ronnie_retro
Established
Hi everyone;
I realize that this is not an image processing forum, but the reason for my question is related to the high quality of RF/Zeiss optics. Parenthetically, my house got broken into a couple of years ago and my Z.I. and lenses were stolen. I'm now considering getting new RF gear but before I do I'd like some advice from the experts here about how to get all the image quality these cameras are capable of into the final result. What I liked most about my ZI was the way it handled and the great image quality.
The part I think I have down: slide projection. Having previously been disappointed with the results from my Kodak 600-something Carousel, I upgraded to a late model Ektagraphic with Schneider projection lens and a 'gray' projection screen. For those with light room walls, I highly recommend the gray screen, I found the improvement in 'snap' striking. 😀 Obviously getting rid of the standard 'Coke bottle' lens Kodak supplied with older projectors was a big help as well. I found that to prevent slide buckling I needed to set the lamp to the lower power setting, but even so I got over 40 foot-candles reflected back from the 6' screen with an open film gate.
The part I'm still dubious about: B&W prints. I use a Nikon coolscan 9000 (4000 DPI, glass carrier - absolutely superb with 2 1/4") and an Epson Stlyus (2900? I'd have to check) that uses 'ultrachrome' inks and 3 different levels of black density cartridges. I'm as happy as a clam with color reproduction; however, I wonder about the final image resolution. For b&W I've used Kodak B&W 400 since I can use the infrared dust correction with this chromogenic film.
Regarding the preservation of image quality from our superb camera optics onto the final print, what's the opinion here about -
1). The suitability of 4000 DPI for scanning 35mm
2). The suitability of the ever so handy chromogenic ISO 400 films - as far as I know there are no longer any ISO 100 B&W chromogenics. I'm quite familiar with conventional B&W processing, but have avoided this primarily to retain IR dust correction.
3). Are people going to the trouble of making wet prints to wring the last bit out of their images? Or is everyone a pro who just submits a JPEG that will only be reproduced circa 4" X 6"?
4). Anything else to get the best result.
Thanx in advance!
I realize that this is not an image processing forum, but the reason for my question is related to the high quality of RF/Zeiss optics. Parenthetically, my house got broken into a couple of years ago and my Z.I. and lenses were stolen. I'm now considering getting new RF gear but before I do I'd like some advice from the experts here about how to get all the image quality these cameras are capable of into the final result. What I liked most about my ZI was the way it handled and the great image quality.
The part I think I have down: slide projection. Having previously been disappointed with the results from my Kodak 600-something Carousel, I upgraded to a late model Ektagraphic with Schneider projection lens and a 'gray' projection screen. For those with light room walls, I highly recommend the gray screen, I found the improvement in 'snap' striking. 😀 Obviously getting rid of the standard 'Coke bottle' lens Kodak supplied with older projectors was a big help as well. I found that to prevent slide buckling I needed to set the lamp to the lower power setting, but even so I got over 40 foot-candles reflected back from the 6' screen with an open film gate.
The part I'm still dubious about: B&W prints. I use a Nikon coolscan 9000 (4000 DPI, glass carrier - absolutely superb with 2 1/4") and an Epson Stlyus (2900? I'd have to check) that uses 'ultrachrome' inks and 3 different levels of black density cartridges. I'm as happy as a clam with color reproduction; however, I wonder about the final image resolution. For b&W I've used Kodak B&W 400 since I can use the infrared dust correction with this chromogenic film.
Regarding the preservation of image quality from our superb camera optics onto the final print, what's the opinion here about -
1). The suitability of 4000 DPI for scanning 35mm
2). The suitability of the ever so handy chromogenic ISO 400 films - as far as I know there are no longer any ISO 100 B&W chromogenics. I'm quite familiar with conventional B&W processing, but have avoided this primarily to retain IR dust correction.
3). Are people going to the trouble of making wet prints to wring the last bit out of their images? Or is everyone a pro who just submits a JPEG that will only be reproduced circa 4" X 6"?
4). Anything else to get the best result.
Thanx in advance!
