Hackjob

Alright, here it is- Part 2 of my Nikon Coolscan LS2000 post. This is going to be somewhat difficult to explain in non-computer terms, so I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.

Basically, my workflow involves three different main parts: My glorious ThinkPad T530 (my main computer), the Nikon Coolscan LS2000, and a Macintosh Performa 5215CD with a 5500 motherboard and 300 MHz G3 processor upgrade.

The Performa manages to be even older than the scanner and this makes it somewhat difficult to use because it doesn't have USB, is comparatively slow to modern computers, and can't access Dropbox or Google Drive (although it can access basic websites).

I overcome these shortcomings by connecting the computer to my ThinkPad via ethernet and using the Web Sharing application on the Performa to host the photos I scan to my ThinkPad, which can access them in a web browser. Inevitably, downloading files is quite slow, but pays off, as it allows me to keep my scanner relevant and gives me a reason to own such a relic from the mid 90s.

 So, coming up next- An actual video of me using this scanner and computer! It should be out on YouTube in the next few days.

Yee

     Well, here it goes. My first post in ages and my title is Yee. Yee. What on Earth does Yee mean you ask? Honestly, I don't quite know either. All I do know is that it was leagues better than staring at a blinking cursor waiting for some eventual input. And the best part is, it's a title, and it works.

     Now that that's over with, let's get over the elephant in the room. Where the hell did I go? Well, I got busy and forgot. Yes, I did get busy with nothing sometimes during the hiatus, but altogether I was much more occupied with college and friends than I was before. However, it's 2 AM and I feel like talking to my imaginary followers right now. Also, I've been meaning to post something for about a year now anyway.

    What to talk about... well [these wells might make a decent drinking game, tbh], I got a 50mm STM lens for my 5D Mk II. It's much better than Canon's previous 50mm 1.8. And although I could easily go into technical details and drone on... and on... and on... about meaningless drivel [as I'm doing now], I feel I'd be beating a dead horse (or a D.H.). I could talk about my new camera, a Pentax P3n, but honestly, there's nothing to say. It's plastic, is an SLR, takes batteries, meters, goes "click!", winds, and might actually take pictures.

     No. What I'm going to talk about today is actually something I feel has gotten very little attention. Using old film scanners, or in particular, using a Nikon LS2000 for primetime film scanning.

     This thing is as old as recent high school graduates. It's old enough to smoke in 48 states. I heard it did weed with its friends a few times and got caught by its dad (which explained it's falling grades).

     Although it did some stupid things in its past, it's actually a decent scanner today. It does what it's told to do, and goes beyond (way beyond actually) the call of duty.

    So why is it relevant? It's a great value. It does high resolution scanning and can beautifully scan film. It can use its scratch reduction software to eliminate minor scratches on your negatives. I got mine for $200 from eBay. Newer Nikon film scanners are at least $100 more and you don't get much else for the price, except USB.

A slide of Fuji RDP III scanned with my Nikon LS2000

When you look at this picture, what do you notice? It's freakin vibrant. Yeah slide film is sexy but it needs to be scanned properly in order to appreciate its sexyness. This scanner knocks it out of the park, consistently, every time. 

Nikon Coolscan LS2000 scan

Sam's Club scan

 

As you can tell from the pictures above, my scan on the right is much more vibrant and has much better detail in her hair than the picture on the left. What you get from this scanner is control. Everything can be manipulated to get everything possible out of an image. Film can take a lot of detail in from a much wider range of exposures than people think possible. It's actually close to around three stops of light in either direction with color print film and black and white. With slides it's much less forgiving, but that's the nature of the beast.

So, you might be thinking: "That's nice. What's the catch?"

It's SCSI. For the non-computer people, SCSI (pronounced "scuzzy") is an ancient protocol that was most popular on consumer electronics in it's bulky two row, 20 pin connector form in the 80s and 90s. For the most part, that connector is dinosauric now.

What the hell does all that mean? Well [#4, btw], it means that you need an adapter card for your Windows box to run. For those of you with laptops or any Mac made after the 1998 iMac, you're done here. 

