Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-12-2010, 05:50 PM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
Thanks, yurihuta. Sorry, it's one-of-a-kind. If you want to see color pictures and a description, follow this link.

It even has a wireless access point built in it so I can run it from there or do some film profile configuring via a laptop instead hooking up a serial console or connecting it to an existing network and logging into it, lol.


Last edited by tuco; 02-12-2010 at 05:59 PM.
02-12-2010, 06:05 PM   #17
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Hence, "... shoot, don't talk ..."
Those are all amazing scans. They are all superb, though 4x5 will always win out.

Which carrier are you using for 120 on the Coolscan 9000? Your scans are sharp from corner to corner, so I am assuming you are using glass. I found the difference in corner sharpness to be huge between scans with and without the glass, as shown from these two 100% crops of 120 film from the corners. (I did not match color in the two scans, so ignore that difference)

First is with the glassless carrier and second is with the glass carrier:
Attached Images
   
02-12-2010, 06:12 PM   #18
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
Yes, I use the glass carrier. But I must say, what a PITA. I can't use ICE with BW film and it is impossible to get all the tiny dust off it picks up that you don't even see. So I spend a bit of time with the healing tool cleaning up the scan than I ever did with the Epson 4990.
-
02-12-2010, 06:14 PM   #19
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Yes, I use the glass carrier. But I must say, what a PITA. I can't use ICE with BW film and it is impossible to get all the tiny dust off it picks up that you don't even see. So I spend a bit of time with the healing tool cleaning up the scan than I ever did with the Epson 4990.
-
It is a huge PITA, even for color. For color, ICE often produces Newton rings, which then requires masking. Or, you can leave off the ICE and deal with the dirt.

02-14-2010, 10:58 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fowlmere, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 704
QuoteOriginally posted by Ivan J. Eberle Quote
So if you want to replace 35mm with 645 for other compelling reasons (ergonomics, bigger viewfinder, b&w negs that are bigger), go for it. However if you're going for the greater detail, and scrape everything that's there off the film, you may be disappointed to find you need to get into much higher-end scanning than what is commonly available to noticeably out-resolve what can relatively easily (and inexpensively) be achieved from 35mm.
I have just purchased a 645 with lenses (on their way to me) on the following reasoning:

If I really want a large print which requires every bit of detail, the MF will allow me to do that via drum scanning. True, that is expensive (I won't do it myself), but I do not expect this to happen with every shot I take. Yet the possibility will be there when using 6x4.5.

For all other purposes, even scans that are not absolutely maximum will probably do. I don't think I'll need the CoolScan 9000 for more common prints or digital pictures. Hence I am thinking of the Epson v750 Pro, less than half the price of the Nikon.

I used to take slides in the past on my 35mm camera, but I read above that negative film yields better results. On the other hand, I seem to remember that for drum scanning transparency film is better. I still have to read more about this, but does anyone have any experiences in this regard?

S
02-15-2010, 09:23 AM   #21
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Smolk Quote
I have just purchased a 645 with lenses (on their way to me) on the following reasoning:

If I really want a large print which requires every bit of detail, the MF will allow me to do that via drum scanning. True, that is expensive (I won't do it myself), but I do not expect this to happen with every shot I take. Yet the possibility will be there when using 6x4.5.

For all other purposes, even scans that are not absolutely maximum will probably do. I don't think I'll need the CoolScan 9000 for more common prints or digital pictures. Hence I am thinking of the Epson v750 Pro, less than half the price of the Nikon.

I used to take slides in the past on my 35mm camera, but I read above that negative film yields better results. On the other hand, I seem to remember that for drum scanning transparency film is better. I still have to read more about this, but does anyone have any experiences in this regard?

S
I think it may be the other way around--that transparencies tend to do best with the capabilities of a drum scanner because of their high resolution and densities.

In any case, your approach makes sense in general. I like the Coolscan for archiving my film, but if I were doing work requiring large, exhibition-quality prints, I suspect both the Coolscan and the Epson might not cut it. I would need to send the work to a lab anyway for the printing something poster-sized. If you are paying $150+ for a huge exhibition print, you might as well pay another $80 for a drum scan and all the techical expertise that goes with it.
02-15-2010, 12:51 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
One thing you can do to improve the range of your scan is having scanning software that is capable of multiple scans or samples. It brings in more range of the negative than a single pass.
02-15-2010, 02:42 PM   #23
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I think it may be the other way around--that transparencies tend to do best with the capabilities of a drum scanner because of their high resolution and densities.

