[Eyewanders]

Meopta Flexaret Va.
Belar 80mm f3.5 + Meopta 1.0–0.5m closeup filter.
Fujichrome Velvia 50.
(Turned out a bit darker than I was hoping for, but I was trying not to completely blow the window.)

Love your Flexaret shots. Looks great to me. I just spent about 2 hours at least messing with an RVP50 shot. It's a bear to scan.

---------- Post added 07-03-16 at 08:42 PM ----------

This is the shot.... (I belly-ached a bit in the Flickr comments)



Pentax 67 | 6x7 45/4 Tiffen CP | Velvia 50 | V750 scan

---

Last edited by Eyewanders; 07-04-2016 at 03:21 AM.

[g026r]

Love your Flexaret shots. Looks great to me.

My biggest complaint these days is that the film advance seems a bit off on my V. I lost the first frame of the last few rolls I ran through.

I just spent about 2 hours at least messing with an RVP50 shot. It's a bear to scan.

On the list of things I need to do, getting my own scanner is one of them. I'm still relying on my local lab. (For slide, they're generally pretty good. But their B&W scans often need quite a bit of tweaking.)

[Eyewanders]

My biggest complaint these days is that the film advance seems a bit off on my V. I lost the first frame of the last few rolls I ran through.

That's always a drag when you only have 12 to start with (or the 13 I always seem to squeeze out of the Pentacon!). :-/

On the list of things I need to do, getting my own scanner is one of them. I'm still relying on my local lab. (For slide, they're generally pretty good. But their B&W scans often need quite a bit of tweaking.)

It's good and bad.... mixed bag. You don't pay for scanning and you control how they're scanned... but you also spend a lot of time scanning. ;-)

[arnold]

[IMG][/IMG]

What aperture did you have the 55/1.8 at?

Here is a regular scan for reference with a Canon 9000F

[cooltouch]

Very nice looking R100/7 Arnold. I own a '76 R90/6 and an '88 R100RS. I love 'em.

That's a decent looking scan too for a flatbed. I've always read that the best Canons do a very good job. I have an Epson 4990 that does a decent job, but these days I prefer to use my NEX 7 to dupe my slides and negs.

[dsmithhfx]

[arnold]

Very nice looking R100/7 Arnold. I own a '76 R90/6 and an '88 R100RS. I love 'em.

The RS is beautiful with its cowlings. I remember the R90S as well.

[cooltouch]

Yes, I've always liked the RS and RT fairings. Here's an old pic of mine:


And a pic of my R90:


And speaking of the R90s, here is a pic I took of a friend's. He'd just had it completely restored.


BTW, the cameras used: for the first two pics, it was a 3.2mp Fuji, and the last one was shot with a Minolta Hi-Matic 7 and Fuji Superia 400 film. Scanned on an Epson 4990 flatbed.

[gofour3]

I just spent about 2 hours at least messing with an RVP50 shot. It's a bear to scan.

On the list of things I need to do, getting my own scanner is one of them. I'm still relying on my local lab. (For slide, they're generally pretty good. But their B&W scans often need quite a bit of tweaking.)

I don't have much luck with home Fujichrome scans either, they just never seem to match the original slide. I hate scanning so if I put more effort into it I would most likely get better results, I just couldn't be bothered The s/w I use at home (Silverfast) has a Kodachrome profile, so those are the only scans that I can get good results with in a matter of a few minutes.

I still use my local processing Lab for all 120 scans and 135 negative scans. (home scanner only does 35mm) I don't get my 135 positives scanned, as I still project them or view the slides on a light table. I'll scan the ones at home that I post online, otherwise I don't bother.

Phil.

[Jonathan Mac]

I don't have much luck with home Fujichrome scans either, they just never seem to match the original slide. I hate scanning so if I put more effort into it I would most likely get better results, I just couldn't be bothered The s/w I use at home (Silverfast) has a Kodachrome profile, so those are the only scans that I can get good results with in a matter of a few minutes.

I still use my local processing Lab for all 120 scans and 135 negative scans. (home scanner only does 35mm) I don't get my 135 positives scanned, as I still project them or view the slides on a light table. I'll scan the ones at home that I post online, otherwise I don't bother.

Phil.

I've a roll of Velvia 50 I need to scan and it looks so horrible in the scanning preview that I just haven't bothered - no matter what I did it looked awful.

When I have time I'll try a DSLR scan of the positives and hopefully that will be better.

Last year I scanned a roll of Velvia 50 in 645 format and had no trouble at all. I remember wondering what all the fuss was about, but 135 format is always more difficult with regard to colour, though I don't understand why if it's the same emulsion.

[dsmithhfx]

[Cuthbert]

Test shots with the Volna 50mm f1.8, LX and Gold 200...I should have used a better film and a hood, but it's 46mm so I have nothing with me at the moment.









Scans are worse than usual...but IMO a good lens, very different from the usual Helios 44s.

[g026r]

I like that last one, with the car's hood up. Even with the damage to the scan/negative, it's got a suitably vintage feel to it.

[Cuthbert]

I like that last one, with the car's hood up. Even with the damage to the scan/negative, it's got a suitably vintage feel to it.

I think it's dirt from the scanner, the negative is small but it doesn't appear to be damaged.

I think the vintage feel comes from the fact it looks like a old E6 shot because I metered on the bright white hood, so everything else, including the sky was underexposed and the colours look more saturated, I assume this shot has a similar feel:



Praktica BC3, Pancolar 50mm f1.4, Gold 200.

[Swift1]

Contax G2
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 35/2
Fuji Superia 400
Epson V750-M Pro