Posts RSS Comments RSS 60 Posts and 19 Comments till now

Archive for the 'Gear' Category

eBay Mystery

I have sold all my Canon lenses but the 100 macro. I sold them on eBay. I had setup a spreadsheet with my expected prices, based on an average of recently completed transaction on the same items.

Having bought the most expensive ones new, I expected a moderate loss. I made a profit!

Here is a table of what happened:

 

Expected/Final prices comparison
Item eBay Average Winning Bid

Final/Expected as %

Canon EF 28/2.8 120€ 125€ 103%
Canon EF 50/1.8 72€ 78€ 108%
Canon EF 1.4x Converter 187€ 245€ 131%
Canon 45/2.8 TS-E 680€ 785€ 115%
Canon 24/3.5 L TS-E 723€ 976€ 135%
Sigma 12-24 333€ 418€ 126%

 

The big ones sold for more than I paid for them new! I mean, if I just bought again the same stuff new, I’d still be left with some change (after the currency exchange loss, eBay and PayPal fees and shipping).

Must be an effect of the current Dollar/Euro exchange rate.

This is great, anyway. It leaves me with the freedom to do much better than I expected. so I went through some painful weeks of thinking about what would be best. I am about to decide :-)

Epson V750: Good enough for 35mm?

The Epson line of flatbeds has been much maligned over the years for having inadequate resolution for film scanning.

It has been gradually accepted they got good enough for medium format but it is still common to read that for 35mm film, one really needs a dedicated film scanner.

I am in the process of going through old negatives for an old series I never really finished. I also put a roll of film in my M6 just for the fun of it. So I am again interested in small format scanning. And what I have is an Epson V750 from my medium format times.

It turns out that scanner is plenty enough for small format scans, provided:

- the intended output size is no more than 16×24″ (roughly 40×65 cm)

- the film is either very flat or held very flat

- the film holder height has been carefully tuned

My old negs have been in files for yers and are naturally very flat. I have tuned my film holder height and I don’t think 35mm is really appropriate for larger ouput than 16×24″. In my opinion, that’s considerably large anyway.

To illustrate my point, I chose what I call a good negative. It was made on tripod with my Leica M6 and Elmarit 90mm on Fuji Acros 100 exposed at IE64 and developed in Ilfotec HC (same as HC-110). The Elmarit 90 is an extremely good lens and any softness we might notice certainly will not come from there.

The software I use is VueScan and I scan the negative in “Image” mode, meaning VueScan jsut tries to show the scanned object. I scan at 3200dpi. I VueScan Color tab, I choose None for the color balance, meaning VueScan does not apply any clipping and anly minimal curve treatment to the file. The result is a low contrast file that I open in PhotoShop CS. I get this as a starting point:

Initial file from scan

I do some cropping to keep just a fine black border, invert the file to get a positive and apply this Levels adjustment:

Levels adjustment

I also apply this curve :

Curve adjustment

And I get a good starting point:

Adjusted tonality

Tonalities with B&W negatives are not a problem for the scanner. Negative films have a DMax around 3 at the maximum, and for B&W that will only happen in case of severe over-development. Any film scanner on the market can easily scan through this, provided the light source is diffused. Otherwise, the Calier effect can produce blocked highlights. So it is not surprising I can get good tonality from this scanner. Well, it might not be good, but it is certainly not the scanner’s fault.

What is criticized is resolution. Let’s see what we have here. I took two details: one from the forground herbs and one from the background hotel wall:

Detail 1:
Detail 1 before sharpening

Detail2:
Detail 2 before sharpening

OK, this looks soft. However, if your screen has 100dpi resolution, like most LCD, you’re looking at a 32x enlarging factor! Let’s apply some sharpening. I applied PhotoShop simple Unsharp Mask Sharpening filter with a radius of 0.7 pixel and an amount of 323%. These value are very much dependent on the picture. Some will take less, other even more. Sometimes two successive milder sharpening are better. Let’s see what our details have become:

Detail 1:
Detail 1 after sharpening

Detail 2:
Detail 2 after sharpening

Now, remember, we are looking at a 32x enlargement. At 16x, we’d have a 16×24″ print with all the sharpness such a print needs and, in my opinion, very close to the maximum practical usage of a small format negative.

I have owned dedicated film scanners and they are indeed even sharper than this. however, with B&W silver negatives, it is a mixed blessing. The increased sharpness tends to produce exaggerated grain. With the negative I used in this example it woould probably not matter that much, but try it with some Tri-X and the dedicated scanner does not look so attractive anymore.

As Colin points out, the new Microtek M1/F1 could very well give us further progress by including autofocus. Autofocus is really what the Epson lacks. The holder height tuning thing is a bit ridiculous.

Another thing I’d like to try sometimes is to develop for much higher contrast. A film like TMax 100 could very well be suited for that experiment. The idea is that the heavy levels adjustment to get the contrast back should also amplify grain. If the neg was of higher contrast, this effect could be reduced and maybe I could get scans with even less grain.

But to answer the question in the title, definitely yes!

Seagull Angle Finder

An angle finder for less than 45€, with 1x and 2x magnifications, just like the Canon one. Sounds almost too good to be true. So I tried. At standard magnification, the image is OK in the center but edges and corners are blurred. Eye positioning needs to be precise, not always easy to achieve. Usable and useful overall, because it allows for positions I used to use often with the Rollei and Arca-Swiss but are awkward with an eye-level finder.

At high (2x) magnification, the image is very distorted and most of it is blurred. Much less useful.

All in all, it is better than nothing. It does allow to frame and centre focus. It will be fine until I decide to go and buy the real thing. Worth the money, but not more.

Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro

Very good. A delight at f/2.8, great bokeh, reasonably well build. This was done last Sunday, first photo with that lens, I am rather happy.

I have no real plan to do any macro photography, but having great quality whatever the distance and aperture is very comfortable indeed.

Filters!

2.jpg

OK, the 100mm Macro and the Sigma 12-24 arrived. Looks good, but had not yet any opportunity to go and use them. The Sigma certainly is better finished then I remembered/expected. A nice surprise.

While I was thinking about equipment, I started to remember about those graduated neutral filter. I had forgotten about them because with the B&W negative films I have used for years, it is much better to control contrast by development. And scanners can see through any burned highlights anyway.

In digital I am again facing what slide shooters have always battled: washed out highlights. Or black shadows. Or both.

So I have taken a look at Lee and Hitech catalogues and price lists. Hmmm, not too expensive at first sight but when I add up everything that’s really need it amounts to a solid budget.

Will need to think more about it.

Next »

Close
E-mail It