on.raw.photography

Hi all!

My name is Alexis, and I am talking to you from Portugal. While I have been living here for almost 10 years now, I was born in the Brazil!

I started my journey with ColorPerfect later than 99% of its users! I have reached Christoph less than an year ago, asking if ColorPerfect licenses were still available. After endless frustration trying to convert my scanned negatives using almost all softwares available on the market, I found a thread on a old forum where some users mentioned there was nothing like ColorPerfect for a quality transparent conversion, and that it have been working for them for over a decade. I had to try it. So, Christoph helped me getting version v2.2 working on my Apple Chip Macbook, and it has been my main software for doing this work ever since.

I started with a Nikon CoolScan 35mm Film Scanner , which is very rare nowadays, but have some advantages still unmatched by most modern equipment. RGB Lightsource, True CCD Sensor without any Color Interpolation. To extract the most of it's file, ColorPerfect was the right choice. After one year of working with this machine, I began shooting 120 Medium Format Film, and this created a situation where I had to decided if I was getting another dedicated Film Scanner that accepted the 120 Format, or I would jump to DSLR Scanning like the rest of the world is doing. I picked the latter. While I still own and use my Nikon CoolScan, I have now a dedicated Setup with a nice Macro to scan my Film as well.

It seems like this was something that had to happen, because as I was in the process of the transition, Christoph let me know ColorPerfect 3.0 was in development, and one of it's main features would be to unlock the full potential of the digital color sensor, extracting data that was completely pure and scientifically accurate, and still bringing very nice tones and saturation that wasnt possible in the previous versions. I was all in!

This is in my opinion a major breakthrough for this version, as Color was always an issue with any conversion software. Either they had kind of accurate but muted colors, or vivid saturated but with an extremely fake / digital look to it. I am looking forward to the future of Color Film Scanning with ColorPerfect 3.0 and be able to get both realistic and vivid colors on our files.

90% of my use for it is Black & White. It excels in it. I have such latitude, I can decide what detail I want to bring from the shadow or highlight , or make the effort to hide them. And it takes an effort, because ColorPerfect really extracts data you never knew was recorded in the first place!

After reading the great introduction by Roberto, I realize I need to try CP with my Digital Files as well. Maybe this will enable me to use the Digital Camera more, as I have never been satisfied with the output compared to what I can easily get from Film.

I look forward on learning a lot and having a great time at this new community! Best wishes to all!

Welcome, Alexis!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wasn't satisfied with color.
Because I, too, once upon a time, even before digital, almost exclusively preferred black and white.
Then, over time, I realized that color also has its fundamental importance.
Today, I find myself loving both expressions.

I see you use the Nikon CoolScan 35 scanner; I assume it's the CoolScan V ED.
I have one too, but perhaps mine is defective.
A defect I don't see in your photographs published on Flickr, except for one in particular:
photo 260625-FujiSuperia200-LeicaM2-DNG-33;
the couple on the bench in front of the beach, which has an amber halo on the right side.
My scanner does this on practically every frame, on both sides, in an even more marked and invasive manner.
This is one of the reasons why I almost never used it seriously.
So I turned to a third party to scan some of my frames with an Imacon virtual drum scanner.
Fortunately, the price for the scan was fair, and the quality was excellent.
Then, like you, I switched to reproducing the negatives with a digital camera.

Best wishes to you too!

Roberto

I am in similar path of yours, right now only finding Black & White as the viable alternative for my pictures Soon I will just like you, learn to appreciate color as well I am sure!

My Nikon CoolScan is model 4000. It took some good effort to bring it to working condition. I purchased it second hand with a faulty PSU, which was fixed. Then I discovered that the FireWire chip was also in need to replacement! This time I had to took it apart almost completely, and ship to the UK the Circuit Board for a specialist to fix it for me. He did an amazing job, and I put it back together and the scanner was working as good as new.

