|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-22-2016, 10:50 AM
|
| |
Yes, let's be clear, that is a very poor scan from a very average scanner and in no way a valid basis for any meaningful comparison.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-06-2016, 09:56 AM
|
| |
This may seem a bit obvious, but have you set the diopter adjustment on the VF to match your eyesight?
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
10-22-2014, 12:13 PM
|
| |
Only initially; if I read your original post correctly, you tinker with the black point later. Histograms in scanner software are quite imprecise - I think it's safest to back off your black point and set it properly later, when you have better tools to evaluate it.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
10-20-2014, 04:13 AM
|
| |
While it's always interesting to see other people's working methods, your workflow concerns me for several reasons. First, and this may simply be a matter of preference, you are scanning as colour negative. This will cause your scanner driver to bake in a tonal response curve that, in my experience, is rarely desirable. Scanning as positive and inverting in Photoshop gives a more linear tonal response and, in my opinion, greater latitude for editing. You will need to set black and white points individually for each colour channel, which effectively eliminates the orange mask and provides a good basis for further tweaking in Photoshop or Lightroom, with their more advanced controls.
Secondly, you are scanning in 8-bits. This is a bad idea on several counts, not least because it reduces your leeway for post facto editing - you risk banding if you subsequently make colour or tonal adjustments in the finished scan. Solution: scan in 16-bits (ie 48-bit colour) and resave as 8-bit later if you really need to save space.
Thirdly, you are clipping the blacks in your scan. The black point should never intrude on the histogram as you show, since all the picture information to the left of it will be irretrievably cut from the scan. If you want deep, dark blacks, you can do that later with a non-destructive adjustment layer or Lightroom edit.
Lastly, saving as jpeg instead of tiff means you'd better be damn sure that your scan is perfect when it comes off the scanner, because any future saves will inevitably degrade the file.
Of course, there is another conversation to be had here about whether it is best to do as much as possible pre-scan, but I believe that scanning as 16-bit positive gives you the best of both worlds.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
03-31-2014, 06:36 AM
|
| |
For large areas of smooth tone (skies etc) I often select the area and apply Photoshop's Dust and Scratch removal, carefully checking the preview until I have just the right settings. (I used to use the free Polaroid Dust and Scratch tool, but PS's has improved a lot - in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same underlying technology.) In any case, never use this tool on areas with high-contrast edges, as it will degrade them. For those parts, I use the spot healing or clone tools, as suggested above.
By the way, it looks like some of the dust in the first two images might be on the scanner rather than the film - there are some identical pieces there.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
11-15-2013, 05:50 AM
|
| |
Yes, I can recommend the Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV (not so much the earlier versions), but you will need to do lots of colour adjustments to your final scans, as well as some careful noise reduction (mainly chroma, or colour noise) and, of course, dust spotting since these scanners have no automatic dust removal worth mentioning. Also, you will need to find drivers online that work with modern computers, although the scanner's native software is very good when you get it up and running.
The noise reduction software, if you don't already have it, is another expense to allow for when planning your purchase. (Of course, you will need a photo editor in any case - I recommend Lightroom for its full suite of scan-friendly editing tools.)
The Epson isn't a bad option, as long as you purchase a custom film holder from betterscanning.com. Although not cheap, these film holders are infinitely adjustable (through trial and error) to the scanner's true focus height, which is variable from one to the next thanks to loose manufacturing tolerances. If you do invest in a custom holder, you will generally see a big increase in image sharpness and resolution. I have an Epson V750 that I use for larger negatives, and I do like the way it 'draws' the image, in conjunction with the betterscanning holder.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
11-11-2013, 04:25 PM
|
| |
If all you are going to scan is 35mm film, then get a dedicated film scanner by Plustek or Reflecta/Pacific Image. The results will be much better. Plustek do a pretty decent scanner that has no infrared dust reduction, specifically for black and white (and people who prefer to spot their own films), thus saving you money.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
10-14-2013, 05:00 AM
|
| |
Hi Chris
That KM Dual IV can make pretty good scans, but you need to nurse it. As a dedicated film scanner, it has manually adjustable exposure for each channel - I strongly recommend you set that for each scan, particularly when scanning colour negatives. I usually tweak the channels until the histogram hump is more or less the same for each (may need some overall exposure adjustment to compensate), then set manual white and black points per channel (leaving plenty of headroom for inaccurate histograms). You will get quite noisy scans, but the noise is mainly chroma and is easily fixed with NR software with little or no image degradation.