I wasn't though. I persevered and found a really clunky way to do things. The best part is that it works seamlessly. 

And that's for part two, coming tomorrow night!

A Pre-Review of the Pentax P3n

Well, I got myself a new toy.


How could this happen? Don't I already have a lot of cameras?

Well, I needed a fully manual SLR to carry around on my neck for on-the-spot photography. As nice as my A2 or C220 is, I don't like carrying them too long on my neck because of the strain they put on me. Same goes for my 5D, which is gigantic and manages to dwarf my A2.

I would go for a rangefinder, but I hate them, and I actually have a couple. One is a mint Futura-S with a 50mm f1.5 lens (among two others I have) that needs a CLA on the leaf shutter, the other is a meh-tier Argus with a pathetically slow f3.5 50mm lens. I actually really want to use the Futura-S, but I don't have the funds to toss at a professional repair, and there's no way in hell I'm fixing that myself.

On top of that, I actually have a full manual SLR. It's a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm lens that's so fast it's radioactive. Sadly, this camera isn't what I was looking for because it has a somewhat clumsy metering system that hasn't aged well at all. A small complaint, but it also doesn't have the option to throw it into aperture-priority for when I really don't care, and it lacks a hot shoe.  I also possess a Nikon EM which is just a plasticy version of my godly Canon AV-1.

Were those all my cameras? Probably not, there's always one that seems to pop up out of nowhere.

But moving on...

Like I said, I wanted something small that allowed full manual shots. After I came across a K mount Vivitar 28mm f2.8 that was given to me a few years ago, I began to look for various compatible Pentaxes that would fit the bill. I considered the K1000 and similar cameras, but they're over $100 for a body because hipsters. Eventually though, I came across a Pentax that suited my needs. It was a P3n on eBay for $25 shipped that included the camera, a 50mm f2 lens, a flash, and all the applicable manuals. After some research, I bought it and in two days I had my prize.

Upon receiving it, I immediately found that I hated the 50mm on it. Compared to other manual focus 50s it felt cheap and the fact that it was f2 made me cringe, so I ordered a M42 to K mount adapter to use my radioactively fast 50mm with it. The flash didn't really work all that well (the listing said it didn't so I was unsurprised) but the rest of the camera and manuals were good.

The camera feels kinda cheap with a lot of plastic, but that's what makes it so lightweight. It has a depth-of-field preview as well as an aperture-priority setting. One really annoying thing is that the camera reads the DX code of the speed of your film and sets the meter appropriately. Kinda annoying if you're going to push or pull the film in development. Other than that though, it's not a bad camera, especially for $25. I'll put a roll through it and make a follow up review in the near future.

My Review of the Canon A2

     So today, while my face nears bursting with my current sinus infection, I sit here on my desk staring at my (relatively speaking) old Canon A2, an old EOS camera with modern features that works almost like my new toy, a 5D Mark II [goodbye 7D]. Curiously, it just happens to be its digital successor, but only if you're from Europe, as they got the EOS 5.

     The EOS A2 was introduced to the market at almost the same time that the world experienced the hodgepodge that was Nirvana's Incesticide album, November and December of 1992, respectively. Like Incesticide, it had some junk, erm, features, that Canon didn't want to introduce into the EOS 1, such as eye controlled focusing (which only came on the A2e), a built-in flash that was capable of zooming with your lens, and an infrared AF assist light.

     Also like Incesticide, many of these features were great, and only a couple of them absolutely sucked.

     Starting with the good, the camera fits in my large hand nicely and feels well made. The viewfinder is nice and bright and is uncluttered by useless info. It shoots at a maximum burst of 5 fps, making this camera great for sports, and includes an AF assist light that helps with focusing at night. The built in flash is also nice to have if you just need something that will light your subjects. Film is quick to load, and quick to wind up. Plus, if you go anywhere in public, you are immediately known to be a serious photographer, as the camera's imposing presence around your neck strikes fear into snapshooters souls.

