A question about scanners

[Gavjenks]

That's really a nice BW. But on the left side, the rocks, water ripples and trees are blurry, maybe the clouds. Is that in the negative or from the scans?

Thanks! It's in the negative. It's a really old-ass, probably originally pretty cheap, large format lens that I was using (probably 1920's? Bought for about $20), opened up wider than would normally be recommended. I think it was like f/6.3 on a 5.6 lens.

Lenses from that era--especially mediocre ones--tend to have a whole bunch of aberrations if you don't shoot with really small apertures, to the point where they have very noticeable "lensbaby" type effects to them, like you have noticed here, where it just gets blurry toward the edges, pretty much no matter what the actual distance to the subject is. Imagine an MTF chart where the lines just crash almost to the bottom on the right hand side.

 

[AlanKlein]

That's why I won't shoot expired film or use equipment that will do that arbitrarily. Just when you get a really nice shot, after spending all that time and money, these other things ruin the shot. Don't you find that frustrating like me?

 

[Gavjenks]

It's not arbitrary. I shot it almost wide open on purpose, because I was basically standing in the river and hand holding a wooden LF field camera.

Also, terribly extreme spherical aberration is trendy, man! See?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lomography/the-lomography-petzval-portrait-lens
=P

 

[gsgary]

That's why I won't shoot expired film or use equipment that will do that arbitrarily. Just when you get a really nice shot, after spending all that time and money, these other things ruin the shot. Don't you find that frustrating like me?

Send all your out of date film to me because there will be nothing wrong with it
This is 26 years out of date Tri X 400

 

[limr]

That's why I won't shoot expired film or use equipment that will do that arbitrarily. Just when you get a really nice shot, after spending all that time and money, these other things ruin the shot. Don't you find that frustrating like me?

No, because for me, those things don't ruin a shot. Not everything has to be All Sharp All the Time. It makes things interesting

 

[AlanKlein]

Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with? Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice. Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.

 

[gsgary]

Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with? Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice. Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.

Because its not as much fun
This is Tmax400 very out of date and probably badly stored

 

[limr]

Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with? Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice. Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.

Because that's not how I'm interested in working.

 

[gsgary]

And some very old HP5 and badly stored

 

[limr]

That's a sneak-attack puppy photo bomb! :mrgreen:

 

[gsgary]

That's a sneak-attack puppy photo bomb! :mrgreen:

Even though its a bit rough this is one of my favourite shots

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[vintagesnaps]

I guess we're done scanning now, huh? LOL

I think it just depends on what you want to do; I usually like to get a nice sharp well exposed image, but I have fun too with Polaroids and plastic cameras (not a lot of the 'new' ones as much as vintage midcentury bakelite whatevers).

I got one of the Petzval lenses and so far used it to shoot some expired Kodak Portra - it was a pleasure to use. Has some weight to it! so I got a waist level finder to better be able to hold the camera to support the lens, but I had more fun with the Waterhouse stops - took me to what it must have been like in the early days of photography. And since I'm into old cameras I found it to be a lot of fun to work with.

And had the negatives scanned. So now what was the question??

 

[Gavjenks]

Why not get a plain clear in focus unadulterated shot to begin with? Then bend the negative or post process it with "defects" of your choice. Then when distortions go out of style again, which they will, you have a nice clear perfect photo to use for that purpose.

Well,
1) I can just take new photos then, and
2) I've enjoyed defects for as long as I have been old enough to have a taste for ANYTHING. 25 years or so? Don't see that changing anytime terribly soon, fashion or not.

 

[Bob in GV]

Another option if you don't process your own film is to have it scanned at time of development. Most quality labs will perform this service for around $10 per roll for highest resolution.

 

[Joxby]

......but I don't really want to turn the basement into a darkroom, and my wife REALLY doesn't want me to do that either.


Can anyone please share thoughts and experiences? Thank you.

Umm, but...

. developing your own film is fantastic
. making your own wet prints is fablious
. scanning your film is....a means to an end

life is full of compromises, I'd be plotting some kind of "understanding" with the wife..