-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Um, Large Format? Advice please.
- Thread starter Ben Rubinstein
- Start date
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
It isn't accurate enough, that's the problem, in theory it should work but the two versions don't line up due to more contrast on the darker version (it has more edge think of how USM works). There is a very noticeable 'line' where the two don't match up and if you blur it you end up back at the filling in halo stage which has plagued me since I started this stuff with digital.
Here is a screenshot of what the line looks like when trying to do this, you can see the layers and the history of what I've done. I've tried every single way I know to do this without it creating a 'join' line but the only thing that works is using gaussian blur and then you end up with the halo that necessitates hours of painting in pixels on the mask. Anyone who can help would be most appreciated. It is the same whether using two files, one light and one dark, or starting with one 'flat' file and making a dark and light layer. Always the join mark as the dark layer is 'bigger' on the join due to the added contrast firming up the edges which are 'fuzzy' and light on the lighter version.
http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fairywindow.jpg
Here is a screenshot of what the line looks like when trying to do this, you can see the layers and the history of what I've done. I've tried every single way I know to do this without it creating a 'join' line but the only thing that works is using gaussian blur and then you end up with the halo that necessitates hours of painting in pixels on the mask. Anyone who can help would be most appreciated. It is the same whether using two files, one light and one dark, or starting with one 'flat' file and making a dark and light layer. Always the join mark as the dark layer is 'bigger' on the join due to the added contrast firming up the edges which are 'fuzzy' and light on the lighter version.
http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fairywindow.jpg
Last edited:
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
what feather radius did you apply to your selection before working it?
0.4 is a good start...
Dean Jones
New member
Hi Dean!
You got a D4000? Me too. What software do you use? I´m using Polaris at the moment - i´ve got it cheap with the dongle - but i will try SilverFast for Howtek these days. It runs on OS X - i just have to buy a Scuzzy card for my G5 Mac.
How do you run your Howtek?
Hi Klaus.....I have the Howtek 4500 running on an old G3....but it's quite painful as the Mac only has a 4 gig HD!
I have a SCSI card in my other PC which has a big drive, but I was concerned about fiddling with the scanner and losing the lot..........At present it's quite clumsy....I scan to the G3, then network it to a G4 that has USB and a CD burner. I simply whack a Sandisk Cruzer into the Mac then ship it across to the PC.
I have a copy of Silverfast AI 5, but not sure whether that will run the Howtek.
Quite happy to leave the setup as is, but.........any suggestions?
Cheers, Dean.
Klaus Esser
pro member
Hello Dean!
Yes - it´s a bit clumsy, but it runs!
I put a two-channel scuzzy ultra card into the G3 and built a level 0 RAID of two 8GB IBM drives which i placed inside the G3 and have the OS and scanprogrammes on the standard IDE drive which i updated to 80 GBThat´s fast (there´s a G4-processor update in it) - and big enough to do even very large scans. After scanning i send the data per ethernet to my G5 and erase it on the G3.
Th advantage is - beside it´s running well already - i can use the high-end scanprogram Polaris and the G5 is free from scan-business.
SilverFast has a dedicated Howtek D4000 version and only this will run the Howtek! Which software are you using at the moment?
best, Klaus
Dean Jones
New member
The software came with the setup....I think it's PIMM? Works OK, but pretty old. Howtek has upgrade from 812 to 813 if that means anything!
Cheers.
Cheers.
Dean Jones
New member
Klaus, I was slightly incorrect......I scanned some 6x17 trannies last night 1800dpi 160MB file (TIFF).....software is Scanmaster PIM. Howteck is only 812 upgrade, not 813. Scanner works beautifully, but I suffered a few air bubbles in the oil.....a problem I don't get with 4x5's?
I have a loader, so pressure was evenly applied, I might try again tonight using a little more oil? Dry scan left Newton rings of course..
Cheers.
I have a loader, so pressure was evenly applied, I might try again tonight using a little more oil? Dry scan left Newton rings of course..
Cheers.
Klaus Esser
pro member
Hi Dean!
I use gel instead of oil - it´s thicker and more evenly spreaded. But it´s a mess to clean up . . ;-)
Will try oil these days - it´s faster.
Btw.: what is Scanmaster PIM? I never heard of.
best, Klaus
Carsten Wolff
New member
Hmm, I have to apologize for not reading thorough all posts, but just after "scanning" across them , it seems to me that
working with LF is starting to sound simple (and cheap). I use both digital and LF, but have stopped short of using 8x10".