   Now, the bad. Like Incesticide, (and grunge in general) this camera doesn't know what the hell is going on with itself. Like a 15 year old that just experienced puberty, it has all these new feelings that it doesn't know how to process yet. As such, the AF is completely useless without the AF assist light. It can't focus on a black and white striped shirt in bright daylight to save its life. I constantly find myself switching into manual focusing mode to focus correctly. Another annoying problem is that this camera flies through it's expensive batteries. I can only get about 15 rolls per battery before the camera needs a new one (and I don't use the flash). The built in flash's zoom is useless; the lighting is crap regardless of whether or not its zoomed correctly, making it another draw on the already pathetic battery life. Another problem is that due to some weird legal issues, the A2 (the EOS 5 is exempt) doesn't have a typical meter in full manual mode. Instead of a scale showing you how over or underexposed you are, you get a plus or minus symbol and nothing else. The last and most annoying yet insignificant complaint is that the mode select dial is really stiff, and on top of that it locks, much like the new Canons [please Canon, please get rid of these stupid locks. No one wanted them].

     To conclude this review, in my opinion, you should avoid the A2. It does not work well, and the EOS 3 is a much better camera. If you must have it, likely due to the cost of the EOS 3, be prepared to deal with its shortcomings. In the end though, I have taken some nice images with it because a good image is only 5% camera and 95% photographer.

My Review of the Mamiya C220

Alright, I promise to start writing more often for my blog. Haven't done much as far as the darkroom goes but I think I'll start doing full reviews of the equipment I come across.

Today, I'll be reviewing my Mamiya C220. This is a medium format TLR that came out in 1968 and is unique in that it is a bit larger than similar Rollies, but has interchangeable lenses, ranging from a 55mm wide angle to a 250mm telephoto lens. The lenses themselves were unique in that they came with the entire shutter assembly; each lens had its own shutter integrated into it. Although this made them a bit more expensive, it makes finding replacement shutters quite easy.

Another unique feature of this camera are it's amazing macro capabilities. Using the 80mm lens, it can focus from about 9 inches away, making this lens particularly versatile.

The ergonomics on this camera aren't the greatest. I don't like the focusing mechanisms. To focus, you have to use two wheels on either side of the camera to move the bellows out. Paired with a focusing screen that isn't exactly sharp, this makes focusing clumsy and difficult. While I do like that the lenses include the shutter with them, I don't like that the shutter dial is on the front, making it clumsy to check. Having an indicator on top would've helped greatly.

Although this camera has a few drawbacks, what makes it shine is the fact that it doesn't require batteries of any sort. It is completely mechanical, so you can be assured that every example you find won't have bad electronics or anything, because there aren't any. The most electrical system on it is the PC flash sync attached to the lens. Another plus about this camera is that the shutter and winding systems are separate, so double exposures are possible through a small dial on the side of the body.

Winding film in isn't too challenging, and its large body keeps the film straight, so there aren't any bends for it to get caught on. It accepts 120 and 220 film but only shoots in a 6x6 format [great for resolution but it hurts your wallet].

So far, I've shot many rolls through this camera, and I hope to shoot many more. I think it excels with slide film, but I've also put a few black and white rolls and recently a roll of Portra 160 through it and it does a great job with those as well. The nice part is that when you're walking around with it, it looks great and always sparks conversation.

The Final Blunder of Amateur Film

Now everyone has heard of 35mm film right? How about APS film? It was sold as Advantix by Kodak (I can't recall what the Fuji and Agfa called theirs) and came in a nifty little cartridge that was quite fool-proof to accidentally expose or otherwise screw up. In fact, the film's negatives were stored in the actual roll! While this would be annoying for a pro, it means that people's memories would be safely intact, forever. No longer would they accidentally scratch or crease a negative. Plus, it prevented some dumbass from accidentally cutting into the picture on your negative.

As you can see, the APS cartridge is slightly smaller than 35mm film.

At least someone that's reading this should remember seeing it in stores.

Why did it go away so quickly? Well, for one, it was smaller than 35mm, meaning less resolution. Secondly, it was more expensive. And thirdly, it wasn't intended for the professional market.

