Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Little rocky inlet...
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:31 am    Post subject: Little rocky inlet... Reply with quote

Little rocky inlet...

Taken with Minolta X700 and Minolta 21mm f2.8 @f8 on Kodak 5302, stand developed in Rodinal and scanned on my Epson 4990.



PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dang, that's a nice lens. A little bit of blur and distortion in the corners, but tack sharp everywhere else.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Dang, that's a nice lens. A little bit of blur and distortion in the corners, but tack sharp everywhere else.


Yes I very much like this lens. One of my all time favorites. I felt this emulsion I have been testing, which is ISO 6, really shows just how good it can be.
Thank you for taking the time to view and comment. Thank you!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, I just now noticed you scanned that image in on your Epson 4990. I have a 4990 and I gotta say that your image is very impressive. I've always felt that my 4990 is very good for medium format, but just a bit soft for 35mm. Wow, I'd like to see what your images look like if you duped them with a high resolution camera. That's what I do with my 35mm images now. I dupe them with a rig that uses a 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor and a Sony NEX 7, which gives me actual 4000 x 6000 pixel images, not the inflated numbers that all flat bed scanner makers claim.

I'm not familiar with Kodak 5302, but man, that must be some fine-grained stuff. Wow, I just found a listing on it. A place called Photo Warehouse has it in stock, either as 36 exp rolls or 100 ft lengths. Interesting stuff!

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko53figrpore1.html

Lets see, ISO 6 using the sunny f/16 rule, call it 1/8 as closest shutter speed, that means something like 1/125 @ f/4, hey that's do-able.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
You know, I just now noticed you scanned that image in on your Epson 4990. I have a 4990 and I gotta say that your image is very impressive. I've always felt that my 4990 is very good for medium format, but just a bit soft for 35mm. Wow, I'd like to see what your images look like if you duped them with a high resolution camera. That's what I do with my 35mm images now. I dupe them with a rig that uses a 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor and a Sony NEX 7, which gives me actual 4000 x 6000 pixel images, not the inflated numbers that all flat bed scanner makers claim.


I have tried to do it with a digital as you mention. I have a few friends who do it this way, but I have never really had too much success doing it this way to be honest. That and with a 17 month old son I just don't have time for that much fiddling around. I barely have time to fit in shooting, let alone dev'ing and scanning as it is. haha. I have generally been happy with the 4990 as long as the negs are well developed and not too dark. It's basically a V750 just with regular incandescent lighting as opposed to LED and actually has a higher DMAX rating.

cooltouch wrote:
I'm not familiar with Kodak 5302, but man, that must be some fine-grained stuff. Wow, I just found a listing on it. A place called Photo Warehouse has it in stock, either as 36 exp rolls or 100 ft lengths. Interesting stuff!

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ko53figrpore1.html

Lets see, ISO 6 using the sunny f/16 rule, call it 1/8 as closest shutter speed, that means something like 1/125 @ f/4, hey that's do-able.


Yeah I scored 2 100ft rolls of the stuff a few years back and just getting to playing with it now. I shoot it on a tripod with remote release cable and a red filter in this case. But on a sunny day with a decent fast lens it is definitely still hand hold able. It is more blue spectrum sensitive and has low red spectrum sensitivity I have found out, so you have to watch over exposing blu skies etc and under exposing anything red. I'm thinking it wouldn't be too good for people shots.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I knew a bloke once who caught water really well, in all it's forms. It was rarely the subject of the photograph, but there it was. I have a framed large print he kindly did for me of, ostensibly, a cliff scene, on my wall. It also has the best shot of a breaking wave I've ever seen in my life. All the power and movement is there. All the frothing fury.

I think you catch skies really well. I couldn't have produced that with what you had, skies wise, to work with. It would have came out as, well, just sky.