5x7" has recently gained new popularity.
5x7s I and many others have taken hold up well to 40x50"+ printing, as that's only a very reasonable 8x enlargement.
However, a single 8x10" shot can get you sharp 60x80" prints with relative ease.
In any case, though, stitching is also of course not a matter of digital vs. LF:
If you're really keen on pictoral grandeur in the dimensional sense (say, you're from New York), you could naturally also stitch in LF and avoid a whole gamut of perspective change issues by using rear-shift, as the lens isn't moving at all ).
Imagine, (let's just call it "laying"), you're "laying" e.g. three 5x7s into a nice 5x21" image (you'd need a Fujinon-C 600mm, or something else with 22", or 550mm coverage and a camera that can handle that amount of shift, like my modified old Arca].... However, should you decide to process it digitally (e.g. @2500dpi scan from 105 square inches of film), combined, you'd end up with largish image files. An alternative would be just making individual prints in a tryptich of course, with a pretty "seamless" result due to the lack of perspective change problems. (One could also do e.g. 6, or 8, or whatever 4x5"s, but you'd need an adaptible 8x10 camera or such for that anyway.
....40x150" (or at least 60x200") if you used, say, eight 4x5"sheets of film) prints with razorsharp detail anyone?
, it seems to me thatworking with LF is starting to sound simple (and cheap). I use both digital and LF, but have stopped short of using 8x10".
5x7" has recently gained new popularity.
5x7s I and many others have taken hold up well to 40x50"+ printing, as that's only a very reasonable 8x enlargement.
However, a single 8x10" shot can get you sharp 60x80" prints with relative ease.
In any case, though, stitching is also of course not a matter of digital vs. LF:
If you're really keen on pictoral grandeur in the dimensional sense (say, you're from New York
), you could naturally also stitch in LF and avoid a whole gamut of perspective change issues by using rear-shift, as the lens isn't moving at all ). Imagine, (let's just call it "laying"
), you're "laying" e.g. three 5x7s into a nice 5x21" image (you'd need a Fujinon-C 600mm, or something else with 22", or 550mm coverage and a camera that can handle that amount of shift, like my modified old Arca].... However, should you decide to process it digitally (e.g. @2500dpi scan from 105 square inches of film), combined, you'd end up with largish image files. An alternative would be just making individual prints in a tryptich of course, with a pretty "seamless" result due to the lack of perspective change problems. (One could also do e.g. 6, or 8, or whatever 4x5"s, but you'd need an adaptible 8x10 camera or such for that anyway.....40x150" (or at least 60x200") if you used, say, eight 4x5"sheets of film) prints with razorsharp detail anyone?
Last edited:
Jack_Flesher
New member
I'm coming in late to this discussion, but will offer my experiences anyway in case they offer assistance...
I have been the whole gamut from high-resolution DSLRs to MF digital backs, to LF film, through LF scanning backs and finally back to LF film. FWIW I have settled on a pair of 5D's for my DSLRs and both 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras for when I need ultimate detail.
I won't bore you with all of my reasoning unless there is interest in hearing it, but here is a brief summary:
The 5D's offer great image quality at reasonable cost. A pair of them allows me to have two primes mounted and available at all times. The higher-cost and heavier-weight 1-series bodies are not as convenient in this regard, though I admit they do have certain other advantages. My primary lenses are the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for street and travel, and the 24, 45 and 90 TSE lenses for landscape. I have the 70-200/4 IS zoom for my long lens and even a 100-400 for the very rare occasion I want to shoot wildlife or distant sporting events. I had an ultra-wide zoom but rarely used for travel or landscape so no longer bother with one.
My big issue with MF DB's was the lack of tilt and shift lenses and the complexity of mounting and using same on a view camera. Camera movements get very sensitive with smaller formats and shorter lenses -- so sensitive they become almost impractical in use at 645 MF format sizes.
Hence my move to a LF scanning back. The image quality is stunningly superb -- as good as drum-scanned 8x10 -- but they simply are not very convenient for field use. If I shot mostly subjects that did not move and mostly in a studio, this would be my "Nirvana" imaging-quality solution.
Hence my move BACK to LF film. 4x5 is convenient in the field, especially with readyloads which eliminate the need to load and unload holders, take up very little room in the bag and are virtually free of dust. 4x5 makes 32x40 prints of exceptional detail. 8x10 is there for the ultimate in imaging quality; a drum-scanned 8x10 will easily print with exceptional detail to 60x80. With a wide 150mm lens on the 8x10 (equivalent to about a 20mm lens on 35mm), I have a very detailed 4x10 panoramic negative which will print out at 32x80 with amazing detail.