Ken Rockwell claims that APS film was a conspiracy to get rid of mom and pop film processors by the big film processors, and that it was also a ploy to sell less film to people for more money. While this may be true, the reality probably falls more into the middle ground. While the processing equipment was quite expensive [$500,000], the film incorporated complex mechanical systems which made it easy to process. All you had to do was set the processor and pop the film in. The rest would be taken care of by the machine.

One of the greatest points of this film is that exposure information was stored on the film in the form of a magnetic strip. Too bad this film was too small for the professional market because this is HUGELY helpful. Think of it like the EXIF data that is tagged onto digital photos.

What really sucked about this film though is that it was more expensive to buy and process. Although Canon and Nikon both made SLRs for APS film, few people bought them because the people that usually buy SLRs versus point and shoots didn't like the small film size and thus poorer quality of APS compared to 35mm film.

Although it had a slick, modern design, the EOS IX never caught on.

How could this have been done to win EVERYONE over? Well, let's start with the film size. It should have been the same as 35mm. Most pros back then only shot 35mm because of its convenience. When you had to do highly detailed shots you used medium format or large format. Going smaller automatically turned off the professional market to APS.

Next, they should've given people the option to get their film back inside the roll or cut and placed into negative sleeves. When I go through my negatives I'm usually looking for one specific photo out of 36. I don't want to be guessing with which roll may or may not have the photo I need.

Lastly, they should've made it as cheap or cheaper than 35mm film to process. And I mean it should've been at MOST $5 a roll. Nothing higher. Development costs is probably what really killed this film.

If the marketers of APS did these things, APS would've been much more fondly remembered by everyone. Sadly though, this was not the case and in the end, it's just a small blip in the history of film and [hopefully] the last film among a long line of small amateur film formats to thrown in the garbage by consumers.

Old Gear is Good Gear

One of the things that I don't really understand is why people get so hung up on having the newest version of everything. Computers I can understand. They age and the programs they run get more bloated requiring more and more processing power. Cameras, especially digital cameras, are different though.

Now, in the dark ages (early 2000s) of digital cameras, photographers needed to be on the bleeding edge of camera tech because every time Canon or Nikon released a new top of the line camera, the miniscule megapixel rating would double. These early digital cameras didn't do much except take -acceptable- pictures and even then, the quality wasn't all that great because blowing up a 2 MP image to 8x10 would produce noticeable pixelation. However, after the megapixel ratings went above 8 MP, things got quite different. For example, I have an EOS 1D Mark II that is rated at 8.2 MP. Now many people would think that this would be borderline unusable for making prints, however, I made a portrait of a friend and blew it up to 16x20 and I couldn't find a single pixel.

8 Megapixels doesn't seem so shabby after all now, does it?

Now you can have a Canon T6s, a consumer DSLR costing under $1000 for the kit, with a 24 MP CMOS sensor. This is freaking massive considering that you're cramming more pixels than the Canon 1D X has in it's full frame sensor into an APS-C sensor that's 1.6 times smaller.

Why do camera makers increase the resolution of the sensor? Marketing. Pure marketing. Pretend you don't know anything about digital cameras at all. You walk into Best Buy, go to the cameras, and take a look. You see 2 DSLRs. One is 24 MP and the other is 20 MP. The 24 MP camera is $200 more. Camera people would probably go with the 20 MP (assuming both cameras have the same features) model but if you don't know any better you might splurge and get a $200 more expensive camera.

In my opinion, camera makers should address the picture quality issues of the APS-C sensors while simultaneously ramping up the pixel count every so often. If you notice, APS-C sensors have a lot of trouble in low light with noise and usually have more drab colors compared to full frames. This is one of the reasons why people don't consider crop frame DSLRs to be "pro" cameras. I'd much rather have a 15 MP crop frame camera that takes gorgeous photos than a 24 MP camera that takes ok photos.

Regardless, one thing that the "megapixel wars" do is drive the costs of older gear down. And the good thing about old gear is that it is as functional and useful as the day it was created.