About the issue on the border of the frames, unfortunately it seems to be an occurrence to every model when scanning film strips. It happens because it wont be able to hold film perfectly flat when you are on the first or last frame of the strip, it runs out of area to grab at that side and hold it flat, so it curls, and you get this area which is out of focus and can have other flaws. There are solutions for that, unfortunately it requires the Nikon CoolScan to accept 36 frame Film Strip uncut.

I modded my SA-21 Film Strip Attachment to accept whole strips. It is a small solder connection you have to do, to trick it to think it is the pricier version that Nikon Sold for whole strips. This however doesnt work with every Nikon CoolScan. Nikon made some of the model target for non professional use to not accept this functionality, If I remember correctly, only the 4000 and 5000 series accept this attachment, which is a pity.

The effort to make my Windows PC accept FireWire connection was enough to make me go for DSLR Scanning Rig, and I am more than happy with the results so far! A nice LightSource, a good Macro, and you are set!

Cheers!

Yes, that's it.

Here's the CoolScan problem, which in my specific case is more pronounced than yours.
My CoolScan V is now in the box and I don't think about it anymore.

I make reproductions, and in some specific cases, when I want to expand on projects I've already started and scanned with Imacon, I have them scanned to keep the project looking consistent.

All old material. My most recent negatives date back to 2016, when I got the Holga toy camera and the Zeroimage pinhole camera.

I'll definitely use film again; I also have a Leica M6.

But now, mostly, I do everything digitally with great satisfaction; I try to keep my files "dirty" with analog grain, but also digital noise, if it's not excessive, and my eye is very satisfied.

You have the option of high-quality, long-lasting printing on high-quality digital papers, which is the ultimate goal of photography, and that's it.

The only thing that still doesn't convince me is digital baryta papers. The print is beautiful, elegant, luxurious, but the material, its structure, its surface, and its feel aren't entirely to my liking.
You know what? I'm used to seeing and touching analog baryta prints.

Digital matte papers are a different story, especially the more or less textured ones. They're still elegant and luxurious, but I like the look and feel of them more. I also definitely prefer matte printing to glossy printing.

A different story is the semi-gloss paper, with its extraordinary surface, offered by analog baryta.

The only thing I miss about digital, if anything, is the chemical smell of printed analog paper
Not even the polythene one, which is laminated, and the smell, while "good," is more unpleasant. It's just that of "clean" paper, without lamination like baryta.

Regards.

Roberto

I am in the same process of putting the Nikon CoolScan on a storage box and not think about it again, until I need for some kind of specific experiment or something. But I am not there quite yet, I still have some rough edges when using my DSLR Kit, as you can see on the Exposure Thread I just posted. Some strange behavior compared to what I get from my CoolScan + VueScan software. Also, InfraRed if you get a badly damaged Negative is still a thing only these older machines can do, but soon they will figure it out for DSLR as well I am sure.

Yeah I agree with your process of bringing some "dirt" into digital file, adding imperfections, grain, removing that digital look , and the photos get quite a bit more alive. I can't live without Grain It adds so much to the photo.

I don't own a high quality printer, but that is on the dream list for sure. From what I know, these when fed well edited quality files, output fine art material. I dont know how analog paper process smells like, I envy those who had or still have access to enlargers, darkrooms, this is as pure as it gets. But I do know the smell of my Film Developing chemicals, I like it! Although some are to the stronger side

The Leica M6 is to many the best Leica Film Camera ever made. You have built in meter, which my M2 lacks. I have ordered a hot shoe metering in order to keep consistency because of that. But a Leica is always a Leica, these cameras will last a lifetime. The Digital M Leicas also seem like a dream for the photographer. No matter the medium, what matters is that you are happy with what you have on film, or digital file, right? This Film vs Digital discussion is pointless in my opinion, art is art

I also had a hard time managing reproduction files, more so than scanning. But with ColorNEG, it's a different story.

I didn't quite understand the Italian translation of your text, but if you're talking about infrared photography, I can't say; I don't practice it.

Yes, slightly smudged digital images appear slightly more textured, less electronic.