The biggest decision-factor for me in addition to having all of the movement flexibility and convenience was cost per frame. The per-shot cost of 8x10 film is about $15 with custom lab processing. In a normal year I might shoot 50 8x10 frames -- $750 per year. But I only drag the 8x10 out for specific projects where I need that amount of detail For most field uses I will shoot 4x5 at about $7 per shot cost with readyloads custom processed. Here I may hit 200 frames per year for another $1500. I may pay need a dozen drum scans in a year for the very best images, but I have a friend that will do that for me so I have no cost other than a few lunches. So at most, I will spend on the order of $2500 in a year on film and processing; a figure I submit is significantly less than the depreciation hit I would take on a 30+MP DB. As for the cost of hardware, most LF gear I have purchased second hand and can easily sell for what I paid for it, so IMO that is a neutral.
Hope this helped,
I have been the whole gamut from high-resolution DSLRs to MF digital backs, to LF film, through LF scanning backs and finally back to LF film. FWIW I have settled on a pair of 5D's for my DSLRs and both 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras for when I need ultimate detail.
I won't bore you with all of my reasoning unless there is interest in hearing it, but here is a brief summary:
The 5D's offer great image quality at reasonable cost. A pair of them allows me to have two primes mounted and available at all times. The higher-cost and heavier-weight 1-series bodies are not as convenient in this regard, though I admit they do have certain other advantages. My primary lenses are the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for street and travel, and the 24, 45 and 90 TSE lenses for landscape. I have the 70-200/4 IS zoom for my long lens and even a 100-400 for the very rare occasion I want to shoot wildlife or distant sporting events. I had an ultra-wide zoom but rarely used for travel or landscape so no longer bother with one.
My big issue with MF DB's was the lack of tilt and shift lenses and the complexity of mounting and using same on a view camera. Camera movements get very sensitive with smaller formats and shorter lenses -- so sensitive they become almost impractical in use at 645 MF format sizes.
Hence my move to a LF scanning back. The image quality is stunningly superb -- as good as drum-scanned 8x10 -- but they simply are not very convenient for field use. If I shot mostly subjects that did not move and mostly in a studio, this would be my "Nirvana" imaging-quality solution.
Hence my move BACK to LF film. 4x5 is convenient in the field, especially with readyloads which eliminate the need to load and unload holders, take up very little room in the bag and are virtually free of dust. 4x5 makes 32x40 prints of exceptional detail. 8x10 is there for the ultimate in imaging quality; a drum-scanned 8x10 will easily print with exceptional detail to 60x80. With a wide 150mm lens on the 8x10 (equivalent to about a 20mm lens on 35mm), I have a very detailed 4x10 panoramic negative which will print out at 32x80 with amazing detail.
The biggest decision-factor for me in addition to having all of the movement flexibility and convenience was cost per frame. The per-shot cost of 8x10 film is about $15 with custom lab processing. In a normal year I might shoot 50 8x10 frames -- $750 per year. But I only drag the 8x10 out for specific projects where I need that amount of detail For most field uses I will shoot 4x5 at about $7 per shot cost with readyloads custom processed. Here I may hit 200 frames per year for another $1500. I may pay need a dozen drum scans in a year for the very best images, but I have a friend that will do that for me so I have no cost other than a few lunches. So at most, I will spend on the order of $2500 in a year on film and processing; a figure I submit is significantly less than the depreciation hit I would take on a 30+MP DB. As for the cost of hardware, most LF gear I have purchased second hand and can easily sell for what I paid for it, so IMO that is a neutral.
Hope this helped,
Last edited:
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
So what you are saying is that I need a friend with a drum scanner right?
Jack_Flesher
New member
So what you are saying is that I need a friend with a drum scanner right?
LOLOLOL! Not really. I scan my stuff on an el-cheapo Epson 4990 flatbed (at 2400 LPI) and you'd be amazed at how good a job it does for up to say a 6x print (24x30 from 4x5 and 48x60 on 8x10). I'm not saying it's as good as a drum scan, but more than good enough for outstanding prints. For the true winner shots, you'll want the best scan you can get and that's a drum...
Cheers,
marc wilson
pro member
I could not agree with Jack's comments more.
And to push it further no matter how much stitching you do with a 5d or other file to create whatever file size you want the sensor of the 5d simply does not capture the fine detail, tones, etc of large format film.
