Les Hall
Member
Hi Mary
I tend to believe that manufacturers try and make gear perform the best it can, so when I hear about stuff like fancy film-holders that supposedly make all the difference I tend to take it with a pinch of salt.
As I said earlier I am pretty happy with the results as it stands. But I might experiment. What I was planning on doing was measuring the glass to film distance in the stock film holder. Then I will cut some apertures the size of a 120 frame in thin black card. I will tape a piece of 120 film (some junk I don't care about - but sharp etc) on one of the pieces of card and then do scans with different amounts of card between the film and glass - in theory I should be able to find the optimum point or discover that it is roughly the same at various heights.
If it is best at a distance other than that of the stock film carrier I probably would consider buying an alternative.
Hope that explains my theory!
All the best. Les
I tend to believe that manufacturers try and make gear perform the best it can, so when I hear about stuff like fancy film-holders that supposedly make all the difference I tend to take it with a pinch of salt.
As I said earlier I am pretty happy with the results as it stands. But I might experiment. What I was planning on doing was measuring the glass to film distance in the stock film holder. Then I will cut some apertures the size of a 120 frame in thin black card. I will tape a piece of 120 film (some junk I don't care about - but sharp etc) on one of the pieces of card and then do scans with different amounts of card between the film and glass - in theory I should be able to find the optimum point or discover that it is roughly the same at various heights.
If it is best at a distance other than that of the stock film carrier I probably would consider buying an alternative.
Hope that explains my theory!
All the best. Les