Be careful with acetic acid, which isn't for salad

A standard enlarger, but a good lens like Rodentock, will give you great results with analog.
If you don't have much space, 18x24 trays are sufficient, but 30x40 is another story. Even with polythene paper alone, you get wonderful prints. And for baryta prints, a little more effort is needed for drying and flattening. And if desired, an extra bath for the selenium toning, which gives them long-lasting durability and a subtle, imperceptible purple hue.

All you need is a bathroom at home, insulated with tape and black cardboard

I, too, am courting printers. The smaller printers I'm interested in, with professional quality and archival pigment inks, are the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-310 A3+ format and the Epson SureColor SC-P700 A3+ format, with my personal preference being the Epson.
Our list prices are around €800/$800, but they seem to be available for around €650/$650.
Canon just released a new Lucia Pro II pigment technology. 10 wax-based inks make the inks more scratch-resistant.
The previous version already came with a Chroma-Optimizer cartridge; transparent ink for achieving uniformity, gloss, color density and saturation, black intensity, and reduced bronzing.
I don't remember what the printhead technology is.

More simply, I prefer the Epson, with its Ultrachrome Pro10 inks and its micro Piezo print head, without clear ink.
It seems sharper with deeper blacks.
Obviously, these differences are only noticeable when printing the two photographic prints side by side.
Otherwise, they're both excellent printers; let's just say it's really a matter of preference.
Epson technology is older, including the inks. But so is Canon technology, with the exception of the Lucia Pro II inks, which are essentially different due to the wax base. I don't think much else, but they will certainly perform slightly better than the previous model.

It must be said that printer technology is significantly slower than camera technology; if a camera needs to be updated every four years, a printer needs to be updated every eight years.

Then, for example, the Chroma-Optimizer, Canon's glossy ink, leaves me perplexed in some ways.
First, why would a glossy ink be necessary? Would the ink alone not be up to par? I understand that it's mainly needed for glossy and semi-gloss papers, but that's my concern, certainly wrong, but I'm asking the question anyway.
And then, secondly, it's because I believe—I'm not sure, perhaps only on this 310 model, and not on the larger imagePROGRAF 1100 model—that transparent ink, either you apply it to the entire sheet or you don't. For example, you can't apply it just to the image, excluding the white edge of the paper. You can't leave the edge clean to see and touch the natural paper.

If you want to print A2-sized photos, there are its bigger siblings, the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO 1100 and the Epson Surecolor SC-900, with a price tag of around €1200.

What light meter did you order for the Leica M2, the TTartisan?

Right, the medium doesn't matter.
I show up and say: I have a Leica.
Then they reply: "Well, you're a purist, a lover of high quality, one of those who thinks you can't take a good photo without good equipment."
And I reply: "Yes, but I also have a toy Holga camera, even a toy Holga lens to mount on a digital camera."

If we're talking about photographic art in general, and not professional photography, which somehow has standards to adhere to, the medium doesn't matter, except that a given medium can guide your approach, and therefore your photography, in a certain direction. This happens simply because of the philosophy of the object itself, but it can also happen because of its design.
I mean, in the end, it's always you who creates the photograph; your culture, your life experience, your way of seeing the world, but there's something different about using one system rather than another.
It's no coincidence that we change systems to achieve something different. And this also happens in professional photography, because professional photography takes inspiration from art; that too is art.
Art always comes first; even the professional photographer, first and foremost, photographs for himself.

Oh, I meant the ability of Scanners to use InfraRed to remove Dust and Scratches from the Digital File, you only notice how much you miss it when you go for DSLR and notice how many photos will have a speck of hair, that looks enormous on the file

Oh definitely one day I will find enough courage to get a full analog darkroom setup! First I need permission from the wife!! If she sees the enlarger, I am done!

Those printers you mention seem to be really incredibly for fine art reproduction. I read that Epson is legendary among Black & White photographers, because of it's ink. Canon will on the other hand handle Color better, so it is the natural pick for Color Photographers. But I am sure both are superb in all they do!