And I say this from the persepective of one who uses his 5d for much of my day..just for my project work where I know I will be wanting the ability to produce large lightjet prints 54 film still beats anything I have seen from digital one shot capture...and at a good comparative cost per shot basis.
I do feel the only way to get the best image quality out of your sheet film if you want to go the digital route is a drum scan ( real drum not imacon virtual drum) and a lightjet / lambda print and the cost of drum scans is not too great when you realise there will not be that many shots in a year you wish to use in that way.
If you were finding yourself needing to drum scan huge amounts of film you could even pick one up used for a good price these days!!..certainly a lot less than any db is going to cost....a lot less.
Marc
www.marcwilson.co.uk
And to push it further no matter how much stitching you do with a 5d or other file to create whatever file size you want the sensor of the 5d simply does not capture the fine detail, tones, etc of large format film.
And I say this from the persepective of one who uses his 5d for much of my day..just for my project work where I know I will be wanting the ability to produce large lightjet prints 54 film still beats anything I have seen from digital one shot capture...and at a good comparative cost per shot basis.
I do feel the only way to get the best image quality out of your sheet film if you want to go the digital route is a drum scan ( real drum not imacon virtual drum) and a lightjet / lambda print and the cost of drum scans is not too great when you realise there will not be that many shots in a year you wish to use in that way.
If you were finding yourself needing to drum scan huge amounts of film you could even pick one up used for a good price these days!!..certainly a lot less than any db is going to cost....a lot less.
Marc
www.marcwilson.co.uk
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
What's wrong with inkjet Marc? I've only had one outing with inkjet with a print done for me on a Canon 8000ipf and damn if the blacks aren't more neutral then any lightjet print I've ever had. Supposedly better archival properties too.
I now have my full kit of a Tachihara 4X5BF (the non tacky version minus the gold), a Caltar muti coated 90mm (f6.8) and 210mm (f5.6), cable releases, focusing hood (black t-shirt!), loupe, film holders, film changing tent, RRS tripod plate, etc. All I need now is to start my project but it won't be for 6 months plus yet, far too much wedding work booked in. I'm learning how to use it first, the beauty of the focusing screen is that you can learn focusing with movements on the screen without having to spend a fortune on burning film just to learn the basics.
I now have my full kit of a Tachihara 4X5BF (the non tacky version minus the gold), a Caltar muti coated 90mm (f6.8) and 210mm (f5.6), cable releases, focusing hood (black t-shirt!), loupe, film holders, film changing tent, RRS tripod plate, etc. All I need now is to start my project but it won't be for 6 months plus yet, far too much wedding work booked in. I'm learning how to use it first, the beauty of the focusing screen is that you can learn focusing with movements on the screen without having to spend a fortune on burning film just to learn the basics.
Stephen Eastwood
New member
The Canon Printers are truly amazing, they print amazing B&W and color images beyond any lightjet or RA4 printer out, and getting neutral blacks is not that hard and less temperature/chemical dependant, once profiled it holds that profile longterm. I have been consistently impressed with the quality of the new Canon printers.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
marc wilson
pro member
Just my preference guys.
I do not mean too diss inkjet prints.
I am talking here about my large prints (24x20 inches and 40x30 inches) and for me I prefer lightjet prints.
I just find them more representative of what I deem to be a photographic print..so not better or worse just my preference.
I compare them to my older produced c-type rpints and like them for tnat reason.
Smaller prints (16x12) I also prefer c-type digital prints.
For a year or so about three years back I did produce my smaller prints with epson printers and lyson papers but then went back to the c-type route (digital)
For now I am really happy with my results.
In terms of archival etc I find for the type of sales I have the fact of them being a print onto traditional photographic paper with proven time based archival properties which has been processed through chemicals is also a plus point.
I do not mean too diss inkjet prints.
I am talking here about my large prints (24x20 inches and 40x30 inches) and for me I prefer lightjet prints.
I just find them more representative of what I deem to be a photographic print..so not better or worse just my preference.
I compare them to my older produced c-type rpints and like them for tnat reason.
Smaller prints (16x12) I also prefer c-type digital prints.
For a year or so about three years back I did produce my smaller prints with epson printers and lyson papers but then went back to the c-type route (digital)
For now I am really happy with my results.
In terms of archival etc I find for the type of sales I have the fact of them being a print onto traditional photographic paper with proven time based archival properties which has been processed through chemicals is also a plus point.