Of course, for black and white you need only use one channel in the resultant image - play with the channel mixer in PS to find which gives the cleanest and/or sharpest output. By the way, if using Windows Vista/7/8 you will need the tweaked drivers, available here: Blog Frisno: Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV Works In Vista and 7 |
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
05-11-2013, 01:34 AM
|
| |
Reid probably has his reasons for only using the one lens - he certainly owns and uses quite a few Pentax lenses. Yes, there are plenty of free review sites on the web, but unlike most, Reid Reviews has a relaxed, knowledgeable, civilised tone and is very photographer-led (as opposed to pixel-led). He's taken very seriously by the camera manufacturers themselves, including Ricoh, who consult him on product development. So if you're not reading him (and I accept, it is a financial commitment), you're really missing something.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-30-2013, 08:35 AM
|
| |
You've not commited a cardinal sin - these are still nice pics! Just getting oversensitive to oversharpened images on the web, I guess.
|
|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-29-2013, 03:32 AM
|
| |
Nice pics and, generally, good scans but oversharpened. It's easiest to see in the unnatural, crunchy textures of foliage and grass. Tonality's lovely, so a bit less heavy on the unsharp mask and you'll be there.
EDIT: Actually, the effect is much less marked in the Flickr versions. Wonder if it's the forum software working away behind the scenes?
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
04-23-2013, 10:00 AM
|
| |
The Plustek Opticfilm 8100 is a dedicated 35mm film scanner with no ICE, so cheaper, while providing the same decent results for b&w.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
02-18-2013, 03:01 AM
|
| |
William, I don't know what the processing options are where you live, but you could try sending your films to somewhere like The Darkroom in Cheltenham. Postage (one way) is free and you'll generally get a better service there.
And I do recommend getting your camera CLAed at Harrow Technical. They do a very good job.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
01-22-2013, 09:03 AM
|
| |
If in future you take as much care avoiding mistakes as you do in describing them, you should be OK. But I'm definitely with John, start by shooting at box speed. After that you should know what works and be able to adjust development more precisely. As it is you've gone about things the wrong way round, IMO. Walk before you run, etc.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
12-24-2012, 04:57 AM
|
| |
Squeegeeing is risky. I never squeegee with fingers or anything else - a bit of wetting agent in the final mix and the water slides off leaving no mark.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
11-30-2012, 03:46 AM
|
| |
@Fotoreporter, looking at your Epson scans, it seems to me your film holder may not be set to the correct height. Have you adjusted the feet on the bottom and tried rescanning? If that doesn't work, I can recommend the betterscanning.com holders. Those scans of yours are simply poor - the Epson may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than that.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
10-02-2012, 05:16 AM
|
| |
No, you definitely wouldn't want to use it for colour!
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-02-2012, 05:15 AM
|
| |
There is colour moire in some of the rooftops in image 6 - eg, the roofs below the carpark on the laft - but nothing too distressing. Just a slight digital sheen, I guess you'd call it.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
10-01-2012, 04:58 AM
|
| |
You could try an old Agfa Rondinax 60 - with one of these you can develop your 120 film in broad daylight. They're commonly available on eBay.
As for your question 4, there's a lot on this forum about this subject, but it mostly boils down to the Epson V700/750 being good bang for the buck for 120 film (not so much with 35mm, where the flaws in the scanner start to intrude a little). The V600 may also be a good bet, at a lower price.
Or you can wait for the long-announced but still-unavailable Plustek 120, which looks promising, albeit expensive.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
09-19-2012, 03:05 AM
|
| |
As I understand it, the software package on the V750 is better than the V700. I am a confirmed Silverfast user (much as I hate the company and its gouging policies) so that matters to me. As for the rest, I calibrated the scanner with the Monaco package (and accompanying IT8 targets) and get great colour from this machine. Not sure whether the extra coatings on the V750 optics (cf the V700) make any real difference, but it can't hurt to have 'em.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-10-2012, 04:07 AM
|
| |
If you make a nice print, you should definitely scan it and show it here. A good print is very different from the negative.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-31-2012, 01:19 PM
|
| |
I have a Yashica 124G. I scan frames with an Epson V750. 50cm prints are no problem for me with these scans! The detail is incredible.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-28-2012, 02:57 AM
|
| |
You would still have the orange mask to deal with, unless you shot with an 'unmasked' film like Rollei Digibase.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-05-2012, 01:58 AM
|
| |
What it's up against is the unimpressive Reflecta/Prime Film MF scanner at US$1500 or so. So $1299 is pie in the sky.
|