The world of ink printers are almost, or even more complex than that of cameras! You also have to take into account the ink wastage, cost per page, how much each ink cartridge hold etc. So many considerations!

But, nothing beats looking at a photography on paper... Nothing. I have a very good Monitor, and it just can't reproduce what paper does.

The Meter is one called Hedeco Lime II. I Wanted something small and accurate for my camera, and this seem to have very good reviews online. A bit pricy, but this is one of those things you only buy once in life!

Exactly! Give Sebastiao Salgado a Toy Camera, and you will cry looking at the photos. Give me a Hasselblad, and you will laugh... Of how bad it looks

But I have an issue with SLR. I Dont know why, but I seem to have better results with cameras that detach your view from that of the lens. Rangefinder for example, feel much more natural to me. My newest addition to the collection is a Mamiya C330S 6x6 Camera. It has Waist Level Finder, and it is the one I like using the most! It is very challenging, but as you said, you want something different that a camera might help you with, and this one does certainly!

Best wishes!

Enjoy reading
You'll see that the less you use Digital ICE, the less you'll miss it in terms of quality. Your file won't miss it either, and will thank you for the improved quality you'll give it. Besides, you can't use it in black and white, so you might as well not use it on color either.
It seems to me that with digital camera reproduction, you see less lint than with a scanner. A bit like a black and white enlarger with diffused light.
Maybe it's just my impression, maybe because the frame stays cleaner, but that's how it seems to me.

A toy for you, a toy for the wife, that's the solution. It costs twice as much, but you wanted a bicycle? Then pedal

Both printers are excellent, but in my opinion, the Epson produces more beautiful and natural prints. The depth of tone, the tonal transition, seems more plastic and progressive to me.
Then the discussion is somewhat tied to different schools of thought, depending on how one sees things.
It's the usual debate: Canon vs. Nikon, Canson vs. Hahnemuhle, Carl Zeiss vs. Leitz, Canon vs. Epson.
I'm on the side of Canon, Hahnemuhle, Leitz, Epson—everything more pastel, soft, and natural versus vivid, hard, and perhaps a little less natural.
It seems to me that Canon was inspired by Leitz's optical design, and Nikon was inspired by Carl Zeiss's optical design.
Hence the two different characteristics of Canon and Nikon lenses, and it really shows; Nikon is hard, more contrasty, vibrant, and vivid than Canon. Canon, in printers, seems like Nikon lenses to me, while Epson printers seem like Canon lenses to me.
I wanted to give you this example, comparing printers to lenses, because you know lenses, to help you better understand what I mean, and what my eyes see, assuming my eyes are seeing correctly.
You need to keep your monitor calibrated, but you shouldn't expect the print to match the monitor—that's a waste of time—you should just expect the print to work on its own. Indeed, the monitor needs to be calibrated to at least match the color, contrast, and brightness, but it will never be the same as the monitor.

If you think that an A3 digital print from a professional lab costs around 35 euros/dollars, you can easily do the math. A homemade print, with the same quality standards, costs just a few euros/dollars. I won't go into the exact math here because I'd have to review the lesson, but you could estimate between 5 and 7 euros/dollars. You could probably factor in the 7 euros/dollars, including print head cleaning. If you print, you'll quickly pay for yourself the printer's 800 euros/dollars. Consider that you can also print for a friend, say for 25/30 euros/dollars. You'll end up making money too
Sure, it will take a bit of initial effort to learn, but it won't take long to save a lot of money. It's clear that you have to print, otherwise it's a waste of money.
And remember one thing: when you're no longer here, your files will be lost or forgotten. Your physical prints, on the other hand, will be around for at least 200 years, always in good quality; otherwise, they'll be around for centuries and centuries


The Hedeco Lime II must be good, but the TTartisan looks better on a Leica M2, with its illuminated arrows and analog dials.