In any case, your approach makes sense in general. I like the Coolscan for archiving my film, but if I were doing work requiring large, exhibition-quality prints, I suspect both the Coolscan and the Epson might not cut it. I would need to send the work to a lab anyway for the printing something poster-sized. If you are paying $150+ for a huge exhibition print, you might as well pay another $80 for a drum scan and all the techical expertise that goes with it.

My wife made 60 by 85 inch prints from fluid scans from 6 by 8 cm negatives. However her subject matter was not one of sharp details. She scanned on a 9000 where she had the prints made but used our fluid kit from our 8000 at home. I suspect that fluid scanning your negs would be more than acceptable unless you were printing huge or the subject matter required the finest detail, for that I do not know yet. Some people think the glass holders are better others the fluid scanning.

02-15-2010, 02:52 PM   #24
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
QuoteOriginally posted by Smolk Quote
I have just purchased a 645 with lenses (on their way to me) on the following reasoning:

If I really want a large print which requires every bit of detail, the MF will allow me to do that via drum scanning. True, that is expensive (I won't do it myself), but I do not expect this to happen with every shot I take. Yet the possibility will be there when using 6x4.5.

For all other purposes, even scans that are not absolutely maximum will probably do. I don't think I'll need the CoolScan 9000 for more common prints or digital pictures. Hence I am thinking of the Epson v750 Pro, less than half the price of the Nikon.

I used to take slides in the past on my 35mm camera, but I read above that negative film yields better results. On the other hand, I seem to remember that for drum scanning transparency film is better. I still have to read more about this, but does anyone have any experiences in this regard?S

I got my Coolscan 8000 for less than the cost of a V750 so if you are not in a hurry it might pay to wait and try to find one at a good price. But if you do go the V750 route you could always go with larger negatives (8X10 for example)
02-15-2010, 06:15 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,143
QuoteOriginally posted by jmooney Quote
I guess my only concern would be the ability of the AF to follow moving kids and dogs as that's some of what I shoot. Any thoughts on this?,

Jim
No problem. Andy Rouse used the Pentax 645NII and relies on Pentax excellent(!) AF performance. In his book "Life in the wild" he show dancing Sifakas (Lemurs) shot with the Pentax 645. He claims that Pentax AF gives just as many keepers as his Canon EOS-1v with USM lenses.
So much for Pentax lousy AF performance...and remember that the cameras AF system dates from the early 90's.
02-15-2010, 08:25 PM   #26
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
My wife made 60 by 85 inch prints from fluid scans from 6 by 8 cm negatives. However her subject matter was not one of sharp details. She scanned on a 9000 where she had the prints made but used our fluid kit from our 8000 at home. I suspect that fluid scanning your negs would be more than acceptable unless you were printing huge or the subject matter required the finest detail, for that I do not know yet. Some people think the glass holders are better others the fluid scanning.
Fluid is supposedly the way to go and would improve on the glass, alone. The corners I posted above are from what would be a 22x30" print, and I think the glass scans would stand up to that.
02-20-2010, 06:34 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fowlmere, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 704
Recent eBay offerings of the Coolscan 8000 seem to attract relatively high prices, though.
In any case, I just blew my budget on a fourth lens (the 645 35mm A), a finder converter and LowePro FastPack 350, in addition to the 55, 75 and 150mm A-lenses, so I guess scanning will have to wait...
02-20-2010, 06:37 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fowlmere, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 704
Thanks for this. I'll be testing films for some time, I guess, but that's fun.
I wonder whether there would be a photoclub nearby which has certain shared facilities (such as a Coolscan...). I do wonder, however, whether scanners will improve over the coming years now that the demand may dwindle. My suspicion is not. Which may also imply that costs will not come down.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645n, camera, medium format, pentax 645n
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 35mm lens cap replacement samski_1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 10-21-2016 07:24 PM
Pentax 645N Ole Pentax Medium Format 2 04-05-2011 04:17 PM
Pentax 645N vs. 67 netrex Pentax Medium Format 41 04-01-2011 02:06 PM
M42 Super Takumar 35mm 3.5 lens hood replacement. Image Eye Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 06-24-2010 07:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:12 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top