Recent content by timparkin

Actually the Imacon can get more resolution than most drum scanners for 35mm film (when they're configured correctly - which is fairly rare to be honest)

Soulless is a bit harsh but there doesn't seem to be a sense of artefact that comes with a film shot. This is only a perception to the photographer though - I'd be hard pushed to tell a difference between a film and digital shot from MFDB without resorting to recognising colour characteristics...

I'm presuming these small issues are 'as well as' not 'instead of'. And I do think that the average man on the street does react to quality - they may not know what they are reacting to but that doesn't mean they're not reacting. Well what works for you is great.. I'm just explaining what...

But for fine art photography it's the minor nuances that can really make an image shine. Most artists are obsessive about these small details that many 'punters' may find irrelevant - but all of those small details add up to the final work. For me though, it's about how I use the camera as...

Yes the beauty of film is that you can always get a better scan. So even those shots from 40 years ago can be scanned at a better quality in the 2000s than when they were taken. And they can be post processed and printed digitally if you like.. It's a great time to own both film and digital (as...

I quite liked your leaves piccies ;-)

It needed dismantling, lubing and cleaning but it came with a G5 with OSX all configured so it worked out a good deal in the end. Not great Dmax though (nowhere near as good as the Lanovia I'm using). Well there's certainly a lot of bad mouthing about resolution and apertures around the...

100lppm is equal to 200pixels per mm which is about 7200px wide which makes 35 megapixels. However this is at the level of extinction (i.e. barely discernable). Even thought the film may resolve at 24-30 megapixels it will only look the same as about a 12-15 megapixel digital camera because...

From some research a colleague 'Henning Serger' performed, Fuji Superia is actually very high resolution. About 100 line pairs per mm - which is about the same resolution as Portra 160 and Portra 400 record. Fuji Superia 200 or 400 is probably your best bet for really sharp film or Fujicolor...

Well I do offer a scanning service - but I'm not sure I'm allowed to say that.. Tim

It's better than most drum scanner (better than mine anyway) but it only for negatives. The Dmax and flare make transparency scanning a problem. I've got a Fuji Lanovia that is a better flatbed but weighs nearly 300lb and is the size of a piano. I've got a Howtek drum scanner which isn't too big...

Well I only paid £400 for it ;-)

This is a 6000dpi scan of a frame of Superia 1600 taken on an OM2 Scanned on a Screen Cezanne flatbed. Tim

For the shots you see on the web, you could shoot at f/64 and you wouldn't notice. Most 'amazingly sharp' images are actually so because of clever use of light and shade. Classic examples of where a light object sits in front of a dark background or vice versa. Marc Adamus' image below...

I've bracketed a few different films and the dynamic range is a lot more than you'd think. About 8 stops for Velvia, Provia, Astia, etc. Plus or minus a couple of thirds. The thing with Velvia is that it gets very, very dark. You'll lose a couple of stops with a typical flat bed or dedicated...