As a Brazilian, you look at Salgado; as an Italian, I just need to look at what Giacomelli did with a disposable camera

A rangefinder isn't the easiest thing to use to be precise, I think you know that. Some people just can't get along with it. A microprism with a split-image stigmometer might be more immediate, if you like. But the charm, the approach, the simplicity, the quietness, the quality, the robustness, and the rangefinder's calibration flaws have made the Leica what it is. It's all deserved fame.
Photographing while looking into the well, with the camera on your back, is a good approach and a good shooting angle. With all the nonsense they do in digital to get people to spend money, it's unclear why they haven't made a walk-through camera yet; a full-frame would be enough.

If you think about it, Chinese companies have acquired historic brands in every sector, even in motorcycling, for example.
It's unclear why they don't start doing the same in photography. There are so many historic brands that need to be relaunched. And even if the market is covered, there are countless solutions, perhaps original, perhaps niche, but which were very popular in the analog era. Those segments deserve to be relaunched, if only for enthusiasts and purists, and there are many such enthusiasts.
All of this stuff has to be "low-cost," as only Chinese companies know how. Cameras with few frills, analog dials, few automatic functions, and few high-tech solutions. A true approach to analog with a digital camera, even more so than what Fujifilm already does. Relaunch cameras like the Contax G2 with its three lenses, relaunch TLRs with a waist-level viewfinder like the Rolleiflex; if you want, the waist-level viewfinder could be a monitor positioned on top, but that's already a technological frill. The Mamiya 7 rangefinder with a MF sensor. Voigtlander itself should relaunch its Bessa rangefinder, but instead, perhaps, Nikon will relaunch its rangefinder.

The photography market today seems rich, just look at how prices have skyrocketed. Also because, while once there were 100 enthusiasts, today, for every 100, there are 1,000, including enthusiasts and camera owners.
And I understand that good cell phones are available these days, but more and more people, and more and more young people, are buying tech with vintage designs. Objects that appear cult, but whether they are or not, I don't know, they certainly set trends. I do know, however, that there are some truly cult objects that deserve a relaunch, even if in a modern guise.

Digital cameras that don't necessarily have to keep up with technology. Cameras that need to be updated every eight years, not every four. That way, assuming they don't have the world's largest market, they'd have plenty of time to pay for themselves. After all, they're aimed at a sufficiently large niche of enthusiasts, for whom the latest sensor technology is the least of their worries. Other aspects of photography are important to these enthusiasts, primarily the user experience and the approach.

Aaaahhhhh, if I were rich, I think I'd be a visionary entrepreneur

You did well to buy a Mamiya.
The Mamiya has Japanese lenses that remind me most of German lenses, perhaps the most beautiful Japanese lenses.

The Mamiya 7 rangefinder is also beautiful.


See you soon!

Amazing read Roberto! Thank you for the words!!

When I get my Epson Professional Printer, I will be sure to ask you for advices!!

About Nikon vs Canon, my dad passed that preference to me, kind of like how it works with soccer, your family will most of the time from your early days try to make you root for their team That happened with Nikon, my dad always said the best things about the cameras he had, and so I just have a natural appreciation for them.

I dream of being able to print A3... A4 just doesnt give the impression that some photos need.

My Meter arrived today. It might look digital, but i guarantee you, in person, it is beautiful, and fits the Leica very well. You can barely see anything digital on it!

The Mamiya Lens I have is just lovely, you can find some of it's photos on my flickr, just for for square compositions They are so artistic, it adds to the photo definitely!

Take care!!

But what advice do you have on a printer? I don't have one. I need to learn too.
More than anything, I do some research and look at examples online.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, all the cameras are good.
I've also had Nikons with excellent lenses.
As for digital, I've had a couple of Canons, and then I switched to Fujifilm. For example, I really like the ZF, but if the Nikon rangefinder were to come out, I'd gladly buy it, since I'd be able to mount Leica lenses on it. , no kidding, I'd still use Leica lenses but I'd buy a couple of Nikon lenses.
I don't really like A4 either; 24x36cm is already a different story.

I'm glad you're happy with your light meter.

I'm going to look at the Mamiya photos.

All the best