Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I decided to take a film camera (M3, 50 ?lux, Tri-X) along on our trip to London on the Queen Mary 2. Here are some of the results. And I finished one of the rolls at home with an M5 that I wanted to check for light-tightness and approximate shutter accuracy. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hlritter/Tri-X_001/ The film was developed by a custom lab (Digi-Graphics) and I intended to scan it myself but found that the film adapter for my earlier Nikon Coolscan doesn?t work with the 5000, and the older scanner uses the obsolete SCSI connector, so is incompatible with my current computers. I took the developed film to a local photo store (they don?t develop B&W any longer) for scanning and had them done at an advertised 2000 dpi, which seems to be correct, as the files are ~6 MB. So the files look pretty granular. Somehow it managed to scan a 36-exp roll in what seemed like one minute; I have no idea how it does it so fast. I have just bought the correct film adapter on eBay and I hope to make the files look better by scanning the negs at 4500 dpi, equivalent to a 30-MB sensor. Parenthetically, it?ll be interesting to see how the detail and resolution in a good scan of a Tri-X frame compare to FF digital files of various sizes. With this in mind, I took a picture of my standard target for such tests, a house across the quarry, with the M5. I?ll post it when I get a decent scan. BTW, the kid (about 30 years old) managing the photo shop insisted that Kodak had stopped producing Tri-X. And it took me several minutes of careful explanation to convince him that he was incorrect in thinking that larger pixels on a sensor make for more detailed photos. This is the last surviving photographic store in Toledo. All they sell is accessories, Lomography gear, C41 processing, custom prints, and studio time. ?howard