought about a 35mm prime but the 33-55 gives me the option of a two lens outfit with the FA80-160.

[RICHARD L.]

I spent my whole "film life" on Kodachrome 25 in 35 mm and then Fujicolor Reala and Ektar 100 in medium-format. I tried a few rolls of 120 and 35 mm Velvia 50 and, it's true, it gave similar very saturated colors and high contrast. In landscape photography, I guess this is not too shocking for the viewer. In portrait photography, this wouldn't be acceptable though. Films like Kodak Portra and VPH were not well adapted to landscaping, being dull and lifeless. So, if you see someone's pictures being exageratedly colorful, they may have a color vision deficiency like me. Colors have to "scream" to impress me.

Regards

P.S. As to the FA 33-55 mm f/4.5, first pictures don't look too bad. I will find an interesting subject, make tests at all FL and apertures and will report in the "Lens Review" section ASAP. My 4 FA zooms (33 mm to 300mm) were bought "second-hand in like-new condition" on eBay and cost around 1250 $ in all. I was flabbergasted by the prices asked for a used DFA 28-45 mm and I was not ready to pay 2500 $ for this heavy and flare-prone monster.

[Ed Hurst]

For the record, I have not found the 28-45mm to be flare prone. I mean, any lens will flare if light badly strikes the front element, and wide angle lenses can't have the same amount of hood protection as longer lenses. But the coatings / optical design are good and the lens controls it as well as any I have experienced. Sensible avoidance of light striking the front element is always advisable...

I do miss Kodachrome by the way, but stopped using it when I went medium format in 1994. It was already discontinued in 120 format by then, having only been available for a short time.

Looking forward to your review of the 33-55.

[dsmithhfx]

"Vibrant" here on my BenQ running Adobe RGB color balance, and pretty much also with sRGB. Sometimes this is appealing, but it does give the structures the feeling of being part of a plastic scenery set.

Over-saturation is destructive of luminance detail.