[ambaker]

I calibrate my display, which solved a lot of issues with others viewing my images. The best advice I can give, is to also save files you share in sRGB format. Export for web in Photoshop makes it easy. Sending Adobe RGB files can make for odd results on others screens. The same is true for the garden variety online pint services. I sent Adobe RGB files to a drug store chain for printing and they all had a strong yellow cast. Resent them as sRGB files and they came out fine.

[Swift1]

I've read your article about your scanning process and I have a question. Shouldn't you move the black slider for R, B and G channels past the small peak at the far left side of every histogram? To my understanding, this small peak present in all three channels actually represents the black part of the frame which is not really part of the image. If I'm correct, then the real black point should start immediately after that small peak. Actually, in the blue channel for this image above, the black point is the furthest away from the far left peak in comparison the the R and G channels. Right?

The short answer is... yes and no.
I have found that it is easy to clip the shadows in Epson Scan if you start moving the the darkpoint sliders. I like to use the film base as a good start point for black balance, and then adjust from there in Ps. With Kodak Ektar, the Blue Channel almost always has a rather large separation from where the darkpoint is on the unexposed film and where the left side of the histogram starts. This is why Ektar can very easily have a blue cast in the shadows. This is probably part of how Ektar was designed. When scanning other films, I've noticed that (because of the orange mask?) you can often end up with the Blue Channel clipped in the shadows to begin with, and you can't do anything about it. If you look at the image of the Photoshop Levels in the article, you'll see that I moved the Blue darkpoint up a bit.
Depending on the image and exposure, you may not necessarily want the darkpoint sliders set right to the left edge of the histogram. That's personal preference though.

[skyer]

What scanner are you using?
I don't really agree with the general opinion that Epson Flatbeds are not good with 35mm. Like anything, they do have their limitations, and need to be used within those limitations.

I don't have a scanner at the moment. I tried to "scan" with my DSLR + Pentax slide copier (with bellows) but it never led to good results regarding colours.
At first, I used a Metz 58 AF-2 flashlight as a light source for "scanning", assuming that it would give me constant colour temperature. I p[laced my flashlight about 50 cm from the slide copier (which also has a matte screen) but illumination still was not even sometimes. Then I tried to use a slide projector as a light source for "scanning". At first glance it was much better but then, after viewing my files on a computer, it turned out that there was too much digital noise and a very hard blue cast (after inverting negatives). Now I'm thinking maybe I should place a blue correction gel on my slide projector...

I've read your new article on scanning, it's very interesting, thank you!

[gofour3]

A few from my last roll of CineStill Film 50. (Super Program & FA24/2)







Phil.

[dsmithhfx]

[Swift1]

This was more of a test shot than anything else.
I recently scored a FA 645 75/2.8 for a whopping $75. My mom has a 645N, so the lens went to her. Part of the reason it was cheap is because it has a nice deep scratch about 3/8" long in the front element. Other than that, it's perfect.
Anyway, we shot a test roll and as near I can tell the scratch has virtually no effect on IQ whatsoever.
This shot I composed blind, with the 645N sitting on a table. The 75/2.8 was at f/2.8, and I just auto-focused on whatever the camera was pointed at, and used the self timer.

Pentax 645N
SMC Pentax-FA 645 75/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

[Cuthbert]

Achtung bitte!



Canon T90, FDn 50mm f1.2, Agfa100.

[dsmithhfx]

This was more of a test shot than anythng else.

All the better for it. More please!

[Colorado CJ]

Here's some shots taken with an Olympus XA pocket camera I picked up for $14.00. This is a TINY camera, I think it is the smallest 35mm rangfinder ever made.

This was also my first go at home developing C41 film, and my first time using Ektar 100.

As you can see, this little camera doesn't have the best lens (a lot of vignetting and not very sharp). I'll probably keep it loaded with B&W film from now on and shoot the Ektar out of my Hi-Matic 7SII (another great little rangefinder)







And the Camera itself, next to the tiny Hi-Matic 7S II

[derelict]

TMax 400, ZX5, 135/ 2.8

[dsmithhfx]

[photocles]

Pentax z70, Sigma AF 35-70 Zoom Master @ 35mm, Ilford HP5+, digital transfer done by Ilford, UK

---------- Post added 12-16-15 at 12:23 PM ----------

Here's some shots taken with an Olympus XA pocket camera I picked up for $14.00. This is a TINY camera, I think it is the smallest 35mm rangfinder ever made.

This was also my first go at home developing C41 film, and my first time using Ektar 100.

As you can see, this little camera doesn't have the best lens (a lot of vignetting and not very sharp). I'll probably keep it loaded with B&W film from now on and shoot the Ektar out of my Hi-Matic 7SII (another great little rangefinder)

Your C41 developing looks like a success to me.

I have an Olympus Stylus Zoom from c1995 that does a fabulous job (finding batteries is a pain, though). I'm not surprised that the little XA has some lens issues as my old Stylus does, too.

---------- Post added 12-16-15 at 12:26 PM ----------

Ooops, didn't mean to double up in that last post!

[dsmithhfx]

While we're in the black and white section of the universe...

There's a separate black and white film thread, but all my 'black and white' shots are on superia 400 colour film so...

[skierd]

Here's some shots taken with an Olympus XA pocket camera I picked up for $14.00. This is a TINY camera, I think it is the smallest 35mm rangfinder ever made.

This was also my first go at home developing C41 film, and my first time using Ektar 100.

As you can see, this little camera doesn't have the best lens (a lot of vignetting and not very sharp). I'll probably keep it loaded with B&W film from now on and shoot the Ektar out of my Hi-Matic 7SII (another great little rangefinder)


And the Camera itself, next to the tiny Hi-Matic 7S II

I love my XA, it's my go-to travel camera. Took it on our honeymoon...










It does work well with B&W film

[cooltouch]

This was more of a test shot than anything else.
I recently scored a FA 645 75/2.8 for a whopping $75. My mom has a 645N, so the lens went to her. Part of the reason it was cheap is because it has a nice deep scratch about 3/8" long in the front element. Other than that, it's perfect.
Anyway, we shot a test roll and as near I can tell the scratch has virtually no effect on IQ whatsoever.

It shouldn't unless light rays directly impinge upon the scratch, which will cause softening of contrast. There's an old astronomer and telescope maker trick for dealing with scratches on an element: india ink applied to the scratch only. It might look unslightly, but it solves the problem of loss of contrast. However, if you use a hood, you probably won't even have to worry about that.

As for any concerns about image degradation, there shouldn't be any, but here's a real simple way to prove it to yourself. Take a piece of string, and hold it against the front element of the lens, then look through the viewfinder. You can't see the string, can you? With a 75mm, you shouldn't even be able to see it with the lens stopped down to f//22. So, if you can't see something as big as a piece of string, then rest assured, your photos won't pick up that scratch.

About 25 years ago, I bought a very well used Nikkor AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED. Got it for really cheap because it had a large gouge out of the front element. It wasn't a chip, it was a for-real gouge. And that was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. Took fantastic pictures. I sold it several years later during a time of too much gear and not enough money, but I still miss it.