Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/10/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] THE 617 tests, something is very wrong here
From: richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:30:49 -0700

First the caveat, these are "high" resolution scan from the Epson 3200, not
my usual Nikon LS-9000, but trust me on this, the results don't look that
different. I'm having trouble getting the LS-9000 to scan the two halves
correctly sfor stitching so Epson it is.

The camera was set as level and neutral as I could, and then I used some
front rise to take less of the road, and more of the subjects.

Second, something terribly wrong with my techniques, as the left edges from
all 3 lens are markedly softer than the right. I have made sure that the
negs are as flat as possible on the scanner holder, and this is visible on
the negs also. This probably mean I did something wrong somewhere. I
noticed that the SH 617 has front swing and the lensboard was ever so
slightly might not have been parallel (but the amount is very minor), and
it may very well be that the film plate was not set parallel enough. So
this is probably a user error.

Third, even at the best sharpest areas (on the right), things don't "pop
out sharp," unlike for example, the negs from the XPan.

I am having a dreadful feeling that someone can make this setup sing, but
that someone may just not be me :-(

I applied 20% sharpening with LR4.2, with the radius and detail set up
their defau
150mm Fuji @F32
http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20121018-Scanned-8.jpg

210mm Symmar-S @F32
http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20121018-Scanned-9.jpg

90mm Fuji SWD @F32
http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/20121018-Scanned-10.jpg

-- 
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>


Replies: Reply from red735i at verizon.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] THE 617 tests, something is very wrong here)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] THE 617 tests, something is very wrong here)